Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.01.04 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 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 2004 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Action Taken 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Introduce New Employee - Parks and Recreation b) Introduce Promoted Employee - Liquor Operations c) Introduce Promoted Employee - Finance Introduced Introduced Introduced 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (10/18/04 Regular) (10/20/04 Special) b) Adopt Resolution - Accept DonatioJ;l Rambling River Center - Parks and Recreation c) Approve Contract for Services Dishonored Checks - Police d) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation e) Set Public Hearing Licenses and Permits - Administration t) Extension for Filing Middle Creek 2nd Addition Final Plat - Community Development g) Adopt Resolution - Mattson Farms Preliminary Plat - Community Development h) Approve Draft EQB Letter Regarding Great River Energy Power Line Routing - Community Development (Supplemental) i) Approve Bills Approved R88-04 Af!proved Approved November.15,2004 Approved R89-04 Approved Approved 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Amend Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition PUD Agreement - Community Development Approved 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat - Community Development 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Approve Thoroughfare Plan - Community Development (Supplemental) 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN 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 promisingfUture. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 2004 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) Introduce New Employee - Parks and Recreation b) Introduce Promoted Employee - Liquor Operations c) Introduce Promoted Employee - Finance 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (10/18/04 Regular) (10/20/04 Special) b) Adopt Resolution - Accept Donation Rambling River Center - Parks and Recreation c) Approve Contract for Services Dishonored Checks - Police d) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation e) Set Public Hearing Licenses and Permits - Administration f) Adopt Resolution - Extension for Filing Middle Creek 2nd Addition Final Plat - Community Development g) Adopt Resolution - Mattson Farms Preliminary Plat - Community Development h) Approve Draft EQB Letter Regarding Great River Energy Power Line Routing - Community Development (Supplemental) i) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Amend Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition PUD Agreement - Community Development 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT Action Taken Page. 50 PageS} Pages 52-71 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat - Community Development 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Approve Thoroughfare Plan - Community Development (Supplemental) 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN 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 FROM: David Urbia City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: November 1, 2004 It is requested that the November 1,2004 agenda be amended as follows: CONSENT AGENDA 7h) Approve Draft EQB Letter Regarding Great River Energy Power Line Routing- Community Development (Supplemental) Attached is the supplemental item. Missioll Statemellt Through teamwork and cooperation. the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and/oster a promising future. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us November 1,2004 The Honorable Allan W. Klein Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 1 00 Washington Ave. So., Suite 1700 Minneapolis MN 55401-2138 RE: Farmington/Empire Township Transmission Line & Substation EQB Docket No. 04-81-TR-Air Lake-Empire OAH Docket No. 6-2901-16161-2 Dear Judge Klein: City Administrator David Urbia and I attended the October 11 th public hearing that you conducted in Farmington regarding the matter referred to above. I offered testimony at that time regarding the City of Farmington's position on (a) the route that Great River Energy, Dakota Electric Association and Xcel Energy had initially proposed and (b) various alternative routes that were later proposed by a number of parties. This letter, which reiterates my earlier verbal comments, was reviewed and approved by the Farmington City Council at its meeting on November 1, 2004. The following summary addresses three distinct geographic segments of the route in question: the portion east of State Trunk Highway 3 [hereinafter "Highway 3"], the portion along Highway 3, and the portion west of Highway 3. Great River Energy, Dakota Electric Association and Xcel Energy will be hereinafter collectively referred to as "the utility companies." 1. Portion of transmission line east of HiI!hwav 3. The route permit application that was submitted by the utility companies proposed a transmission line route that included a segment from the Highway 3 (on the west) to the intersection of Cambodia Avenue and 210th Street (on the east). This segment does not follow any existing, planned or anticipated roadway alignment(s). The proposed route cuts through two adjacent parcels (owned by Mr. Neil Perkins) that are currently being used for commercial purposes and that have significant redevelopment potential. The proposed route also passes between two other commercial properties (the American Legion property and the Marschall Bus Line property) in a location where the distance between the transmission line and the buildings appears to be less than the width of the easement that is typically desired by the utility companies. Finally, the proposed route runs along the southern boundary of two parcels (located directly east of the American Legion building) that are currently being considered for residential development. The presence of a transmission line (and its related easement) in that vicinity would reduce the developable area and potentially complicate efforts to design roadway connections. The City of Farmington therefore proposed to the EQB that the segment of the proposed route between Highway 3 and Cambodia Avenue be re-oriented to generally follow the former railroad right-of-way along the southern boundary of the Marschall Bus Line property. [This is the "City of Farmington Alternative" that appears in Sections 4.1.3 and 7.1.3 of the EQB's Environmental Assessment dated . , September 27, 2004; see also Figure 7.] This route would be along or within the right-of-way of a potential future roadway connection between Cambodia Avenue and the intersection of Highway 3 and Willow Street (which currently terminates on the west side of Highway 3). As this roadway proceeded northeast from that intersection, it would (at a point roughly halfway between Highway 3 and Cambodia Avenue) have to move out of the former railroad right-of-way and turn straight east in order to intersect with the comer of Cambodia Avenue and 21 Oth Street. The City of Farmington believes that this alternate route would provide easier access to the line for repair and maintenance, minimize impacts on existing businesses and structures, and reduce potentially negative effects upon future development and/or redevelopment projects in the vicinity. Mr. Patrick Regan, representing Marschall Bus Lines, also testified at the public hearing on October 11 th that the alternative proposed by the City was more acceptable to his company than the route that had been initially proposed by the utility companies. The City has taken no formal position with regard to the various alternative routes that have been proposed for the portion of the transmission line that will be constructed east of the area referred to above (that is, the portion lying within Empire Township between Cambodia Avenue on the west and the existing Empire Substation on the east). 2. Portion of transmission line alonfl Hiflhwav 3. The City of Farmington has no objection to the portion of the transmission line that the utility companies have proposed to place along the east side of Highway 3 between the Willow Street/Highway 3 intersection (where the routing alternative discussed above meets Highway 3 on the east side of the road) and County Road 62. However, if it is within your discretion to do so, the City requests that you direct the EQB to require the utility companies to: a. Minimize impacts on existing trees to the greatest extent possible. There are a significant number of tall trees along this portion of the route that provide shade for the homes and businesses on the east side, and that beautify the Highway 3 corridor. b. Initiate contact with the owners of the other utilities (telephone, cable, etc.) that currently maintain poles and lines along the east side of Highway 3, in order to co-locate all such utilities on a single set of poles along the east side of the road, thereby reducing visual clutter and improving the appearance of the Highway 3 corridor. 3. Portion of transmission line west of Hiflhwav 3. This portion of the transmission line has generated a number of alternatives that would significantly affect the City of Farmington. Before addressing those alternatives, it should be noted that the City has not, to date, expressed any objection(s) to the portion of the transmission line that the utility companies proposed to construct between Highway 3 (on the east) and Akin Road (on the west). This portion of the route, which is depicted in Figure 2 of the EQB's Environmental Assessment, primarily affects two parcels of private property. One such parcel, which is adjacent to Highway 3, is owned by Jerry Rother, Larry Rother and Kay Cahill [hereinafter "the Rother property"]. The other parcel, which is owned by Molly Murphy and/or Giles Development Corporation, Inc. [hereinafter "the Giles property"], is adjacent to Akin Road. Although the City of Farmington has not opposed the utility companies' proposed routing of the portion of the transmission line referred to above, the City requests that you direct the EQB (if it is within your discretion to do so) to require the utility companies to consult closely with the City regarding the potential future alignment of the planned extension of 20Sth Street from the vicinity of the Farmington Middle School East to Highway 3 (through the Rother property), and regarding the potential future alignment of any future collector roads that may be planned near or within the proposed transmission line corridor in this vicinity, so that any such transmission lines can be placed (wherever possible) in locations that: . .. a. are likely to be within or adjacent to the rights-of-way for future roads; b. do not conflict with future roadway alignments or intersections; and c. do not render anticipated residential development more complicated, more expensive or less visually attractive. The Farmington City Council (at its meeting on September 20, 2004) authorized and directed the City Engineer to prepare a Feasibility Report regarding the 20gth Street extension referred to above. It is anticipated that this Feasibility Report will finalize the future alignment of 20gth Street and thereby provide the information that the utility companies would need to place the proposed transmission line within or parallel to the right-of-way for 20gth Street, or in a location that minimizes adverse impact(s) to the residential development that is expected to eventually occur on the Rother and Giles properties. In addition, at its meeting on November 1, 2004 the City approved a Thoroughfare Plan Amendment that identifies (for the first time) the locations of new collector roads that will serve newly-developing properties including (but not limited to) the Rother and Giles parcels. This amended Thoroughfare Plan will also be useful to the utility companies in finalizing a transmission line route that avoids or minimizes conflicts with planned roadways or residential development. Rother Bypass #1 and Bypass #2: These alternatives are described in Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 of the EQB's Environmental Assessment, and they are depicted in Figures 5 and 6. Modified versions of these alternatives are also depicted on the aerial photos that appear in the Environmental Assessment as Figures 14 and 15. As I indicated at the public hearing on October 11 th, the City is opposed to these two alternatives. One of the parties who spoke at the public hearing repeatedly referred to them as alternatives that were proposed by the City, which is not the case. Some of the confusion may be attributable to the fact that both of these alternatives essentially start at the place where the "City of Farmington Alternative" [Section 7.1.3 of the Environmental Assessment] ends: at the Highway 3/Willow Street intersection. However, the City has never suggested that the transmission line route should proceed west from Highway 3 along Willow Street and/or the nearby railroad right-of-way, for several reasons. First, it's not completely clear that "the former railroad right-of-way corridor no longer exists," as stated in section 7.1.1 of the Environmental Assessment. City staff members believe that the railroad may have retained some type of interest (easement, right-of-way, license, etc.) in the property in question when the underlying land was sold to the adjoining property owners. The owner of the lumberyard, which encompasses at least half of both of the Rother Bypass routes between Highway 3 and downtown Farmington, has talked from time to time about the possibility of re-activating the railroad line to get lumber products to and from his commercial site. This possibility could be adversely affected by the presence of a new transmission line. Second, both of the Rother Bypass routes would impact commercial and residential properties that were not expected to be affected when the Route Permit process was initiated. As a result, it is not clear what type of notice(s), if any, the property owners in question received from the utility companies and/or the EQB regarding the possibility that their properties could be adversely affected. Rother Bypass #1 and Rother Bypass #2 would each impact the following properties: Dakota County Lumber, Peerless Plastics, Farmington Lanes (bowling alley), Landscape Depot, Marigold Foods, Farmington Auto Sales, Sauber Plumbing, the Farmington Eagles Club, and several homes. Rother Bypass #1 would also impact City Center, Farmington's most recent downtown development, by placing a transmission line next to EconoFoods and directly in front of Pellicci's Ace Hardware. The transmission line would also pass directly in front of a building pad site (to the immediate east of Pellicci's Ace Hardware) that the owner/developer is currently marketing to a number of prospective tenants. In short, both of the Rother I' . ... It Bypass alternatives would affect far more existing businesses than the route that the utility companies originally proposed (along Highway 3). Third, and as correctly noted in Section 7.1.1 of the Environmental Assessment, "... clearances and underground utility information have not been determined and may affect the constructability of the route." Fourth, both of the Rother Bypass alternatives would affect City park land and School District property (including buildings and outdoor recreation facilities owned by Independent School District 192). The Highway 3 route originally proposed by the utility companies would not. Fifth, the City does not believe that the number of crossings of the Vermillion River should be a significant factor in the routing decision. The two Rother Bypass alternatives each require one crossing. Three crossings are required by the route originally suggested by the utility companies. However, one of those three crossings would be very close to Highway 3, and another would be very close to Akin Road, so it's difficult to see how the "river aesthetics" of areas that already have bridges and traffic would be significantly worsened by the presence of a transmission line that will probably have its supporting structures located quite some distance from the river itself. In summary, the collective opinion of City staff and the City Council is that the actual and potential disadvantages of the two Rother Bypass alternatives outweigh their advantages, and that the preferred route for the portion of the transmission line between Highway 3 and Akin Road is the route originally proposed by the utility companies (see Figure 2 and Section 3.1.3 of the Environmental Assessment). If you haVjny question, please call me at 651-463-1860. Thank you. 1r- . / ~Carron Community Deve cc: City Administrator David Urbia Farmington City Council Great River Energy Dakota Electric Association Xcel Energy Minnesota Environmental Quality Board City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: r Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: David Urbia City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: October 29,2004 It is requested the November I, 2004 agenda be amended as follows: PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS lOa) Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat Update - Administration Attached are letters received from the DNR and MPCA. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11 a) Adopt Resolution - Approve Thoroughfare Plan - Community Development Attached is the supplemental item. David Urbia City Administrator lOa... Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 651.772.7900 October 28, 2004 Kevin Carroll Community Development Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Preliminary Plat Approval for Vermillion River Crossing, Farmington, MN Dear Kevin, Thank you for forwarding the memo from Bob Wiegert regarding the proposed changes to the design of Vermillion River Crossings. MDNR staff appreciate the additional stormwater management techniques that Mr. Wiegert has proposed to include in the development design,. However, providing the proposed changes only in a narrative form without plat drawings creates uncertainty in how the practices will be incorporated. Additionally, we are unsure of the rationale for providing infiltration for rooftops on only the western half of the property. Further communication with the developers and their engineer on this issue would be useful. During the meeting held at MDNR Central Region Office on October 1, 2004, it was requested that additional soil testing be completed to verify the normal groundwater levels. We have not been provided with any information on this matter. Due to lack of information on groundwater levels, the effectiveness of the infiltration basins at their proposed elevation remains in question. Additionally, it remains unclear if the north swale along Highway 50 will have a direct connection to the site's stormwater management system. If the businesses in the northwest comer of the project site are still planned to be automotive services, they will likely need to have stormwater treated on the individual business site and not have a connection to the overall stormwater management system. Other recommendations to the developer were made in a memo from Eric Peters of Bonestroo Engineering on behalf of the City of Farmington, and it is unclear whether these changes have been made. The expedited timeframe that Pedersen Development is requesting will be difficult to adhere to, given the lack of materials that have been provided and the questions have that are not fully answered. We wish to express our appreciation for all the work that the City Staff's has done to facilitate communication, and the apparent willingness of the developer to incorporate alternative stormwater management practices. Weare encouraged to see the progress that has been made in the past few weeks, but at this time we do not feel all of the issues that have been raised have been addressed. The Department of Natural Resources recognizes the importance of this development to the City of Farmington, but we feel that it is in the best interest of the Vermillion River and the people who utilize this valuable resource to see that the quality of the development rather than hastened timeframes be the focus of the conversation. An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646.6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 Sincerely, Brian Nerbonne, DNR Central Region Stream Habitat Specialist Michele Hanson, DNR Central Region Community Technical Assistance C: Lee Smick, City of Farmington Planning Lee Mann, City of Farminton Engineenng An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 TTY: 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929 Lee Mann From: Sent: To: Smith, Todd [Todd.Smith@state.mn.us] Thursday, October 28, 2004 5:35 PM Riggs, Jay; Kevin Carroll; Michele Hanson; Erik Peters (External); Lee Mann; Brian Nerbonne; Watson, Brian Subject: RE: Vermillion River Crossing October 28, 2004 Kevin Carroll CommunitY Development Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Preliminary Plat Approval for Vermillion River Crossing, Farmington, MN Dear Mr. Carroll, Thank you for forwarding the memo from Bob Wiegert regarding the proposed changes to the preliminary plat for the above mentioned development. The memo does an adequate job of summarizing the changes that were discussed during the meeting held on October 13th, 2004. The MPCA feels that the proposed changes, if designed and constructed properly will meet the temperature mitigation requirements as outlined in the NPDES permit issued from this agency. However it is unclear that the plat approval process will guarantee the implementation of these practices. The MPCA has witnessed countless examples of things promised in EIS, EA W statements and other documents that do not end up in the final plans. Therefore the MPCA is reluctant to recommend approving the plat at this time. The current plat (with the exception of the water quality pond and infiltration area configuration to the East, see last point in Mr. Wiegert's memo), could include the proposed changes without changing the current plat layout. However there have been no details submitted that show how the underground infiltration trenches will be built. H is unclear if this system will be able to be incorporated without making changes to the current plat. This project is somewhat different then most in regards to the NPDES Permit. For projects disturbing more than 50 acres and discharging to a special or impaired water (such as the Vermillion river), a review of the final plans is required before the NPDES Permit can be issued. This does give the MPCA a final check to determine permit compliance. However, in my experience it is very difficult and compl~x for the developer to make changes at that point. If the plat is approved, it is very important to understand that the MPCA will not issue the NPDES permit until all of the permanent stormwater management concerns have been resolved. Without the engineering details of the proposed changes it is unclear if everything currently shown on the plat will be able to stay as shown. I appreciate the MPCA being involved in the planning process for this project. This mixed use development will be a welcome addition to the City of Farmington. I am confident that we can resolve the remaining issues and the project will go forward while keeping impacts to the Vermillion River at a minimum. Sincerely, Todd M. Smith P.E. eM PC4-) 10/29/2004 / / a:.- 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, City Administrator~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Thoroughfare Plan Amendment for the Area East of Akin Road DATE: November 1,2004 INTRODUCTION The City's current Thorou~hfare Plan does not show any collector or arterial roadways in the area east of Akin Road, south of 195t Street, north of 208th Street, and west of Trunk Highway 3. Residential development within this area appears to be imminent, so modifications of the Thoroughfare Plan should be considered at this time. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Staff s belief that the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan needed to be revised and updated was discussed with the City Council at its meeting on June 7, 2004. At that time, the Council authorized staff to proceed with the required analysis. Staff-level discussions then began, augmented by input from Shelly Johnson, the City's traffic consultant. The aforementioned discussions led to the preparation of an initial draft of a proposed Thoroughfare Plan Amendment, which was discussed at a public hearing that was conducted at the July 13,2004 Planning Commission meeting. A number of Akin Road property owners and other interested parties commented on the proposed Plan at that time. Many of them were concerned that the three proposed east-west connections (19Sth Street, 203rd Street, and Devonport Drive) between Akin Road and the new development area to the east would funnel new and higher traffic volumes onto Akin Road. Questions were also raised regarding the necessity and/or safety of the proposed 198th Street connection. Given the number of questions that were raised at the July 13th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission continued the public hearing until August 10, 2004 in order to receive further input from affected property owners, City staff and the City's traffic engineer. The traffic engineer, however, was unavailable for the August 10, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, so the public hearing was further continued to September 15, 2004. At the September 15th Planning Commission meeting, City staff introduced and discussed a "second draft" of the proposed Thoroughfare Plan Amendment. The two major changes between the first and second drafts were as follows: 1. The east-west connection to Akin Road at 198th Street that was initially proposed was eliminated (as a collector). 2. A major north/south collector with no driveway accesses was proposed for the area between Akin Road on the south (just north of the bridge near 20Sth Street) and 195th Street on the north. This new roadway would be aligned (on a north/south axis) with Diamond Path Road in Rosemount, so that any future southerly extension of Diamond Path Road (from Rosemount, through Lakeville and ultimately into Farmington along the western boundary of the Seed/Genstar property) could eventually connect with it at 195th Street. At its meeting on September 15, 2004, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Thoroughfare Plan Amendment (as depicted on the map attached hereto as "Option A)." The Planning Commission's recommendation was on the agenda for the City Council meeting that was scheduled for September 20, 2004. Comprehensive Plan amendments require a 4/5 vote for adoption, and only three Council members were available on September 20, so the matter was continued to the October 4, 2004 City Council meeting. On October 4, the City Council members discussed the proposed Thoroughfare Plan Amendment but were not able to reach a consensus regarding a course of action. The matter was therefore continued to a special City Council workshop meeting that was held on October 20, 2004. At that meeting, discussion focused on (a) whether or not a collector road at 19Sth Street (between Akin Road and Manley Land Development's Parkview Ponds project) is necessary and (b) concerns expressed by Embers Avenue residents. At the conclusion of the workshop meeting, the Council directed that this matter be placed on the agenda for the November 1, 2004 City Council meeting. DISCUSSION It is not clear, at least to City staff, whether the October 20 workshop meeting resulted in a clear consensus regarding what should or should not be shown on the final Thoroughfare Plan Amendment. Staff has therefore prepared and attached two maps, one of which ("Option A") shows no collector road connecting to Akin Road at its existing intersection with 19Sth Street. The other map ("Option B") does show a new collector road connecting to Akin Road at the current 19Sth Street intersection. With regard to the two main issues that dominated the discussion of this topic at the October 20 workshop, the following staff comments are offered: A. 19Stb Street Connection This connection was shown on the initial draft of the Thoroughfare Plan Amendment, primarily to get people into and out of whatever residential development occurs near the southeast quadrant of the Akin/195th intersection, but also as an attempt to evenly distribute the east/west traffic that will be moving between Akin Road and the newly-developing areas to the east. However, the input that was offered at the public hearing prompted City staff and the City's consultants to re-examine the initial assumptions about the 19Sth Street connection. This re-examination resulted in the 19Sth Street connection being removed from the proposed Thoroughfare Plan Amendment for the following reasons: 1. Safety. 19Sth Street currently intersects with Akin Road on a curve. There may be safety issues associated with creating a new four-way intersection on that curve. 2. Topography. The topography drops off sharply on the east side of the current Akin/19Sth intersection. This would present significant challenges with regard to the design, slope, safety and cost of an easterly extension of 19Sth Street. 3. Wetlands. The alignment of any easterly extension of 19Sth Street would have to go through a "Manage 2" wetland area (see attached National Wetland Inventory map) that, according to the City's Wetland Inventory, has "high wildlife and moderate floral diversity." It appears that two-thirds to three-quarters of the portion of the 19Sth Street extension between Akin Road and the western border of the Parkview Ponds development would be within the aforementioned wetland area. The 198th Street extension would also adversely affect a nearby "wetland replacement site" that the City created a few years ago to mitigate wetland impacts caused by the construction of 195th Street between Akin Road and Embers Avenue. 4. Cost Allocation. The issues identified immediately above would cause the 198th Street extension to be extraordinarily expensive. The developer has understandably asked whether he can or should be required to pay 100% of those costs, in light of the fact that most of the road would be built on City-owned property located between Akin Road and Parkview Ponds. 5. Cost Allocation. City staff members and consultants believe that traffic into and out of the northwest portion of Parkview Ponds can be adequately and conveniently handled by the proposed collector road that connects to 195th Street near Embers Avenue. This collector is entirely located within the Parkview Ponds development, and would be entirely paid for by the developer. 6. Usage. The actual number of drivers who would regularly use the 198th Street extension would probably be very limited. Traffic from most of the approximately 140-150 homes in the Parkview Ponds development would be more likely to go north to 195th Street, east to Diamond Path Road and south to 203rd Street, rather than going west to Akin Road. 7. Emergency Vehicle Access. City policies and practices generally require that there be, for public safety reasons, at least two accesses to new developments when construction activity begins. The 198th Street connection is not needed to provide such access to or for the proposed Parkview Ponds development (see attached "Preliminary Plans"). A northerly access will be provided to 195th Street at the northwest comer of Parkview Ponds. Another temporary access can be provided, if necessary, to 195th Street at the northeast comer of Parkview Ponds (by extending a road from the cul-de-sac that is shown in that area). Two accesses on the east side of Parkview Ponds will connect to the north/south Diamond Path Road segment that will be built on the adjacent Giles property. Staff has determined that an existing farm road along the southern boundary of the Parkview Ponds property, which extends westward and connects with Akin Road, can be used for emergency vehicle access during the construction phase. Finally, the Parkview Ponds plat also shows an internal road at the south end of the development that will extend southward through the Giles property and connect with the proposed easterly extension of 203rd Street. In short, the extension of 198th Street would be superfluous and unnecessary, for public safety purposes. 8. Non-Collector Road. Although City staff members concluded that a new 198th Street collector road was not necessary, staff wanted to at least allow the possibility of a "non- collector" local street in that vicinity if future traffic volumes warranted it. Accordingly, the developer's preliminary plat includes a platted outlot that would remain undeveloped so that a road could be later constructed there if necessary. This arrangement keeps the City's roadway options open, and does not obligate the developer to construct an expensive road that might later be considered unnecessary. The preceding issues led to the staff decision to remove the 19Sth Street collector from the Thoroughfare Plan Amendment. However, other issues were raised at the October 20 workshop. They included the following: I. "If we don't require a 198th Street connection now, at the developer's expense, the City will have to pay for it later." First, this concern will essentially be irrelevant if a consensus develops that the connection in question is not really necessary. If it does not have to be built, it does not matter who would have had to pay for it if it had been built. Second, if a majority of the Council is concerned that a 198th Street extension might be needed in the future (even if it's not required initially), the developer could be required to provide some type of security (bond, letter of credit, etc.) to ensure that "non-public" funding would be available for a future road extension. The developer expects that the development will be fully "built out" within two to three years, and it should not take more than a year or so after that to determine if traffic volumes and driving patterns necessitate the construction of the 198th Street extension. If not, the security could be returned or released. 2. "If we don't get the 198'h Street connection built now, before homes are built and sold, opposition from Parkview Ponds residents will keep us from getting it built in the future. " If the City decided to build the extension at some future time, no resident could persuasively argue that he or she was misled or "caught by surprise." The developer has agreed to "stub out" the eastern end of any future 198th Street connection. Curbing, bituminous paving and appropriate signage will make the potential future roadway connection readily apparent to potential or actual home buyers. More importantly, however, the only (or at least the primary) reason to build a 198th Street extension would be to improve traffic circulation for Parkview Ponds residents. If they didn't want it, it probably shouldn't be built. In summary, the recommendation of City staff and the City's traffic consultant is that the Thoroughfare Plan Amendment not show a new collector road connecting to Akin Road at 198th Street, and that the developer of the Parkview Ponds property not be required to build a 198th Street extension before or during the build-out of that development, with the understanding that appropriate provisions can and will be made for the construction of a 19Sth Street extension as a local road if warranted by future traffic volumes and driving patterns. B. Embers Avenue Issues The City Council workshop on October 20 included comments by some Embers Avenue residents. They were concerned about the potential impact of the proposed collector road that connects to 195th Street immediately south of the existing intersection of 195th and Embers Avenue. The Embers Avenue residents seemed primarily concerned about speeding on Embers Avenue. This is an enforcement issue that many of them have discussed with the Farmington Police Department. Steps have been taken, and will continue to be taken, to address the speeding problem. The adoption of a revised Thoroughfare Plan and/or the construction of new streets in the vicinity will presumably not have any direct impact on the speed of the vehicles that will use Embers Avenue in the future. However, the Embers Avenue residents were also concerned about the volume of future traffic on Embers Avenue. Some of them believe that creating a four-way intersection at 195th Street and Embers Avenue (as envisioned by the Thoroughfare Plan Amendment) would increase southbound and northbound traffic on Embers to unacceptable levels. With regard to southbound traffic on Embers Avenue, City staff members and the City's traffic consultant do not believe that traffic volumes on Embers would be significantly affected by the existence of a new road on the south side of the existing Embers/195th intersection. The southbound traffic on Embers would not be heading south to get to the new road through Parkview Ponds. Drivers would be going south on Embers to get to 195th Street, so that they could then go west to Pilot Knob Road and Akin Road, and east to Diamond Path Road or (eventually) Trunk Highway 3. It also seems highly unlikely that a new four-way intersection at Embers Avenue and 195th Street would (by itself) significantly increase northbound traffic on Embers Avenue. Any driver who is on or approaching 195th Street, and who wants to drive north into or through the neighborhoods that are served by Embers Avenue, will do so whether or not there is a road connection on the south side of the 195th/Embers intersection. The vast majority of the traffic on Embers Avenue has been, and will continue to be, drivers who live in the neighborhoods adjacent to Embers and who have gotten used to using it to go north and south. Residents of the newly-developing areas east of Akin Road and Embers Avenue will be much more inclined to use Akin Road, Diamond Path Road and (eventually) Trunk Highway 3 for their north/south trips. In particular, the early planning for Diamond Path Road has focused on making it as "attractive" as possible for drivers, so that they will gravitate toward Diamond Path Road and away from Akin Road and Embers Avenue. Efforts will be made to prohibit driveway accesses onto Diamond Path, and to limit and carefully space intersections, and to make it as straight and level as possible. If these steps are not as successful as desired, attention could then shift to making Embers Avenue relatively less attractive for drivers. This could potentially involve the installation of new traffic control devices at various locations along Embers Avenue between 195th Street (on the south) and Emerald Trail (on the north). This would increase travel time for everyone, including residents who live on or near Embers Avenue, but local residents might be willing to tolerate that inconvenience in the interest of shifting "non-local" traffic off of Embers Avenue and onto other north/south routes. In summary, the opinion of City staff and the City's traffic consultant is that the proposed Thoroughfare Plan Amendment will not adversely affect traffic volumes or service levels on Embers Avenue. The Amendment could actually improve traffic conditions on Embers Avenue by providing alternate routes that drivers might find more attractive than Embers Avenue. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the proposed Thoroughfare Plan Amendment depicted on the map attached hereto as "Option A." RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE 2020 THOROUGHFARE PLAN INCLUDED IN THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 1 st day of November, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has prepared a 2020 Thoroughfare Plan Update, shown as Exhibit A, for the City of Farmington in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and WHEREAS, public hearings, workshops, and meetings, were held to provide for citizen input in the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan Update process; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan Update on September 15,2004; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Farmington contingent upon the following: 1. Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of November, 2004. Mayor Attested to the _ day of November, 2004. City Administrator Option "A" Recommended Thoroughfare Plan Amendments Area East of Akin Road at ~ --- --------. j- I~IIIIII~~~ '1r~~1 \ ffiE3 [S nmlI3 ~~1ffiHHHE \ ~ tt ~ N S~~1ffiHHHE \ \ \ ~ IF' --\j 81i~ \\ ~" ~ I~'?J~~ ~ ~ \ I.> f'1191ij .... ": ~111ii~~~~ ~ -~7 .~ ~~I(f.'~ ~,~:~ ~ 1""....-' ..ul~D / !/_ \\ oil' 111I11111111 '~ " , I - J.~ ~ ~ \ : -1 ~~~ Llrl: '!!tf.-- - I , \ ~ \l \7 ~.t( I ~ ,/ x.uw I,. , r: p, ( I :.. I U ~ Proposed Minor Arterial rn "\ J~\ r-(k\, I '. · L ILJ II 6n \... I :. · !: - - - Proposed Collector ~\ ~ r~ ~ ....!.L..... ......t ... Ii r::: ~ ~ ~ ~ r--,,B~ '\.. I : IT r- ~~ ~ ~ ~ :~:::::: ;~:::::::or ~ ~ ~IY ~ Ir ~ jj : j '/ 1 L Vflli ~::\i H ,,~!:/1 I /= r I ~~~ ZI < J .- .;. 'fTTTTTTT1H- .\ \M~~<< tV.. A~l;tI,l.:t I - n\ ,< ;j~ ) \. t:.W .... r=-= 'Tl..LLU11 ~ ~ '\ ~ ~ -==- onport D,r. J~ ~ \= S ~ .J; ;;:',.....- ---- Of I ~.A ~~ 1IIIIIITTTr I rC:- ~ Re tricte ~ ~E!HHHE !) I ~ - ~t~ '-- 11III ~ ~~ I / / L~,-,LU Jt" ~ =Jj ~ l'l ~, ~ .c: Cl i' I [~ ... 1 . . . - Municipal Boundary D City of Farmington D Empire Township _ City of Lakeville N W+E - L v 'L- 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet Revised on October 25, 2004 . 111111'lil~~- 'r~~l ~\ \ ffiffi [] ~ m ffiHffiHE \ ~ ~ ". ~I-\j, ~~~ \\\ -~~ ~ Im~);~ ~ \ I.~~.II~ \ edllll VA ~ ~"" : l~.~ ~. / !/ . . . . . I : ....... r.... .......~ ~ Ih ~ ~[ I : I : !=p''<L.l ( I : ~"0: jk\. I '. -=- Proposed Minor Arterial )Jl:::J a l-{ ~ :\ I :.. ~~ ~ \ -\\\ .... .L..... ......i ... ..... Proposed Minor Collector I: ~ i~J~ ~~ ~ ~~': j - - - Proposed County Road <; "- VJ ,/, . ~ ~ --1[-1., ~I:- I :. ~~ lTl '"" --~.: --'--'--'--"-- ~\ "iN>'b"'~'< rv. . =-----U ) L ~ .... -@\~ ~~ tg: g ~ onportD,r- ': ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ./ . ---. ~ 1C'- ~;Stricte -1Gk_~ ~ II ~ utt I '1 -' ~~t~~ _ / ~ III ~ A =:e;. I / /1 ~~~r-l~ ___ J ~ 11 J \ Option "B" Recommended Thoroughfare Plan Amendments Area East of Akin Road --- --.-----. J- :d ~ i J III := .c Cl i' -, II II \\ 0 I ... . . . lUtl1~ . . . r III L HI f l~ ~ I - - - Proposed Collector - Municipal Boundary D City of Farmington D Empire Township _ City of Lakeville 1000 Ij~ ?m~ t I N W+E I L I :'-l L f---- o 1000 2000 Feet Revised on September 9, 2004 Private Driveway Access - Akin Road and Proposed Thoroughfares \~IM 19Sth Street . Road Intersection * Existing Driveway -=- Proposed Collector - No Private Driveway Access .. .. Other Proposed Collectors w.' s 500 o 500 1000 Feet / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ -- ............ ........ ........... ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ............. ..0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I I I 19sJ' '-+ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I National Wetland Inventory parkview Ponds Farmington, Minnesota , ttl~~,J S~~ Legend 500 1,000 'Feet Streets D Farmington_NWI_Wetlands N W.E S .**-j( * PIONEER ~ engineering *..** PARKVIEW PONDS PRELIMINARY PLANS FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA f()S~'& t. IE -r E "'" ,>. ~ ,fCCE-SS' I .. .,. ... .~,\1I _..~, ""'I~ . ,,:t:;~' )'~~~.; 'J .. \:... . ... . ", . ~.. ....../ ,. Iii" l/_.( '1 .t" . . -.,." .~.' .,~,. . .:~~:'r~;~~:~'\~i.tr.~:1:;tr'i:2ii,,{..Q~~;'~ii;;;S;~:;~;;a~~:'~\ "."..,.,.,..- -,...." ""'.U S'lDAUWiLlIR'''. cunl1....... 1ftIl._1OlI.5 ~ ~ 4IlI. " ~ LEOPSoo. ~ .. MULCH L.fAlI:l T TO SCAlE) m tAR COUR!;!: liS BASE CCURSE iMID LJUES10NE QUARRY r 3138) ~ \b .... 'l >S. -".~... -DESlGr4t QlADE ~,'to~ 2%- ~ ~CAl. SECnON IN. T.S.) Pl.A 1E STR-OSI MIN 4- PERFORATED. RIGID. 'THER""OPLASTlC DRAlt~nu: (MI-I001 25(1) " ....... "OM) SEcnON (II. T.S.) \ TE STR-051 J,UN 4- PERFORA lEO. RlClD. l'HERMOPLASllC DRAlNilLE (MNDOT 2501) .:." ....;-.! ~ ~:. '~-:1"?""':'7'';:''; . p' 146 LO' R-1 ZC MINIMUI MINIMUI FRONT REAR 5 SIDE SE SIDE C( MAX. C EXISTlN' PROPO~ GUIDE F ~ c , :.:~:, ~.... ..~-_._- -_/ 9l8'i<~~ }CL, COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR October 18, 2004 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 Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; David Urbia, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant David Pritzlaff, Michael & Laura Pierce, David McKnight, Mike Zitek, John Anderson, Cathy Saari, Marion Graf, Randy Pedersen, Kim Leroux, Joanne Payne, Gene Pedersen, Stan Knutsen, Steve Wilson, Bill Sievers, Bob Weigert 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Fitch pulled the 10/8/04 Special Minutes to abstain. City Administrator Urbia added a supplemental item 109) Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat Update. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Fitch to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. s. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2003 Life Safety Achievement Award City Administrator Urbia presented the 2003 Life Safety Achievement Award to Fire Chief Kuchera. Councilmember Cordes noted there have been 567 days without a structural fire in Farmington. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Joanne Payne, 20192 Akin Road, asked Council to reconsider the appointment that could possibly arise after the election for a third Council seat. She feels the seat should go to the third highest vote getter. She realized a new Council could change this, however she would like Council to reconsider the policy on filling a vacant Council seat. Mr. Michael Pierce, 5137 203 rd Street W, recently moved into a new home and requested Council to vacate the wetland buffer behind their home. The plat shows a drainage and Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 2 utility easement. Their lot backs up to a nature preserve. The covenants for that area do not speak to the wetland buffer. The City would like him to reseed the area with natural grasses up to the wetland buffer. He understood the developer is responsible for getting the information to the builder and the builder should pass it on to the homeowner. He noted the 3rd and 5th additions have the same setback and there are no signs in the 3rd addition. When he received a permit for a deck, there was nothing saying they were approaching the easement. Staffwill research the issue. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (10/4/04 Regular) (10/5/04 Special) b) Approved Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration c) Adopted RESOLUTION R82-04 Gambling Event Permit - Administration d) Adopted RESOLUTION R83-04 Gambling Event Permit - Administration e) Set November 3,2004 Special Meeting - Election Results - Administration f) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks g) Approved Appointment Recommendation Liquor Operations - Human Resources h) Approved Appointment Recommendation Finance - Human Resources i) Approved Appointment Recommendation Parks and Recreation - Human Resources j) Approved Maintenance Facility Fueling Station - Engineering Councilmember Fogarty asked if the City was partly to blame for the settling. City Engineer Mann replied there is an issue where the compaction was not done completely as well as when the area was redesigned to put the fueling island there, the designers were not aware that was used as a borrow area. A compromise was reached. k) Received Information September 2004 Financial Report - Finance I) Received Information Quarterly Building Report - Community Development m) Approved Change Order - Southeast Trunk Utility Pond Project - Engineering n) Received Information Capital Outlay - Fire Department 0) Received Information Change Order Tanker Truck - Fire Department p) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. a) MOTION by Cordes, second by Fogarty to approve Council Minutes (10/8/04 Special). Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fogarty. Abstain: Fitch. MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Main Street Project Assessment Hearing - Engineering The Main Street reconstruction project is almost complete. Phase 1 consisted of the area north of the railroad tracks and phase 2 was the area south of the railroad tracks. The assessment policy indicates that reconstructed streets and lateral utilities are assessed to benefiting properties at a rate of 35% and the City funds the remaining 65%. The appraisal indicated the maximum benefit received by the properties would be $6,000 per residential equivalent unit. Staffhas received four letters from property owners objecting to the assessment from Mr. Merle H. Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 3 McClintock, Ms. Margaret Weir, 406 Main Street, Walter and Kimberly Lang, III 6th Street, and Mr. Colin Garvey who owns several properties in the project area. One was for a deferment. One property owner asked for clarification regarding a deferred assessment. If there is a senior deferral and Council agrees to it, the assessment is deferred for a period of two years and then it has to be renewed after that. The person requesting senior deferral must present financial evidence that the assessment would present financial hardship. Interest accrues on the deferred assessment at a rate of 5%. MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Staffwill bring the deferral requests back to Council for approval. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R84-04 adopting the assessment roll for the Main Street Area Reconstruction Project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Spruce Street Extension Project - Engineering The proposed project consists of extending Spruce Street from Denmark Avenue west into the Spruce Street Commercial area. The bridge over the Vermillion River is a necessary and key component of the project. The project would end at the Town Square in the Knutson property. The roadway alignment has been incorporated in the preliminary plat design. The cost of the project is $3,046,000. The City has received a grant in the amount of $955,000. The remainder of the cost, $2,091,000, would be assessed to the benefiting properties. The cost of this portion of Spruce Street should not be allocated beyond the Knutson property. The portion beyond the Knutson property would be paid for by those properties as they develop. Properties south of the river would participate in the cost of the east-west roadway on the south side of the river. Mr. Gene Pedersen, Knutson Development, asked if the town square is included in the assessment amount. City Engineer Mann replied the town square costs are not included in the roadway costs. It includes the southerly portion that goes by the town square, but the town square itself is not included. Staff would like to take bids no later than March. Plans and specs will have to come to Council in January or February. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fitch, second by Fogarty adopting RESOLUTION R85-04 ordering the Spruce Street Extension Project and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS g) Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat Update - Administration (This item was moved forward to accommodate the audience).eMr. Randy Pedersen, Pedersen Ventures, requested the preliminary plat for the Knutson development be placed on the agenda for approval. The Planning Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 4 Commission recommended the preliminary plat be forwarded to Council with certain conditions. Those conditions are being worked on and staff felt the plat was not ready for a recommendation. However, staff did provide an update. Community Development Director Carroll stated Pedersen Ventures filed a preliminary plat on August 27, 2004. Typically staff requires five weeks to review plats. It was agreed to reduce that time, and scheduled a special Planning Commission meeting for September 28, 2004. There was a public hearing held, and the Planning Commission recommended the plat receive a favorable recommendation, but that it not be forwarded to Council until a number of issues were resolved. Two issues were very technical and minor, but both would have involved physical changes to the plat. The third dealt with environmental concerns from the agencies. The DNR and Soil and Water Conservation District requested the City not approve the plat until their issues are resolved. Staff attended a meeting with several environmental agencies and discussed a number of environmental issues and made some progress. A follow-up meeting was also held where it was decided the developer's engineer would do some work on the plat to incorporate some of the agreements reached at the last meeting. The engineer indicated he would need a week to do that. He would then submit the revised plat and some related calculations to the agencies. The agencies would need a week to review the information and they would relay comments to the City. Their comments would be reviewed by staff. Staff did not feel there would be enough time for the agencies to do their work and to revise the plat in time for the November 1 meeting. It was more likely it would be ready for the November 15,2004 Council meeting. City Engineer Mann stated the main issue is the temperature of the trout stream. The PCA rules state there can be no temperature increase to the trout stream. Since the initial meeting discussions have concentrated on the temperature issue, how to treat the water, how to keep the water from getting to the river, and how to keep the water from heating up before getting to the river. The developer's engineer felt there were a couple things he could do to address those issues. If they could be shown on the plat, the Soil and Water Conservation District and the PCA would be satisfied. Councilmember Fitch stated his understanding after the Planning Commission meeting was that the PCA has the final authority to issue the permit. He asked if the DNR would accept whatever the PCA dictates. City Engineer Mann replied all of the agencies have been involved. Based on the new rules in August, this is the first development of this kind next to a trout stream that the agencies have dealt with. Ultimately, the PCA is the bottom line agency to grant approval regarding the trout stream and the quality ofthe water. The DNR does have jurisdiction over the fisheries of the trout stream and the flood plain. The Soil and Water Conservation District gets involved with the wetlands and the trout stream. The developer will have to get an NPDES Phase II construction permit. There is no requirement to have this approved or any review before any City approves a Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 5 preliminary or final plat. Staff could get through the whole process and then the developer would talk to the PCA and they would have the ability to change everything. Staff has tried to be proactive and get the agencies involved from the beginning so when the construction permit comes through, there will not be any issues. Councilmember Fitch thought if the agencies all got together they would be able to work things out. No one knows what is and is not going to work. Technically, the City is the responsible governmental unit. If the PCA gives the permit are they responsible if this does not work. He understood the Planning Commission's reservations, but asked if this could be done simultaneously at the next meeting with Council approving the plat on the same conditions as the final PCA permit. City Engineer Mann replied they would have to look at the temperature issues and once the developer's engineer gives an update as to what he can achieve, staff can try to do the analysis. Councilmember Fitch understood the developer's concerns as they also have potential customers to satisfy. He wanted to make sure the City does not continually inhibit the process itself and at least get a preliminary plat approved with certain conditions. He thought it would be on the agenda tonight. City Engineer Mann stated at the initial meeting with the agencies, they spent a lot of time talking about a lot of different issues. There is evidence this is the first time for the agencies to look at something like this. Based on the second meeting, the agencies have an idea as to what will satisfy them. Staff's position is once we are comfortable we have something that will not put the City at risk as far as approving a plan, staffwill bring it forward. Councilmember Cordes asked if the agencies are giving staff concrete resolutions to help the developer. City Engineer Mann replied at the last meeting there were good concrete ideas as to what they would like to see. The thing that is difficult is that until something is really built, it is hard to gauge if there will be a temperature impact. There was acknowledgement on the agencies part that this is a commercial development and they are not trying to look at things that will completely blow the costs out of the water. The issues mentioned did not seem to be out of line. Community Development Director Carroll stated the Soil and Water Conservation District stated there is $40,000 - $50,000 available from the Met Council they would be willing to devote to this project to help offset some of the costs the developer might have to make changes. Councilmember Cordes asked when Council can expect to see a preliminary plat. City Engineer Mann replied Council should see it no later than November 15,2004. It is difficult to guarantee seeing the plat on November 1, 2004. Mayor Ristow asked if the bridge and the roadway would be a factor. City Engineer Mann replied the bridge and the road are a separate project. The PCA is not going to look at the road project any differently than the development project. The storm water quality issues and temperature issues will be dealt with in conjunction with the ponding done for the Vermillion Crossing project. The DNR would be involved anytime you cross a river. Staffhas met with them regarding Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 6 their concerns. The SWCD will weigh in on the wetland issues. The two projects should not affect each other. Mr. Gene Pedersen stated they have been going on for two years and has listened to the same story and about the drawings. He requested Council either decide tonight to approve the plat subject to the conditions, or forget it. He has spent too much money and they have no guarantees. Every time they come in, it is something different. To postpone this and go along with staffwill do this and that, it is another story. He cannot hold his clients anymore. He feels Council is hurting Farmington by postponing it. Some of his clients are asking for another site. He stated Council and staff will have to start showing some indication that they want this project. He felt staff is not doing that. He asked to let the development team help solve the problems. He wanted the preliminary plat approved and work as a team instead of fighting back and forth. Their engineer does not know what to do anymore. Right now, they do not have the incentive to spend anymore money. There has been cooperation on both sides, but Council is only asking for grief to put it off. He does not think staffhas been completely cooperative in working with them. He would like their development team, Council and staff, work together as a team to solve issues with the agencies. City Administrator Urbia stated there are no documents in front of Council to approve. They are not ready. It is out of staff's hands and up to the agencies. Staff wants to get this approved and feels there has been a team effort. The Met Council grant money is good news. The agencies are adding another requirement as far as the temperature, but they are also willing to put money into it through the grant. Council just approved doing plans and specifications for the road and bridge extension. Mr. Pedersen stated we have been at this same spot for a long time and it is one more deal. He wanted everyone on the team and put the agencies on the spot to approve this. The agencies are not going to hurry. City Administrator Urbia stated staffhas 60 days to review the preliminary plat and the agencies are under the same timeline. There is no one that can make the PCA move faster. Staff has worked hard to get an answer from the agencies. Mayor Ristow asked if the plat can be approved contingent on the PCA approval. City Attorney J amnik stated that approval is running on the same timeline. Councilmember Cordes believed they have approved preliminary plats before with contingencies. City Attorney J amnik stated there are too many uncertainties for staff to make a recommendation for approval. In the past Council has scrutinized those conditions to see which ones they are comfortable with. Because this is an environmentally sensitive area the storm water pond design is an essential element. Because of those situations, staff is not comfortable coming to Council for a conditional approval. Council would be delegating a central feature of the project to the engineering department. Council would see it on the final plat, but it might be substantially different than the preliminary plat. Past practice has been to keep the changes as small as possible between final plat and the preliminary plat. Councilmember Fitch stated we gave the Planning Commission the option of approving it with conditions, but Council is the final Council Minutes (Regular) October 18,2004 Page 7 authority. City Attorney Jamnik stated it could be processed November 1, but you would be doing it on the faith that engineering would get the approvals necessary so there are no additional City costs between preliminary and final plat. Councilmember Fitch asked ifthere are substantial changes on the preliminary plat, does it have to go back to the Planning Commission. City Attorney J amnik stated that is one of the issues, if the conditional approval is substantially different, we have sent it back. There might not be anything significant at this point, but we do not know for sure. Mayor Ristow stated Mr. Pedersen has said if this does not move tonight, he is done. The land sits, the Spruce Street corridor is done, the project is over. He asked if Farmington wants this development or not. Staff has to follow protocol and there are other agencies involved, but he also understood Mr. Pedersen's frustration. Councilmember Cordes stated she can understand their frustration, but hoped they would respect her position. She cannot in good conscience approve a preliminary plat when she has no information in front of her and that she has not been able to review. She asked if the Knutson's and staff could work hard in the next two weeks and asked ifthey can have two more weeks to get this done. Mr. Pedersen said no, they asked to have the plat brought to the meeting tonight. They have been told this so much and received a different answer each time. They have the opinion someone is trying to stop this project. They could be wrong, but there have been too many individual things that have happened. He thinks there is someone on staffwho is trying to stop the project. They do not have the faith they should have. There are many on staff that have worked very hard. He understands Council does not have a plat tonight, and that is one of the problems, why isn't it here. He stated staffhas everything they need to make the changes. Councilmember Fitch stated legally we cannot do anything with the plat tonight. City Administrator Urbia stated he received a call Thursday, and that is too late. City Attorney Jamnik stated under the by-laws you cannot add an action item tonight except by unanimous consent. The standard protocol is for Council to direct staff to place it on the next agenda for either a Special or Regular Meeting. If the developer's engineer has the information back, and staffhas had time to review it, Council could act on it at the next meeting. If not, Council would be in a position to say they are not comfortable with the information and table it. Mr. Bob Weigert, Paramount Engineering, stated the preliminary plat had a couple minor technical issues to be resolved. The issue with the temperature was brought forward at the Planning Commission meeting to delay action on the preliminary plat until that issue is resolved to the satisfaction of a number of agencies. The ponding issue is something staff has decided they want to resolve before bringing the preliminary plat. Normally, the NPDES II permit is applied for prior to commencing grading operations. For some reason the agencies have gotten involved early with the thought it might have a significant impact on the layout of the plat. He thought the last meeting was good. The design with regard Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 8 to the lot and street layout, will probably not change significantly to satisfy the issues with the agencies. They are trying to get something from the PCA in writing that the direction they are taking will satisfy them to issue a permit. To get to that stage requires quite a bit of work. The question before the Council is, is the change to the ponding and infiltration so significant that Council cannot consider the review and approval of the preliminary plat prior to the resolution of those things. Mr. Weigert feels they can get there without significant changes to the preliminary plat layout. City Engineer Mann agreed that based on the meetings with the agencies there are no major changes to the plat layout. If what is shown will meet what the agencies are asking for, the plat can be brought forward. Mayor Ristow asked if the Knutson's are acceptable, would staff agree this can be brought to Council for November 1. City Engineer Mann stated he can guarantee Council they can bring the plat to Council November 1. The part that needs to be worked out between the developer's engineer, staff, and the agencies is, are we far along enough that we can comfortably recommend sending it on. There is potential for that to occur on November 1. Community Development Director Carroll stated it is not a lot different than what was done with the Planning Commission. There was not enough information for staff to recommend approval, but they agreed to bring it to the Planning Commission. If Mr. Pedersen is looking for guarantees, and Council tells staff they want it on the November 1 agenda, staff can guarantee it will be on there. What staff cannot guarantee is whether the developer's engineer will be able to get the changes done in time to get them to the agencies, and to receive the agencies' comments in time. If that is not of great concern, staff will put it on the agenda and Council can make their decision then. Councilmember Cordes stated if it was far enough along to present it to the Planning Commission and they are usually the first body that recommends to the Council, why hasn't it come to Council. Staff replied the Planning Commission does not make the final decision. They are an advisory body. The Planning Commission has said do not bring things to us until most of the issues are resolved. In this case, because of staff's interest in moving this forward, they agreed to putting it on the Planning Commission agenda, even though under normal circumstances they would not. Staff is trying to respond to the direction from the Planning Commission. They did not want this to go to Council until these issues are resolved, but Council can override them. Mayor Ristow understood from Mr. Weigert that there are just a few ponding issues that are staff's concern. City Engineer Mann replied the main issue is the ponding and that any changes will not significantly change the layout. It is possible there will not be major changes. Mayor Ristow asked if City Engineer Mann agreed Mr. Weigert has to have it worked out with the agencies, or it can be a contingency. City Engineer Mann replied it is possible that by November 1, Mr. Weigert will look at what the ramifications to the design are, and touch base with the agencies. There is not a huge change between the concept plan and the preliminary plat. Community Development Director Carroll stated the Planning Commission does not get too concerned about ponding issues. They look at the lot lines. Because ofthe timing, it was discussed at the meeting Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 9 last Wednesday, for Mr. Weigert to use the remainder oflast week and all of this week to make changes to the plat. That would allow the week of October 25 for the agencies to review it, which is 5 business days and much less than they like to have. It would then go to staff for review for a week and put together the packet for the meeting on November 15. If you want to short circuit that, what Council may get is an indication that staff and the agencies have received a revised plat, but comments have not been received. The agencies may show up in person to provide comments. Mr. Bill Sievers, general contractor, stated at the last few meetings, the only thing discussed is drainage and the sensitivity to the Vermillion River. No one has talked about the numerous times they have revised drawings to meet staff requirements for the buildings themselves and the development. He asked if the City wanted this development or not. It sounds like the issues can be worked out without major changes. No one talks about whether they want this development. The Vermillion River is 700 ft. away. He does not see how it can change temperature. He asked if the City wants this development. He has been at all of the meetings and they have changed it and changed it. Mayor Ristow stated the Council has put in a tremendous effort and if they did not care, the development would not be as far as it is. Mr. Sievers did not understand why it cannot be approved tonight with the contingency of getting approval from the agencies. Mayor Ristow stated Council does not have the plat to approve. Councilmember Fogarty stated Council has worked hard from the beginning, it was left out ofthe moratorium, staff and the developer worked hard on the concept plan, the developer has provided a preliminary plat, staff usually takes 5 weeks to review it, they expedited that, they called a Special Planning Commission meeting to help get the preliminary plat approved, and the Council has approved grading without the preliminary plat. Council wants this project, but they cannot blindly pass a preliminary plat right now. It is unfair to say it is done, when Council cannot do this. Council and staff have worked very hard to make this project happen. Mr. Pedersen stated he agrees with Councilmember Fogarty and the Mayor 100% that the Council has worked every way they can to help this. They would not be where they are today, if the Council had not taken it upon themselves to push this. Councilmember Fogarty stated staff asked for the special Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Pedersen stated he is trying to tell Council they have also done a lot of work to help. He stated whether Council knows it or not, they helped a great deal to get the grant for the bridge. They moved the road. Council has done a lot and some ofthe staffhas done a lot, but there has been someone fighting this from the beginning. It is time the public realizes someone has a personal vendetta against them. City Engineer Mann and City Planner Smick have done a tremendous job working on this. He asked how much they expect. The Knutson's are common, sincere people trying to put a project together. He realized it cannot be approved tonight. He agreed to give the Council until November 1, 2004. Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 10 Council directed staff to bring the preliminary plat to the November 1,2004 Council Meeting. a) Customer Service Response Report - Administration For the second quarter of 2004, the surveys showed 91 % for prompt response, 84% were personally satisfied, and 100% said employees were courteous and helpful. b) Approve Metro Watershed Partners Funding - Engineering The Metro Watershed Partners are a group that puts together educational materials to help people living in watersheds understand the ramifications of their actions. The educational items help the City to meet the best management practices that are required in the stormwater pollution prevention plan. The Metro Watershed Partners asked the City if they would be willing to participate in the amount of $1500 to help them continue to put together these educational items. The funds would come out of the storm water utility fund. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes to approve the expenditure of $1 ,500 to support the Metro Watershed Partners. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Adopt Resolution - TH3 Functional Classification - Engineering The Met Council is in the process of putting together their 2030 Transportation Policy Plan. The main issue is the status ofTH3. Currently it is classified as a minor arterial and has the status of preservation which means there will be very little funding put towards TH3. Staff presented a resolution asking the Met Council to consider putting the status of principal arterial on TH3. Without this status there is very little opportunity for funding. In other areas of the metro communities have come together to try to address funding issues for roadways. If Council is interested, staffwill do this. The status is preservation until 2025. The plan shows Farmington is in the area for transit expansion. Ifthis occurs, the City will be taxed to be in this area. Staff asked for comments from Council as to whether they wanted to be included in this area. Another issue is the City endorsing the Cedar corridor transit project. This is a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer. The City would like to include in the letter to the Met Council that the City is interested in this. Councilmember Cordes asked about the City putting in a park and ride. City Engineer Mann explained this is part of the Cedar corridor transit project. This would provide residents an opportunity to park at the park and ride and be able to get to the transit corridor. Councilmember Cordes stated ifthe City were to commit to being included in the transit area, it should be discussed further as it is another tax. Councilmember Fogarty would like to see the transit go from Cedar, across CR50, and north on Pilot Knob to include more communities. City Engineer Mann stated this would fall more into the category of being in the transit area, rather than just having a park and ride. MOTION by Fitch, second by Fogarty adopting RESOLUTION R86-04 requesting that the Met Council change the functional classification ofTH3 from minor arterial to principal arterial. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Fogarty, second Council Minutes (Regular) October 18,2004 Page 11 by Cordes to approve the draft letter to the Met Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Approve Joint Annexation Resolution - Giles Development - Community Development There is a property currently located in Empire Township, just south of the future 195th Street alignment. It is adjacent to property formerly owned by Bernard Murphy. Mr. Murphy has petitioned for the annexation of his property. He agreed to wait for annexation until the property was granted MUSA. Empire Township has agreed to not oppose the annexation and agreed to execute ajoint resolution. Community Development Director Carroll thanked the people who served on the EFP AC committee. Councilmember Fogarty thanked Community Development Director Carroll for his work on the committee and stated this is an example of what can happen when communities work together. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R87-04 approving the annexation of approximately 93 acres currently owned by Bernard Murphy Farms Limited Partnership and Giles Properties, Inc. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Adopt Ordinance - Logo Signs - Community Development The Farmington Lions Club has indicated an interest in placing logo signs in the right-of-way next to a number of City entrance monuments. There are two specific changes to the sign ordinance. One is the definition of a logo sign and the other change specifies the circumstances under which logo signs could be permitted within the right-of-way. One condition is the sign be co-located with the City's entrance signs not exceeding 24 inches in height or width or 24 inches in diameter. The sign has to be sponsored and maintained by an organization's local chapter with an office located within the City. A responsible person of the organization has to be designated for maintenance issues. The organization has to provide written proof that it has obtained any permits or approvals that are required by any other governmental entities for the placement of signs within their rights-of-way. Signs would not be able to be attached to the concrete entrance signs. Staff would like the organizations to work with them to explore the possibility of getting some sort of structure built near the entrance monuments to place signs on for a number of organizations. There may be the possibility of cost sharing between the organizations. Staff recommended 24 inches in size, as that is what the State requires. Any organization could have a sign attached to the green entrance signs. The Lions Club has already purchased a sign that is 30 inches in diameter. Council should determine if they want to keep the size at 24 inches or go up to 30 inches. The Lions Club ordered the sign some time ago on their own initiative. They have explored the possibility of placing the signs on private property. The County would not object to having free standing signs next to the entrance monuments as long as it is in the landscaped area on the far side of the monument. If signs are placed in the middle of the green entrance sign, the state would require raising the entire sign and would charge a fee. Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 12 Councilmember Cordes noted the City Attorney indicated in a letter that the Council can place a limit on the number of signs allowed. She asked how you define a service organization. City Attorney Jamnik stated that is his primary concern with the ordinance and the proposal. You can allow some, but by allowing some, means you allow all. If an organization can persuade a court they meet the same requirements as the other service organizations approved, the City would have to allow them. Staff believes that risk is outweighed by the benefit to the community by acknowledging the valid service organizations. Once the ordinance is adopted it would have to be administered in an even handed fashion. Mayor Ristow stated if the City goes with putting the signs on the green entrance sign, it would have to be approved by the State. Councilmember Cordes did not have a problem with the signs, she did not want the clutter. If Council does nothing, the Lions Club can petition to put them on the State's signs at two entrances. The ordinance states the signs should be co-located with the City's entrance signs. Councilmember Fitch wanted to see how it would look aesthetically before it is approved. The State will not commit to a proposal for a free standing structure in their right-of-way unless they see what is proposed. Councilmember Fogarty felt the organizations could come up with some type of free standing structure on their own rather than staff designing a structure. She would also like to see a computer-generated drawing as to how it would look. City Administrator Urbia will talk to the organizations about this discussion and determine how the organizations want to proceed. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Cordes to table this item until the next meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. t) 2005 CIP Authority to Proceed with Preliminary Planning - Administration City Administrator Urbia identified the projects for 2005 and the status. He noted the Council approved the plans and specifications for the Spruce Street project. He knows everyone on staff has recommended the Council should proceed with the plans and specifications. That shows everyone is on board with the project. Council direction was pending on the Fire Station, Prairie Creek drainage way dredging, and sewer meter replacement. The Prairie Creek dredging is funded by the storm water funded and is done by City staff. Staff asked for Council to approve this. There are three sewer meters that need to be replaced. They need to be brought up to date to receive accurate readings. One meter was installed with the Main Street project. This would come out of the sanitary sewer fund. For the Fire Station, the architectural fees for Wold would be 70% of the basic services of $85,000 equaling $59,500. This would cover the design ofthe facility and ready for the City Council with a decision to bid the project. The costs would come out of the municipal building fund. Another 5% would be for bid services and the remaining amount would be for the actual construction, administration, inspection, etc. The second location is located on the campus at 195th Street and Pilot Knob Road, across from the Maintenance Facility. In the future, with the build out of the City and the MUSA granted, a third station would be necessary. A station should cover a 1.5 mile radius. The proposed location for a third station Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 13 is at the future 195th Street connection with TH3. Staff asked for direction so bidding could be done in the spring. Councilmember Fitch noted new trucks have been ordered and a place is needed to store them. He felt the City could afford the Fire Station. Mayor Ristow asked if these were the actual costs. Finance Director Roland replied these costs are estimated. If there were 100% City funding of the Spruce Street, Ash Street and Fire Station projects, the Fire Station would be a 20- year bond. Councilmember Fogarty agreed that public safety is a number one priority. MOTION by Fitch, second by Fogarty to approve proceeding with the necessary planning and design of the three remaining projects. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fogarty: There will be a discussion on the Thoroughfare Plan for the area east of Akin Road and south of 195th on October 20, 2004. There are six weeks until the truth-in-taxation hearing. A budget meeting was held last week. No one on the Council takes $1.2 million lightly. She encouraged residents to call Councilor staff if they have any questions about the budget. City Administrator Urbia: Coffee with the Council will be October 21, 2004, 7 :30 a.m. at the Eagles Club. Mayor Ristow and Councilmember Fogarty will attend. The topic will be the Spruce Street bridge, and the trout stream. He received a note from the Farmington Area Historical Society that they will have their fall presentation at the Library on October 27,2004 at 7:00 p.m. Community Development Director Carroll: He received an e-mail from Councilmember Soderberg that he wanted read. He apologized for not being able to attend the meeting and wanted to give an update from the HRA meeting. Vinge Tile and Stone has begun construction in the industrial park, Controlled Air has essentially finished a new building as an expansion. They have created a building large enough to serve their immediate needs as well as a couple smaller spaces they have available for lease to serve as incubator space for small businesses. There is a link on the website that says available commercial properties. The Thoroughfare Meeting on October 20, 2004 will be followed by the MUSA Review Committee meeting. Council Minutes (Regular) October 18, 2004 Page 14 The first meeting with Farmington and Castle Rock representatives was held October 8, 2004. It was an initial meeting and was productive. City Engineer Mann: There is a verbal agreement with Castle Rock Bank. Staff will bring the documentation to a future meeting. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Fogarty to adjourn at 9:58 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~' /..-" ,. - Y': :::?' .~~ ~~ ?-;r:7~~-<.../ r;:;?' Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP THOROUGHFARE PLAN MINUTES October 20, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Council Present: Ristow, Cordes, Fogarty, Soderberg Absent: Fitch Planning Commission Present: Rotty, Barker, Larson Staff Present: David Urbia, City Administrator; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Mann, City Engineer; Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Tina Schwanz, Planning Intern; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Also Present: Shelly Johnson, Bonestroo Traffic Engineer; Ben Meyer, Bonestroo Engineer 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE PLAN The Thoroughfare Plan covers the area south of 195th Street and east of Akin Road. This includes properties H, Ql, 8 and R on the MUSA map. Property Ql was formerly owned by Mr. Bernard Murphy, and has been purchased by Giles Properties. There is a joint resolution for annexation with Empire Township for property 8. The Thoroughfare Plan is included in the Comprehensive Plan. The current draft of the Thoroughfare Plan shows revisions due to comments on the initial draft. The proposed north-south road goes from 208th Street north to Diamond Path. Lakeville has a development planned for the area north of 170th Street and south of 160th Street. In this development, Diamond Path would be extended from 160th Street south to 170th Street. This north-south road would direct traffic from Akin and have no driveways from 208th Street to 195th Street. It will have to curve around the wetlands north of 195th Street. The connection to 198th Street is difficult topographically. Staff removed this connection from the plan. The plan also shows Akin being re-routed. Traffic going south on Akin, would have to turn on Devonport, go to the north-south road, and then turn again onto Akin. Akin would not be closed, but re-routed. Without doing this, there would be a dangerous Y intersection. As the area is developed, there will also be residential streets. The plan shows major routes only. At the Council meeting, Council expressed some concerns. There were four Council Workshop Thoroughfare Plan October 20, 2004 Page 2 issues to be discussed. The first issue is there is a road through the Manley development that would create a four-way intersection at Embers Avenue and 195th Street. A second issue concerns the 198th Street connection. This was taken out and it was discussed whether or not this should be put back in the plan. The third issue was whether there were any wetlands that would cause the north-south road to be re-routed. The fourth issue was regarding the intersection at Akin, Devonport and the north-south road. City Engineer Mann discussed the reconfiguration of the intersection at Akin and 208th Street and the north-south road. He believes those connections can be made and the north-south road routed around the wetlands. There are no detrimental issues with the new alignment of Akin Road and no major issues with the wetlands going north to 195th Street. There will be a curve north of 195th Street to cross the area. Beyond the curve, the north-south road would stay next to the railroad right-of-way. Councilmember Cordes asked how 189th Street out of Meadow Creek would affect the wetlands. Staff stated it would skirt along the edge of the wetlands. Mayor Ristow asked about access to Riverbend. Staff stated there is significant ponding in that area, so there is no anticipated connection to the north-south road. However, there have been discussions to make a connection north of the bridge. The park in Riverside West would not be affected by the north-south road. Regarding the connection of 198th Street and Akin, staff had some questions regarding the economic sense of that connection. There is a significant grade difference and wetlands. We need to balance the need and economic impact to the environment. It was determined that connection is not critical. It can be done, if it is determined to be important. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated they looked at the area below 195th Street. Traffic was estimated to determine volumes. When looking at the difficulty of building 198th Street, it was determined the system would still work without that connection. The most important connection to Akin is 203rd Street, as that does proceed to Pilot Knob. As far as the connection at Embers and 195th, that connection is important because the spacing along 195th works beautifully with Pilot Knob, Akin, Embers, and the north- south arterial. People south of 195th in that little comer that have business on Embers will use 195th. Those that don't will use 195th to Akin or Pilot Knob. If someone wants to visit someone on Embers, they will use Embers, but the numbers will not be significant. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated we do not want to offset the intersection as it will create more problems when 195th carries more vehicles. It creates capacity and safety issues. The road to the south curves from that intersection and only serves a small pocket of people. In the 2030 Met Council draft plan, one oftheir priorities to cities is saying develop connections between the cities that help alleviate major carriers so the short trips are not on the major carriers. The north-south route is a perfect example. City Engineer Mann stated the county has identified 195th as a county road and they will have a say as to where we make the access connections and the county will have to approve those connections. City Administrator Urbia asked if at some point a stop sign will be needed on Embers north of 195th Street. City Engineer Mann replied yes, if the warrants are met. Staff routinely reviews intersections for stop sign warrants as requests are received. City Administrator Urbia asked if stop signs would change the traffic pattern. Traffic Engineer Johnson replied one stop sign does not change a lot of patterns, but it will change some. They look at the intersections of collectors or arterials, as those normally require all-way type control first. He did not see the volumes on Embers changing a lot from what they are today. Council Workshop Thoroughfare Plan October 20, 2004 Page 3 Councilmember Fogarty had a concern with the Manley development and having one access. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated you can have one way in and out depending on the number of units. If there are 75-100 units there should be two accesses for emergencies. There can be a temporary access point on 195th Street until the north-south road is built. City Engineer Mann noted one plan from the Manley development shows a temporary access. Staff is also discussing an emergency access. The Manley development will contain 146 single family homes. Councilmember Soderberg noted the developer is planning a two-year phase. The first phase would be from 195th Street to 203rd Street. Mr. John Anderson, Giles Properties, stated their goal is to have the north- south connection from 195th Street to 203rd by 2007. The second year would be from 203rd Street to Akin. They are developing the Murphy property and have been meeting with the Manley development. Mr. James Munro, 18863 Embers Avenue, disagreed with people taking a left on 195th Street. He saw a straight route down Embers. Over 48% of the people on Embers speed. That is 587 vehicles a day over the speed limit. There are kids trying to cross over to the sidewalk. The City needs to consider the children and pedestrians before they put more cars down the road. He felt the main collector should go in first otherwise all the cars would go down Embers. He has been complaining for two years about Embers and it has only gotten worse. There has been a stop sign installed, which has slowed people down. Speed limit signs did not help. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated if the intersection were to be offset, people will still use Embers ifthey want to go into that area. Embers is a minor collector and minor collectors are designed to hold more traffic. Mr. Munro stated the minor collector has not done anything for the safety of the pedestrians. There is no sidewalk on his side, so how do his children cross the street. They cannot ticket anyone under 35 mph. He stated the Police Chief believes the speed limit should be 25 mph in a residential area. Instead it is 35 - 40 mph on Embers. Mayor Ristow stated even if the intersection is offset, traffic will still use Embers if they want. Mr. Munro asked about dead ending Embers. City Engineer Mann stated there is a potential for a stop sign at 193rd Street and Embers. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated that that section of Embers provides a function of collecting all the residential trips in that area east of Pilot Knob and allows them to move north-south. An area with that many residences demands a collector. A major portion of the traffic on Embers, live in that area. Mr. Munro would like to see other roads built first. Otherwise, traffic will have no where to go other than Embers. Councilmember Soderberg asked if as the north-south road is finished, and 189th Street is continued if that will alleviate some traffic on Embers. Traffic Engineer Johnson replied some traffic will use the 189th Street connection to 195th and maybe TH3. That will help the situation. A minor collector can hold 2,000 cars/day. A major collector could hold 2,000 - 20,000 cars/day. Mr. Munro sated other cities require sidewalks on both sides of the road. When he moved in, he thought it would be a cul-de- sac, now it is a minor freeway. Mr. Greg Wendlandt, 19344 Embers Avenue, was concerned with the dialogue at the October 4 Council meeting and tonight. All conversation has been about northbound traffic, and nothing about southbound traffic. Weare supposed to be having a retail development coming in the Spruce Street development. A lot of traffic from north Farmington will be coming south on Embers to the new major collector. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated the two major north-south paths used will be Pilot Knob and the Council Workshop Thoroughfare Plan October 20, 2004 Page 4 new north-south road. Mayor Ristow asked if the alignment north of 195th does not get developed, will traffic take Embers. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated they will take 195th and go to Pilot Knob or take Akin. Mr. Wendlandt did not see Embers being a centrally located thoroughfare for the residential areas to get to the future development. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated until the north-south road is built, traffic will use Akin. Mr. Wendlandt stated he would not go to Pilot Knob, it would be more convenient to take Embers to the new collector. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated the shortest trip time wise would be Pilot Knob. People living along Embers will use Embers. That is why it is a minor collector. City Engineer Mann stated once there is significant retail in Farmington, it could change the traffic patterns. Ms. Lynn Jarvis, 18849 Embers Avenue, wanted the Council to keep in mind they are a neighborhood and want safety. Traffic will get worse. She has to wait 2-3 minutes to get out of her driveway. Speed is also an issue. She wanted Council to take this into consideration. Mr. Greg Spade, 19496 Embers Avenue, they are looking at a county road that will attach to TH3. He was concerned with the extension of Embers into the new development. He asked if there was a playground planned for this development and ifthere was some consideration for that. Staff replied there will be a large park in the southeast comer. There will be a walkway to the park. Mr. Spade was concerned with the extension of Embers and the intersection. People are concerned with not having lighting on 195th Street, and he sees an issue with residential people trying to get across Embers Avenue. Mr. Dave PritzlafT, 20255 Akin Road, asked ifthere is a connection with Embers, can a sign be placed saying no thru traffic. New residents will think they cannot get through and turn on 195th Street. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated Embers is not an MSA route, so the City can put up any signage they want. City Engineer Mann stated the people not familiar with the area are more likely to stay on a county road. It can be done, but it may not help. Mr. Pritzlaffnoted in Rogers there is a blue sign in a neighborhood saying 25 mph with a yellow sign above and below saying children present. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated ifit is not a school zone or a private street, then someone is breaking the law. Blue signs are destination signs. Cities cannot legislate speed limits unless in a school zone. That is up to the State, and the State cannot go below 30 mph unless it is a scenic byway. Mr. Pritzlaffasked if the Council can set a speed limit if there is a significant problem. Traffic Engineer Johnson replied no, the State sets speed limits. Mr. Pritzlaff agreed with removing the 198th Street connection to Akin Road. He asked if stop signs could be installed at intersections when the roads are first built. Traffic Engineer Johnson replied reviewing requests for traffic control changes requires doing traffic counts and other things. The City does not have enough manpower to look at every intersection every six months. They rely on the citizens to request looking at an intersection. Mr. Andy Schultheis, Embers Avenue, stated the citizens are saying Embers Avenue is bad. He asked why not dead end Embers. Council is not considering the residents that are already there. Traffic needs to be cut down. Traffic does not take 195th, they go down Embers faster and faster. The people speeding do not live on Embers. He feels the City is messing up Embers Avenue. He liked the 2007 outlook for the north-south road, Council Workshop Thoroughfare Plan October 20, 2004 Page 5 but will it really be 2007, probably not. The 19Sth Street connection would alleviate traffic on Embers. Traffic would go to Akin Road. Councilmember Soderberg asked if 19Sth goes through, how much would the traffic change. Traffic Engineer Johnson replied their concern was whether two connections would serve the traffic volumes from the new development. It was determined the 19Sth connection is not needed, 195th Street and 203Td Street would be enough. He did not think the 19Sth Street connection would alleviate traffic on Embers. It would reduce the trips on 195th Street. Ms. Kathy Engebretson, Dallas Avenue, noted option I is being considered off of 20Sth Street. She was concerned about option 2, as when the Murphy property is developed there will be increased traffic. Her concern was keeping the buses off of Dallas Avenue. If option 2 is chosen, make it a one-way going north only. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated the City can work with the school district as to which streets are used. Ms. Engebretson would like to keep the buses on option 1. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated option I is the preference. Option 2 would be a minor collector. Councilmember Soderberg stated if Dallas is built across the river, it would be a local street, not a collector. City Engineer Mann stated if option 1 does not happen, option 2 would be a minor collector. Ms. Engebretson stated if that does happen, it would be nice to run it along behind the houses and take out the two ball diamonds. Mr. Frank Blundetto, Manley Land Development, stated the plat is being reviewed. They are willing to take on responsibility for the north-south road development. They have discussed the development with Giles Properties and Seed-Genstar. They are looking to the City for direction. They see this as a viable thoroughfare plan that makes this area marketable. They would like to see the thoroughfare plan adopted. Councilmember Soderberg liked the east-west connection and supported 19Sth Street. He likes the plan and option 1 for the 20Sth Street connection. Councilmember Cordes also liked this plan better than the original. She agreed the 19Sth Street connection is vital to get traffic from Pilot Knob to the north-south corridor. Councilmember Fogarty would not demand that 19Sth be a minor collector, but would be comfortable with it being a local road. She would like to see one more way out of that development. She is sympathetic to the residents on Embers. The City does have to have a functioning roadway system. The professionals do not believe this will increase traffic on Embers. Mayor Ristow agreed with 19Sth Street to carry the traffic volume. Community Development Director Carroll stated they took 19Sth Street off as a collector, and discussed the need for a connection in the future. The plat shows an extra-wide lot in that area that would provide the opportunity for a local road. Staff felt this was a good compromise. Regarding access out of the Manley Development, in addition to the access across from Embers, there was also a temporary access to 195th. The developer saw 19Sth as redundant. It is an extra expense. Councilmember Cordes saw 19Sth as getting traffic to travel east and west and Embers would terminate at 19Sth. Staff noted it could route some traffic to Akin. Residents wanted traffic diverted to the north-south route. Councilmember Cordes noted if traffic goes south on Akin, that is re-routed. Those traveling south on Embers would take a left to the new north-south corridor. 203rd Street would work the same. Engineering will review the concept. Council Workshop Thoroughfare Plan October 20, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Dirk Rotty, Planning Commission, stated the Planning Commission did not like the original concept and the revised plan addresses the issues. They agreed with Manley Development and staff that an outlot should be left open for a connection to Akin Road. Having the north-south road was a good idea. Adjustments will come later. They had similar questions with 203rd Street. They understood the need for 203rd Street and agreed with the recommendations. They preferred option 1 from 20gth Street. They discussed the re-routing of Akin Road. It would make it safer and give traffic a way to get to the north-south road. He agreed a transportation plan is needed to develop this area. Mr. Ben Barker, Planning Commission, agreed it was important to have a Thoroughfare Plan. The developers need to know the layout. Mr. Todd Larson, Planning Commission, liked the plan and agreed with option 1. He felt the re-routing on Akin Road was more favorable to Jet people out of town instead of into town. He would like that reviewed closer. On 203 Street, he does not like the curves. They will be lucky to get one bridge over the railroad tracks so he sees the 197th and 203rd connection not being an issue. He wants something approved, so they can move forward with the plats. Regarding Akin Road, he felt it will make it difficult for people on Akin to get to town. He felt more time was needed to study this intersection. If we want to promote Spruce Street and the downtown, we should make it easier to get to downtown, not harder. He was not saying to hold up the plan because of this intersection. Mayor Ristow felt it was easier to put in 198th Street now or put up a sign alerting residents to a possible through street right away. Mr. Rotty felt the Devonport intersection would be safer and there would be more people using the collector and Pilot Knob. He did not thiIJk it would inhibit the majority of people coming into town. 198th Street is not off the books, the outlot is there. Ifafter review it is felt to be necessary, it can be done. Councilmember Cordes felt they needed to look at 198th Street as a minor collector. Mr. Frank Blundetto, Manley Development, stated the plat shows they will build a stub road with curb and gutter. A lot will not be available. The City asked for a 60 ft. right-of- way. Mayor Ristow stated the City would pay for the portion of the road going through City property. City Engineer Mann stated if the road is built, it will function the way it will function whether it is called a local road or a minor collector. If it is shown on the plan, that raises it to a higher priority of ultimately being built. There will be no houses through the wetland, so there will be no driveways. Mr. Blundetto stated they need to be aware of the grade difference from Akin. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated if a feasibility study is done, it may show it is cost prohibitive. Mr. Blundetto stated there is a tremendous difference in the grade from 198th Street and 203rd Street. Staff noted there are grade issues with both areas. City Administrator Urbia asked if staff should draw 198th in or leave it out. Mayor Ristow stated it is easier to do it now with the help of a developer, than to put it on the residents later. If it is put in now there are no surprises. He would like to see 198th Street Council Workshop Thoroughfare Plan October 20, 2004 Page 7 developed with the Manley property. City Engineer Mann stated staff will look at the connection and the cost. City Planner Smick asked if 198th Street should be shown as a minor collector with a 70 ft. right-of-way. A local street would not be shown on the plan and have a 60 ft. right-of- way. Councilmember Soderberg was comfortable with having 198th as a local street. City Planner Smick stated then they will not add a line on the plan as it will be a local street. Community Development Director Carroll stated the local street will be part of the preliminary plat. Staffwill not change any lines on the Thoroughfare Plan now. It will be brought to Council on November 1,2004. A line will not be shown for 19Sth Street as it will be a local street not a minor collector. The local street will be addressed at the time of platting. Councilmember Cordes stated if it is going to function how it will function, why not recognize it as to how it will function. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated the volumes are estimated around 1,000, which is at the collector level. That is above a local street. Community Development Director Carroll stated the current document as is will be on the November 1 agenda. City Planner Smick asked if Councilmember Cordes wants 198th shown as a minor collector. The plat shows a 60 ft. right-of-way and a local street. The developer would have to make changes to the plat prior to the November 9 Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Soderberg noted there will be no homes on the street so the traffic will not negatively impact anyone regardless of the size of the road. City Engineer Mann noted some collectors are 32 ft. wide. With no homes on this street, that may make sense. Community Development Director Carroll stated there are a number of people not here, because they thought there would not be a connection to Akin. The people that were at the Planning Commission meeting will probably be at the November 1 Council Meeting. He understood Council wanted 198th Street shown as a minor collector. The minor collector to 195th Street would also remain. City Planner Smick asked if 198th Street will be 32 ft. wide or 38 ft. wide. City Engineer Mann replied 32 ft. 4. ADOURN MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to adjourn at 9: 10 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ,/; ,~ ,'" /~ C<<_..._vC~~ );;77 ~6f:U / -;:;;.r (..../ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 7/; 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 City Administrator ~. FROM: Missie Kohlbeck, Senior Center coordinatorl2-.9 Patti Norman, Recreation Supervisor SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donations to the Rambling River Center DATE: November 1,2004 INTRODUCTION Donations have been given to the Rambling River Center during the month of October 2004. DISCUSSION Farmington Thursday Night AA has donated $100 to Rambling River Center. The Pariseau Family has donated $205 in memory of Gert Pariseau, a long-time Rambling River Center member. Anchor Bank Farmington has donation $408.80 in proceeds from their 110 Anniversary celebration to the Rambling River Center. Staffwill communicate the City's appreciation on behalf ofthe Council to the listed donators. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the donations of $100 from Farmington Thursday Night AA, $205 from the Pariseau Family, and $408.80 from Anchor Bank. Respectfully Submitted, c-......:~ ." I'- ~~ \., ""'~ Patti Norman ~ Recreation Supervisor 'il\\.;~ \-r~h\\d?lt Missie Kohlbeck Senior Center Coordinator RESOLUTION No. ACCEPTING DONATIONS TO THE RAMBLING RIVER CENTER $100 FROM THE THURSDAY NIGHT AA $205 FROM THE PARISEAU FAMILY $408.80 FROM ANCHOR BANK BOTH ANNIVERSARY Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 1 st day of November, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: seconded the following: Member introduced and Member WHEREAS, donations of $1 00 from Farmington Thursday Night AA, $205 from the Pariseau Family, and $408.80 from Anchor Bank have been given to the Rambling River Center; and, 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 with gratitude the generous donations of $100 from Farmington Thursday Night AA, $205 from the Pariseau Family, and $408.80 from Anchor Bank. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of November 2004. Mayor Attested to the _ day of November 2004. City Administrator SEAL 7c City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and councilmembe~ City Administrator FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler, Police Chief SUBJECT: Contract for Services, Dishonored checks DATE: November 1,2004 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Police Department is requesting authorization to enter into a contractual agreement with Retailers Protection Association for a Dishonored Check Diversion Program. DISCUSSION Retailers Protection Association (RP A) is a Non-Profit Corporation with statutory authority to act on behalf of local law enforcement in the collection of dishonored checks, remedial training of violators and as necessary in the preparation of check cases for criminal prosecution. Current Procedure Due to the sheer volume and expense of investigation under current police department procedures only checks in an amount of$25.00 or more are accepted for prosecution. This restriction is intended to reduce the investigation and prosecution costs associated with relatively minor offenses. Collection of payment is not a primary function but does occur in many cases. (It should be noted that it does not preclude the "victim" from attempting to collect the bad debt privately.) Victims with checks meeting the criteria must mail a Certified Notice and Demand for Payment at a cost of $4.75. If payment is not made, the check writer is subject to prosecution through the Farmington Police Department. The victim is entitled to add a service fee of up to $30.00 but in most cases is happy to receive payment. Proposed Procedure Upon execution of an agreement with local law enforcement RP A accepts dishonored checks directly from local residents and businesses for collection. There is no minimum dollar amount required for submittal. (RP A has accepted checks for as little as $1.50) RP A handles all paperwork associated with the Notice and Demand for Payment. The check writer is identified, located and given the opportunity to make payment in lieu of prosecution. When the offender accepts this option he/she is required to enter a Diversion Program including financial education in an effort to avoid future violations. The offender also agrees to be monitored for additional violations for a period of 6 years. Since RP A operates nationally and maintains a local database from the surrounding 5-state area, it has the ability to monitor offenders more carefully than is currently possible at the local level of law enforcement. It has the ability to Aggregate checks, (Combine dollar amounts for purposes of prosecution) from a large area. Felony violations are investigated and forwarded automatically to law enforcement for prosecution. In return for the service rendered the victim collects the entire actual dollar amount of the dishonored check but agrees to "gift" the service fee of $30 to RP A to offset costs. RP A uses the service fee to conduct investigations, help provide the retailer training, offender diversionary training. In addition $5.00 out of each service fee is returned to local law enforcement to help offset the costs of other investigations. If the local jurisdiction declines the donation it is made to another Non-profit agency instead. RP A is currently used in over 300 local jurisdictions in the State of Minnesota including the City of Lakeville where it has been met with enthusiasm by local retailers. The City of Apple Valley has recently authorized an identical agreement as well. In addition the program has been endorsed by the Minnesota County Attorney's Association. Benefits Among the benefit to local retailers and residents is that they: . Are able to minimize their work in the check collection process. . Are able to submit checks of any size. . Can maximize the collection of dishonored checks. Benefits to Local Law Enforcement include: . Freeing up valuable investigative time for the prosecution of dishonored checks. . Providing a larger service to the community. . Collection of fees to offset other investigation costs. Benefits to the Judicial System: . Prosecutions of dishonored check cases are diverted from local courtrooms thereby helping to unclog busy court calendars. . Maintenance of records and ongoing monitoring to ensure complete prosecution of repeat violators. . Upon completion of the mandated Diversionary Training class an overwhelming reduction in the number of repeat offenders. Staff has discussed this proposal with both the City Attorney and the Finance Director. Both have approved of the agreement. BUDGET IMPACT There is no cost to local residents, retailers or the City of Farmington for this service. There is an, as yet, undetermined revenue to the City of Farmington in the amount of$5.00 for each check collected. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the execution of the attached agreement with Retailers Protection Association, Check Diversion Program. Respectfully submitted, aniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police WORTHLESS CHECK PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, MN 1. Contractual Aereement - This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2004, by and between the City of Farmington, State of Minnesota, and Retailers Protection Association ("RPA" hereafter), ofP.a. Box 981, Anoka, Minnesota 55303. 2. PUrDose - The purpose of this Agreement shall be to implement a Worthless Check Diversion Program (statute 628.69) for the City of Farmington. This program provides an alternative to criminal prosecution of individuals who issue worthless check(s) to merchants and businesses. The program will assist the Farmington Police Department and other law enforcement agencies in obtaining records to assist in the investigation and prosecution of individuals issuing worthless checks. This program will provide that the victim is paid full restitution from the offender who has issued the worthless check along with fInancial training for the first-time offender. First-time offenders who participate in this program will be diverted (also known as Pre-Trial Diversion Program) from prosecution. RPA will assist the City Attorney and Victims in obtaining full restitution for victims of non-sufficient funds (NSF) checks and account closed (AC) checks. RP A is responsible for managing pertinent case fIles and conducting fmancial education classes for fIrst time offenders. 3. Contract Terms - This Agreement shall be in force for a period of three (3) years, beginning upon the date of city approval. Termination provisions of this Agreement are provided in sections 9 and 11. 4. Definitions: A. Victim - the business or person who accepted a dishonored check for goods or services and suffered the financial loss. The victim must be in good standing with the City of Farmington licensing Department. B. Offender - the individual who has enrolled in the Worthless Check Program voluntarily or has been ordered by the Court to complete the Worthless Check or other diversion programs. C. Restitution Recovery - Dollar recovery of face value (or written amount) of a dishonored check(s), property damage, as well as administrative fees, civil penalties, bank fees as appropriate and law enforcement costs. D. Financial Education Class Fees - The fees associated with the training classes the offender attends as part of their restitution Agreement. Worthless checks $ 85.00 1 5. Citv Support - The following is needed for the implementation of the program: A. City Attorney and Police designees will assist RP A in organizing and implementing the restitution program with courts and law enforcement personnel. The designee will also provide guidance in publicizing the program to the business community. B. City Attorney and Police designees will conduct as needed meetings with key RP A staff to offer procedural guidance, evaluate program performance, and provide support and direction. C. City Attorney and Police Department shall implement departmental policies that are consistent with the fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement. 6. Performance Aflreement - RP A agrees to provide the following professional services to the City of Farmington in a timely and efficient manner. RP A will provide the following level of administrative services and offender education classes: A. Perform daily operations and management of all clerical and accounting functions related to offenders ofNSF checks to be included in the Farmington Worthless Check Program B. Perform daily operations and management of all clerical and accounting functions related to offenders of Property Crimes C. Generation of demand notices to worthless check writers, and follow through with respect to the collection and disbursement of victim restitution, administrative fees, and RP A education training class fees. D. Provide necessary correspondence and follow-up telephone inquiries to victims and offenders. E. Properly maintain all physical files, fmancial records, documentation, reports, computer files, etc. for a period of no more than six (6) years. F. Provide voluntary (unless mandated by state statutes) worthless check offender fmancial management education classes. G. Conduct classes designed to teach and provide meaningful information and lessons to offenders on criminal consequences of Property Crimes. as well as focus on personal management. H. Scheduling of all classes. The training will require 6 hours of class time. Sessions will be held in the City of Farmington and lor surrounding cities. These training sessions may be jointly held with other metro communities. Class size to not exceed 30 attendees. I. Maintain records of offenders making restitution, payment of fees, attendance records of offenders completing as well as failing to attend the training session. J. Maintain records of payment to the victims and City of Farmington fees on a monthly basis. K. Provide reports to the City of Farmington; annual, quarterly, monthly fmancial revenues, completed offender classes, and related reports as required by the City and law enforcement. L. Offenders who refuse to enroll into the program or fail to complete the program will be reported. 7. Proflram Operational FeesIRevenue: 1. Victim A. The victim will be reimbursed any money recovered from the offender.P 2. Check Diversion will be governed by A. Minnesota Statutes, section 604.113 subdivision 2, paragraph (a) allows for the collection of a service charge on dishonored checks with a not to exceed value of $30.00. B. Minnesota Statute 609.535 2 C. The fee for offenders to attend the educational class will be $85.00. This fee will be retained by RP A to conduct these classes. This class may be waived by RP A, provided that the offender pays the face value and civil penalty within Fourteen (14) working days. D. A fee of $20.00 will be assessed to an offender who fails to appear at education class and has to re-schedule for the class. This fee will be assessed each time the offender has to re-schedule. This may occur up to three (3) times before referring the offender to the Police as failing to appear. 8. Non-Comoete - During the term of this agreement the City shall not establish a competing worthless check program or any other similar program. 9. Aflreement Date - This Agreement shall remain in effect from ,2007. And shall be automatically renewable. , 2004, to 10. Citv has no financialliabilitv - It is understood and agreed by and between the parties that RPA any subcontractor (CSS) will bear all ftnancialliability for all aspects of its operations under this Agreement. 11. Termination of this aflreement: A. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either party upon 30 days written notice to RP A or the authorized agent of the City. This Agreement may be terminated by RP A upon 30 days written notice to the authorized agent of the City if RP A determines that it cannot conduct or administer the Worthless Check program because program-related income does not equal program costs. B. This Agreement may be immediately terminated by the City at any time if the City determines that RPA, CSS (Computer Support Services), and/or FCTS (Financial Crimes Technology Services) (see section 16 of this Agreement) is acting, or has acted at any time during the term of this Agreement, in violation of state or federal law. 12. Amendments or Material Modifications - All amendments or modifications to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by both parties. 13. No Citv Obliflation to Merchants - RPA, CSS, and victims who participate in this program fully understand that the Worthless Check Program is providing a public service and the City of Farmington is held harmless and has no liability to make recovery of any check(s) or obligated to take criminal action against offender(s). 14. Criminal Action - The City Attorneys Offtce for the City of Farmington may choose to prosecute offender(s) at its sole discretion. In the case where the offender fails to participate or complete Agreements with RP A and victim( s). 3 15. Hold Harmless and Indemnification: A. RP A, CSS, and/or FCTS shall save and protect, hold harmless, indemnify and defend the City, its officers and employees against any and all claims, causes of action, suits, liabilities, losses, charges, damages or costs and expenses arising from or allegedly arising from, or resulting directly or indirectly from any professional errors and omissions and/or negligent or willful acts or omissions ofRPA and CSS its employees and agents, in the performance of this Agreement. B. The City shall save and protect, hold harmless, indemnify and defend RP A, CSS, and/or FCTS its officers and employees against any and all claims, causes of action, suits, liabilities, losses, charges, damages or costs and expenses arising from or allegedly arising from or resulting directly or indirectly from any professional errors and omissions and/or negligent or willful acts or omissions of the City, its employees and agents, in the Performance of this Agreement. 16. Indeoendent Contractor: A. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to or shall be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of employer/employee between the parties. RP A shall at all times remain as independent contractor with respect to the services to be provided under this Agreement. B. The City shall be exempt from payment of all unemployment insurance, FICA, retirement, life and medical insurance and workers' compensation insurance for any and all of RP A, CSS, and FCTS employees and agents. Payment of insurance premiums, tax withholding, and all other benefits are strictly RP A, CSS, and FCTS responsibility. 17. Subcontractor - RP A shall neither subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement nor assign this Agreement without the prior written approval of the authorized agent of the City. The only exception is to use CSS and/or FCTS as a subcontractor. RP A shall ensure and require that the subcontractor agrees to and complies with all of the terms of this Agreement. Any subcontractor of RP A used to perform any portion of this Agreement shall report to and bill RP A directly. RP A shall be solely responsible for the breach, performance, or nonperformance of any subcontractor. 18. Data Practice - RP A agrees to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws relating to data privacy or confidentially. The RP A will immediately report to the department head signing this agreement any request from a third parties for information relating to this agreement. The City agrees to promptly respond to inquiries from RP A concerning data request. RP A agrees to hold the City, its officers, department head and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Contractor's unlawful disclosure or use of data protected under state and federal laws. 19. Comoliance with the Law - RPA agrees to abide by the requirements and regulations of The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. C.363), the Farmington Civil Rights Ordinance (Ch. 139), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws deal with discrimination based on race, gender, disabilities, religion, and with sexual harassment, the city agrees to promptly supply all necessary clarifications. Violation of any of the above can lead to the termination of this Agreement. 4 20. Entire A1!reement - This entire Agreement supersedes any and all other Agreements, either oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and contains all of the Agreements between the parties with respect to said matter. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or Agreements, oral or otherwise, have been made by either party which are not embodied herein, and that no other Agreements, statements, or promises not contained within this Agreement shall be valid or binding. All provision contained within this Agreement shall be valid or binding. The laws of Minnesota and the United States of America shall govern all provisions within this Agreement. 21. Audits and InsDections - The City Attorney's office or designated representative or other governmental agency exercising regulatory function over the City's business activities, while exercising reasonable, non-disruptive procedures, may inspect RP A, CSS, and/or FCTS records at anytime. 22. Notice - Any notice to be given hereafter by either party to the other, shall be in writing and may be affected by personal delivery, or by registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the proper party, at the following addresses: 23. Insurance - RPA agrees to provide and maintain, at its own cost and at all times during its performance under this contract until completion of the work, such liability insurance coverage as is set forth below, and to otherwise comply with the provision that follow: A. Workers Compensation: Workers Compensation insurance in compliance with all applicable statutes. B. Auto Insurance - Owned and unowned C. General Liability: "Commercial General Liability Insurance" (Insurance Service Office policy form title), or equivalent policy form, providing coverage on an "occurrence", rather than on a claims made basis, the policy for which shall include, but not limited to, coverage for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, contractual liability (applying to this contract), Independent Contractors, and Products-Completed Operations Liability. Coverage for explosions, collapse and underground Hazards shall not be included. Such a policy shall name the city as an additional insured thereunder, and shall apply on a primary basis with respect to any similar insurance maintained by the City, which other insurance of the City, if any, shall apply excess ofRPA's insurance and not contributed therewith. RPA agrees to maintain Products-Complete Operations coverage on a continuing basis for period of at least two years after date of completion Such Commercial General Liability insurance policy shall provide a combined single limit in the amount of at least $1,000,000 (one million) Each Occurrence, applying to liability for bodily injury and property damage, and a combined single limit of at least the same amount applying to liability for Personal injury and Advertising injury. Such minimum limits may be satisfied by the limit afforded under Firm's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, or by such Policy in combination with limits afforded by a Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy (or policies); provided, that the coverage afforded under any such Umbrella or Excess Policy is at least in all material respects as broad as that afforded by the underlying Commercial Liability Policy, and further that the City is included as an additional Insured thereunder. 5 Such Commercial General Liability Policy and Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy (or policies) may provide aggregate limits for some or all of the coverage afforded thereunder, so long as such aggregated limits are not at any time during which such coverage is required to be maintained hereunder reduced to less than the required Each Occurrence limited stated above, and further, that the Umbrella or Excess Liability provides from the point that such aggregate limits in the underlying Commercial General Liability Policy become reduced or exhausted. An Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy which "drops down" to respond immediately over reduced underlying limits, or in place of exhausted underlying limits, but subject to a deductible or "retention" amount, shall be acceptable in this regard so long as such deductible or retention amount does not cause the fIrm total deductibles or retention for Each Occurrence to exceed $10,000. D. Property Liability E. Professional Liability: Professional or "Error & Omissions") Liability Insurance in the amount of at least $500,000, Each Occurrence (or "Wrongful Act" or equivalent) and if applicable, Aggregate, covering RP A's Liability for negligent acts, errors, or omissions in the performance of professional services in connection with this Agreement. RPA's Professional Liability Insurance may afford coverage on an occurrence basis or on a claims basis. It is however, acknowledged and agreed by the RP A that under claims-made coverage changes in insurers or in insurance policy forms could result in the impairment of the liability insurance protection intended for the City hereunder. RP A therefore agrees that it will not seek or voluntarily accept any such change in its Professional Liability Insurance coverage if such impairment of the protection for the City could result: and further, that it will exercise it's right under any Extended Reporting Period" ("tail coverage") or similar claims-made policy option if necessary or appropriate to avoiding impairment of such protection. RP A further agrees that it will, throughout the entire period of 3 years keep required coverage and for an additional period of two (2) years following completion of this agreement, immediately: (a) advise the City of any intended or pending change in Professional Liability inures or in policy forms, and provided the City with all pertinent information that the City may reasonably request to determine compliance with this paragraph; and (b) advise the City of any claims or threat of claims that might reasonably be expected to reduce the amount of such insurance remain available for the protection of the City. THEREFORE: IN WITNESS OF, the parties have executed the Agreement as of the data first written above Retailers Protection Association, Inc. City of Farmington By (Executive Director, John McCullough) By (Mayor or Chief of Police) RPA Federal ID # 41-1893900 Attested (City Administrator) 6 7d City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM, Mayor, CounciJmembers and City Administrator Pv- Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director TO: SUBJECT: School and Conference DATE: November 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRP A) provides an annual state conference for Park and Recreation professionals. DISCUSSION This year's MRP A State Conference will be held in Brooklyn Center at the Earle Brown Heritage Center from November 30-December 3,2004. Sessions are held on topics such as programming, therapeutic recreation, aquatics, park maintenance, park planning, facility maintenance and administration. A request is being made to send four staff members to attend this state conference as full conference delegates. The four staff members are: Patti Norman, Recreation Supervisor; Kellee Omlid, Recreation Specialist; Missie Kohlbeck, Senior Coordinator and Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director. BUDGET IMPACT The registration fee is $300.00 for each staffmember. The registration fee covers all educational sessions and meals during the conference. Since the conference is in the Twin Cities metropolitan area there would not be any hotel costs for staff members. Payment for the registration fees would be made from the following budgets: IR.ecreation $600.00, Aquatics $300.00 and Rambling River Center $300.00. Funds were approved in the 2004 budget to cover the cost of the MRP A Conference for four staff members. ACTION REQUESTED By motion, approve this request. ~5:W Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director 7e City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us r FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Nlministralor r Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director TO: SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing - Various Licenses and Permits DATE: November 1, 2004 , INTRODUCTION A public hearing is required for the renewal of various licenses and permits for the year 2005. DISCUSSION Each year the following licenses expire December 31, and are required by ordinance, to be reviewed at a public hearing prior to renewal: On-Sale Liquor Licenses Sunday Liquor Licenses Club Licenses On-Sale Wine Licenses Therapeutic Massage Licenses ACTION REOUIRED Set a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., November 15, 2004, to review license renewal applications. Respectfully submitted, )r5~ ?(- 4h <<dc~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director 7p City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members,. \1$;. ~ City Administrator Fi FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Extension for Filing Middle Creek 2nd Addition Final Plat DATE: November 1, 2004 INTRODUCTIONillISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 11-2-3 (E) of the City Code, a final plat that was approved by the City Council shall be recorded at Dakota County within 6 months of the approval, unless a time extension is requested by the Developer and submitted in writing and approved by the City Council. Therefore, D R Horton is requesting a 5-month time extension for the filing of its Middle Creek East 2nd Addition Final Plat for recording at Dakota County to June 19,2005. As described in the attached letter from Pioneer Engineering, the deadline to file the final plat would be January 19, 2005. The Developer is requesting a time extension due to the unexpected delay in construction for the 2nd Addition. ACTION REQUESTED Approve a time extension of 5 months (June 19, 2005) for the recording at Dakota County of the Middle Creek East 2nd Addition Final Plat. R~~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Don Patton, D R Horton Keith Willenbring, Pioneer Engineering ..**~ * PIONEER ~ engineering * *. ~tober 15,2004 Civil Engineers. Land Planners · Land Surveyors · Landscape Architects Ms. Lee Smick City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: MIDDLE CREEK EAST 2ND ADDITION Dear Ms. Smick: DR Horton applied for and received apprClval from the City Council for the final plat of Middle Creek 2nd Addition on July 19,2004. At that time, the proposed project schedule was for utilities to be installed in the late fall of 2004, and streets to be installed in the spring of2005. However, the start of construction will be delayed until the spring of 2005, with street installation to follow. According to the Farmington City Ordinance, DR Horton has 6 months to file the final plat with Dakota County, unless a request for time extension is submitted and approved by the City Council. With the July 19,2004 approval date, the final plat would have to be filed by January 19,2005. Due to the unexpected delay in construction, DR Horton is requesting the F annington City Council grant a 5 month extension on the final plat filing deadline. At this time, MPCA and MnDOH permits have been received. D.R. Horton would like to proceed with Farmington city staff on the approval of the development agreement for the project to continue first thing next spring. Pioneer will supply any assistance needed for this process to proceed. If you require additional information, or have any questions, please call either Colin Roetman at 952-985-7827 or myself at 651-681-1914. Sincerely, Keith Willenbring, P .E. Cc: Colin Roetman, DR Horton Lee Mann, City of Farmington Dave Sanocki, City of Farmington 2422 Enterprise Drive. Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120. (651) 681-1914. Fax 681-9488 625 Highway 10 N.E. . Blaine, Minnesota 55434 · (763) 783-1880 · Fax 783-1883 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7j TO: Mayor, Council Membe~ City Administrator P' . Lee Smick, AICP City Planner FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Mattson Farms Preliminary Plat DATE: November 1, 2004 INTRODUCTION M. P. Investments is seeking approval of the Mattson Farms Preliminary Plat. The plat consists of five (5) lots and an outlot on approximately 5.09 acres ofland located east of Akin Road and northeast of Eaves Way. DISCUSSION Existing Conditions The property is zoned R-l Single-Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan denotes low density residential. Agricultural land exists to the east, Akin Road to the west, and single-family residential exists to the north, south and west of the proposed development. The property currently has a dilapidated house on the site. The plat also shows an encroachment of a shed on the southerly property line of the site and further investigation needs to be performed to determine if a drain field for the property south of the Mattson Farms plat encroaches into the plat. The property increases in elevation from south to north, however, a substantial drop off exists in the central portion of the site and drops off by approximately 27 feet to the east. A utilize wetland exists on the east side of the property. A trail exists along the western side of the property along Akin Road. Plat Layout As shown on the attached plat, the Developer is proposing to create five (5) lots on the western portion of the property. The remaining portion of the property to the east would be platted as Outlot A in order to preserve the wetland area. The front yard setbacks are proposed at a minimum of 20 feet and the lot sizes are proposed at a minimum of 10,000 square feet, meeting the R-l zoning district requirements. Lot Sizes The Developer proposes 5 single-family lots. The R-l zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a 75-foot lot width. The Developer has met these requirements with the following lot sizes and widths: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 LotS Outlot A Lot Size 19,225 square feet 13,066 square feet 13,584 square feet 15,926 square feet 14,795 square feet 109,477 square feet Lot Width 100 feet 76 feet 86 feet 79 feet 100 feet Transportation The Developer proposes a 204-foot long cul-de-sac adjacent to the easterly right-of-way of Akin Road. The three lots on the north side of the property will access the radius of the cul-de-sac, while the southerly two lots will access the remainder of the roadway. The cul-de-sac will line up with Eaves Way to the west, creating a full intersection. Housing Types The five lots are proposed for full basement construction with walk-outs. The projected sale prices will start at approximately $400,000. Planning Commission Meeting - September 28, 2004 The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Mattson Farms Preliminary Plat on September 28, 2004, contingent upon the resolution of an issue involving encroachments. A shed encroaches and a drain field possibly encroaches into the plat on the southern side of the Mattson Farms property. City Attorney Joel Jamnik has advised staff that the final plat may not be approved until the developer provides proof of title indicating that no encumbrances (shed and drain field) remain on the outlot that the City will eventually accept as part of the plat for the storm water pond at the southeast section of the property. Granting of Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Acreage to Mattson Farms The Mattson Farms property currently is not included within the MUSA boundaries. City staff will be proposing to the City Council at the final plat approval stage that the Mattson Farms property receive MUSA. On November 2, 2003, the City Council approved a policy allowing administrative approval of MUSA for parcels that are less than 5-acres in size. Since the Mattson Farms property is close to the 5-acre limit (5.09), City staff will recommend to the City Council that MUSA be granted at the final plat phase of the project. Potential Alignment of 203rd Street Although the potential alignment of 203rd Street to the east of Akin Road has not been finalized, staff is reviewing topography within the Mattson Farms area to determine if the northern portion of Block 1 Lot I and the northern portion of the outlot (soon to be dedicated to the City) will be needed along the extension of 203rd Street. This potential alignment may be far enough along within the next few months to require a slight adjustment to the Mattson Farms Final Plat for any necessary road right-of-way. Further discussions concerning the potential alignment will continue in the upcoming months before the final plat is approved by the City Council. Wetland Conservation Permit The Developer has submitted its Wetland Conservation Permit application. John Smyth, the City's Wetland Specialist, will be recommending that the City Council approve the permit at the final plat stage of the process. Engineering Review The pond located in the southeast comer of the plat will treat stormwater from the plat prior to draining into the wetland that is partially located on the property. The pond would satisfy the requirements of the NPDES permit governed by the MPCA. The Engineering staff has determined that it meets MPCA requirements. Contingencies to the Approval of the Preliminary Plat 1. As shown on the attached Certificate of Survey, a shed owned by the property owner to the south (Ken Gerdts) is partially located on the Mattson Farm property. This is an issue because grading is proposed in this location. Additionally, the shed is located within a future outlot that will be dedicated to the City and the City will not accept conveyance of title to the outlot without proof that the conveyor has good title without any encumbrances within the outlot. The Developer (M. P. Investments) and Mr. Gerdts are currently working to resolve the issue before the final plat is reviewed by the City Council. 2. In addition to the shed, a septic system drain field that serves the property to the south (Gerdts) may encroach upon the Mattson Farms plat. The drain field is located to the west of the shed previously discussed. This issue will also have to be resolved prior to final plat approval. 3. Approval of a Wetland Conservation Act Permit by the City Council. 4. Approval of MUS A by the City Council. 5. Incorporation of any right-of-way that may be needed for an anticipated extension of 203rd Street to the east of Akin Road. 6. The preliminary plat approval is contingent on the approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the resolution for the Mattson Farms Preliminary Plat contingent on the above- mentioned requirements. cc: M. P. Investments RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT MATTSON FARMS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 1 ST day of November, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the preliminary plat of Mattson Farms is now before the Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the 10thday of August, 2004 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 City Council reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above preliminary plat be approved with the following stipulations: 1. Resolve the issue with the shed encroaching into the Mattson Farms property. 2. Resolve the issue with the drain field possibly encroaching into the Mattson Farms property . 3. Approval of a Wetland Conservation Act Permit by the City Council. 4. Approval of MUSA by the City Council. 5. Incorporation of any right-of-way that may be needed for an anticipated extension of 203rd Street to the east of Akin Road. 6. The preliminary plat approval is contingent on the approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of November, 2004. Gerald Ristow, Mayor Attested to the _ day of_. David Urbia., City Administrator g 0 v u . : ~~ o ~o ~ ~;: u ~~~J It'l ~$~ g ~a~;i I ~-~- <c ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~:"i: "'6 :: < .. .. >- Is.::. b .. ~ ~i!l' ~~~~ ~ "',;;,,~ j ~ N 0 ~ 0 ~ . ~ ,,; -' '" <i '" . ~ E .. g ~ u S. ii 8~ ~ .E:5 ~ 1J~ z gi~: ~8~~ o:!:Jltfi .. ~~ ,,~z ]In::i .s~g ~;! ~~~ \lid.' I t :r: f-< Ct: o Z '" "'6 u U1 ~ :~ ~ - ~ '" ~ i o & ] ~ 8 419.00 111~'0\'~7"'ll <( 0, z'. ", , ~,' I- 11~ W , , " I , ~ ~ J-~ o ~ ::> o .~ co'" ",:" cO~ ",. ..~ co </l '~~, C~ ~\ \) \ -~ 'to. -~. \ '" .----- -------- --- .-----'----- ------ -' ' \ I.... \ ( \ \ \ ~I.." \'..!. \_1 ..... ...- I I II ___ !\-::'''.:'':'::----;'t' c..>~. >, ~ \~ct....."""", ~ il ~ '1 ~ r I ~ \ \ t \ ~ \ ,r<? \ ~ \ -------- ------------ r'" \ ~,~\ ';:... ;_1 \ \ .. - I "0 'N ~~ I ~.... I := I i~. ~~ , ~ ~ ~hUH & J u];;;.! ~'O 6;' ~1 ioe::;:i _ Cl. :i.or:s.~~!: 6:1 z ~ ~ 11 mm! o :8 5;;~~I~ ~ :~ orr~t~1 f5 :-1 ~;;:i~~j g; j~ l~ii !~'d a:: ~ f .5~-::; f E~ CL l~ :~; :!~i ;1 ri~~~i~ ~~ IHP~ .~ u.~du !!l \1 z ~ " z Bi 13 ~~. ~ '1-- ...-/' ...-/'~If./ /6'" t..\.\c<:, ) .".... c"\ .~ ...-/'...-/' ...-/' \/ ,~:.:\; '" " l"J) ....::::!l a:~ ~r:. .g Z -0 . E l"J) ~~ C3:;j ~- z ~ ~ ~ ..,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1! i ~~i a.: C\.E ~ :::;i ~ ~ ....... I ~~ ,,~ j!j" \1~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ v~ ~8 C) '- ~ z>" a:Z~ \IICC~ \II \II Cl.. :i c=z ~ ~ cf::j , ::r: """ 0:: o Z ~ z < '" \l '" x '" ~ ..",~h ~~~tx~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ i~~~~ i ~~~~~ ~ t; G; ~ ~ ~ ~ es l3l3 g: f[ ~ ~~~~~ ~ o~~~~ ~ o '" !\ ~t~jl j id 1 <( 4\9,()() " S\3,()\,37 Y. Cl . ~ ;:! <: '. I-: :::. ...;' . fil ....... .... . it I- lJ.J .~ ~ S: . ~ d $~ ::> 0 "' ~.~ \0,-(\1 <0'" ~~ '" /' ...N i~~ tS~i ----- ~$~ .( t- ..~, \ " "" t~~;. ';':t~> " .--- ----It" hs~ ,.. <f) \~\ :r; f-- tn ,:1 er- r<') () c_ :~.~ < i :; c: .!2 rn 0.: e ~r.. '_ <<S s~ ~8 .~ !j ~<<S ~::El 0.: ~ 2 a;tj ii~~ E :: V') .. .= c Ul"" ~ ~ r! l:: N.s -~g' s; ~ .~ .- ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ii\ ~ ~~ ; ~~ . !i!5 ~ 5z ~ ~~ . ~ iSQ. vi " ~ti ~ J Z>= a:Z~ \IIa:~ \II \II ~ ~ UlZ":' ~ ~J 11!1 'Ii",' il,.i'll l". I", !I iil! 1:11':1 , lUll II I, '11'i",,1 I i!t.'li'il i~ 'j!lll !l,l;i II ill! l~ j:1 I 'Iii! I,!i!!l,', iil 11!1i! ',lill:I 1"'1 i!ll, :'I!II!! ','1:11'''1'1011 .' 'I ' .; Illlll ~II! ~;:i.li ~Ii :Iih! ~!i ~II! ~I! I!n !Ill i:1 I "Ih!i ~lllil t: I' '1111 '111',' II I "1' II . tJlh'l:1 II ,,'.il :1 11!.WJ IJ i l'li:i I i I .\ II i~' ! ~iJlili Ii Ii! ::W' !i !HIll, ii ! i !IIi! Ii I,I,!I .II; Ii il! :,i! ~1!iill~l~ ! i Il!nill,il!~ijlf!i ill! ','Iii Ii 1111' I "I ' II' lJ,n,mil, II · .I"II!!I (II", '1'1 I!..." lll!!u!i!!!!!ll !!! !i iii,;1 ~~iflili!ti jl ~limi!lqG~II! hili 1111111i! ~!!!!i!!:!m!li S;l! 1,.1 !II. !i ~n:Hfl !I.: !! 1: ;!nill :!. :.il,nhu l!t ~~!I!I!:. ~::; ~~ .~ , oti::;j ~~~ ~"~ ~g~ ;:;:: cT Ul '" ; ,.: " <l: UJ 0:: <l: o UJ ... <..l it ~ o z :5 ... UJ :;: ...J <( ... o ... ~~ g~ 08 g:~ g ~ :D;;;!-:- effi~ :(!~ ~~i e~u >- UJ "" Z o i= <( ~ Ul => ...J :! a ~ .h ~ ~~~~ ! e ~ ~ ~ :l >< II: (;l ~ ~ i ! ~ v' HU i ~ 55 n f ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ (I{( 1~lj ~il ,)n 1 n l~! i ~ i z ~ ~ b ~ '" o u (/) ~ I , > " . n . I ~ 9 ~~ !i ~ /, ~ / /I. T .,/ /' //' , ,> m!' \. /,1, \" './ /~ !"r .~ ,\ I' , J,c~<"f P '\.i , ~...,", "'/~ - 1 $- f< ~J''!i -- r-. .-/ .J 11, rj/1 J I( jl .--/ \.i j; / /!~ !l/ \ ~;" / /. I ,i !l\ : / I !i I ( ~ (!~I \ I \. !: \ . I !'- ,\ !,;.I \ \!1\ \;.' i \ \ \ 1 \. ,-!l \ ~l \ !~\ '" \ " --- '- ~ c" ;::::! <:\ S :5 ~,,~ fij f- 11 It lu"~ Ci) S:' <I) d ~.. --- ,:> 1.'"(. r0 o N ;:;:: 0- Ul '" r-- "! II o UJ ~ UJ 0:: <..l o z :5 ... UJ :;: ...J <( ... o ... ;:;:: u: tt cT Ul CD '" o <Ii " ...J W > W ...J 0:: w ... ~ ...J <( :;: 0:: o Z LI- o <l: UJ oc <( g .1lC) ~~. '" '" cD II <l: W oc <( z o ~ (!) >= ~ o z :5 ... UJ :;: ...J g ... e:: tJ it tJlEl 1-4 ,e:: ... i5 '" lJr.z.. (5 d ~~ tJ~ .S ~ .1: ::a ..:::: ~ 0..: ~I i ~ ~. ~ 1~lf~'-r .l!J " '" .s " '" > E a. ~ :::;; " ~ ( ~ \ g ~ 2 ;, rU ~ J h; J , :!i;8 J w~ q . ~l " ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~l :i l:; ~ ~ v~ ~g t!> "In Z>i =~: \IIc..3 \II~ ~ ~ 5i; 0 - a::J "'-..,.-......000\'. ~~ 5~ ~~ 8'- ~ ::c: Eo-< ~ ~ z 4\9.~~ S\~.~\,~,..r. ~ a'll ~ <:' f.O <t fJ,'" 'II ::::I ......1141 @ ~ 1l~ fj: S:.' ~ d ---- t:J '" :;l on o C lL Vl ;!) "'. e;; N II LS ~ ~t3 :s~ ~t7f >-~ a::: co~u :l ~~>-<; ~ <:z o ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~wu ~ 8 ~ 0 ffi r:s :J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lo. ~ ~ ~ ~ nn I \ ~ : ; I I --' w U '" << Cl. --' ;::! i:! CI) .~ S .;:; ~ ~ cd c: r... (3 d OIg .~ti .~ cd ~~ " I % . , ~ ~~ h ~i5 5% iil2 8 ~ i . ~ ~ vi ze; C) -, ~ z>i a:Z~ w:t f ~ oQZ ~ 8 0;5 0 - ~J g ._2.' ~ 0 l~ lfliim i.~ g ;~;fs tJ o z z o i= U => f'; Vl Z o u ;" 2 ~ ~ ~ E WI :g :-e ~ J: =g ~ i l~ ~i ~ ~i~i-r u.S;.i2~ Q. - ~2e~6- =:,' i.. .. Cl ~ i dHi ~ ; g ~I~ ~ o~~i~ .. hhii i l;':ig ~ l[l~~ ~-;'~.!~ ~ l ~ : Udij 0. .. e 5C ~.~ ~ ~;.rJil s; E~,si~'tI ; nUH H e= ~2 .~ 'i ~ 1:1'':; ~.!i !!~ ~~ ~ii · c ~~ ~E :: ~~ ~ 11 J:a " ~ .5 ,; ;;; 1 2 ., j u iii .D z o I~ E5 i l7! ;H 8 ", I" . ~~. Vi ~. ~~ ~ ~~ 10.~ 0: .. Ie :~ ~ I~ :1 .. ,.' .2 .. li~ ~ I,: ~E~' 1 . ..! ~~ . I ". ---.J . t ~:-:.:~ I ~w · J ~ d@ ,j ~ i' is i~ U ,l 'j '. Ii! :z o G => ~ :z i <!ji 8 i !Ii . Iii :u lil ~ ~ 'S<! lllll'h~ S! ; i .If iH i 8 "';.' ~! I il' I. i; i I the'l W Ij a:l~ ~ h m~~~i ~ d h -, l! I; Vl "u w . a.. Vl l~ all !I =,8 n 2~ u'jii ~:5 ~2 E. H o. r~ :~~ ~g~ ~i~ '<- ~ ~~ !rl ~ ~.~ ~ l~ o g"5 .~~ ]~ c ~~ e!~~ .: ~i:~~ i .D 0 o.:&.!ii 11!!ill 1;fc,€811llii.l: ;!:~j~! !HHH s &g:~eei~ ]~~2~gf!~ {E~:~t7'5'g .; ~ ..r'h[ l~ i~~~~~ ~~ [~r~~~ ~ ~ ;; .~~ ~ .i . . ~ .~ .~ ~~ '6..c Ii ~ ~ -;1 .~j i ~: ~ mJ ~ 2~ I! ~ g; i'i ! ]j: ~ ~ 1: .. .~ :S :> 16~~~ ..tj ... I/~-o ~E'~f~~ ~ i ; ~ i~ Eg;~~l o u .e ~ :l E !; ~ ~~! ~~~~~5 oi c:i":N ~ 1 cJ.;: ~ ~ &;; ~ '6 i! ~ ~ , e , - j ~ -l- d ~L .. ~ '" i !:j . i [;: i ~ ffi ~ ~ Vl I:: u ~ 9 5 <Il ~ i ~ ~ 1 h ..,.,,,,,, ~~ . . i ~~ I.~ I u ~ CJ JNI' AUIJdOlld ll'f'Jll o ~ f :1 0; g. ~~; .l!~~ cU~ c.- HH i!~~; e~: ~ 191e. i ij ~ 8.gll'g HU ijil _ III E- ~ 6~: -g})Wi: ~i5~ c fI'lCi!!.. ~5~~ ~oi: ::! o '0 g i:~ ~k Eo ~~ g ~ .- . il ~; ... . . 'il:: ~i H - ~ .c i~ . . l~ ji ~l ~ I r; h ,~! !S. w Z => .... S i;,. ~ ~ ,c. '" z W CJ ~ .... S '. .. 'c. .; \ \ L 1\1 Ii Ii \ ~ I ~ ~ ULl) jtl)1. s , c:: 1tl 0 ~ 1t :::: ~ 0 0 ..... l"Il Q) .+oJ Cl .... to ::!l I~.~ . . ! I i ~ r ~ '0 < ~ (I') ';j.,. ] ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ g ..s~r a. ~ E ::t ~ ~ ~ ~ W Vl ::> o :I: -;::;;-;;;-- " o g ~ '" ~ ~ W ;" CJ :z :;: u :z w CD 9 lp g I ~ :;: : Ii:' J ~ II ~ i . ~l q : ~=Ih'. . H .". ~ ..' i ~ ; ~ i~ ~~ - . 6" 2: is' ~!S ~z a2 :;i V I ~i ~ ,- Z>~ C;:Z- UJg:~ IJ)IJ) ~ ~ C!:l~ 0 ~ O~ - cLJ ; ~pIPHr.i . ~ FrH~li.IJ~ i ~ dno.t.:o'j ! i 'll.,II.~f.Ji. I ~. :ii~tirj.l,ii ~ <If t!,E';:. Ilf:ll"5 ! ~ :I, tii;.fW~~1 I ~ ~j r!~~~!J!;I.f!~! I ~ :j i.;HI'~f;ii i ~ ~I il i!lm. j!; I H ~rr!'r~'il: I ~I i~i~i,fniu n if JhH,HiiH Ii ~~ ... !S'&'ih:'5 I; il ~.'" ~ ::c Eo-< Po: o Z ~ S\'3-5\''3't''t. 4\9.~~ , /_-<~'--O ~'J ....... ...- --- ...................... <:> ~ '" -.J ... '" l: ~:g .~u;) ~~ '" ~ /' .,--_/" \ , / ~ ~ 4-- --- .." __ :::::'~f~:":"- .... - - - - - -...---- ..,t~~,'" ....- ~t -I \ -- ... \ '0 \ al ;;: \ \ ... \ '" 1 \ ~ t:) \ cr: \ to ~ 0 L N - - - - ,)I'I\IUJ~J'D~~"'J'f'\HO>IS 1 lJ\S~"''''~ ~ ~ ~ ..... <:) ~ tl .g :e ~ 2;1..,. C~N E" _:ii +J ~ ~ Ul iii:i ~ 'g If .f~i 9; i oi ~ ...::...."'" i i ./' ; ~ ~~ ~ ~ if>: !t . ~ i:" ~ . h: 5 ~ ~~I ~ ,P~'h ~ i ~ ~! . ~ ~ ~ ~~ !l'~ iH w. !f~ ;::~ SZ ~~ B ~ < o ~ f i :i d > v! ~9 t!> .. ~ z>:5 ccz': \11=: \11 \II a- '2 OCQz O~ ~ t5 ~ ~J cnQ.; City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Council Members, ~~~ ~ City Administrator y V Lee Smick, AICP City Planner TO: SUBJECT: Amend Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition PUD Agreement DATE: November I, 2004 INTRODUCTION The developer, Convenience Store Investments (Kwik Trip), is seeking an approval of an Amendment to Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition PUD Agreement to construct a 4,824.5 square- foot convenience store building with gas service on Lot I, Block I of the Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition (Exhibit A). Pursuant to Section 10-3-12 of the City Code, an amendment to a PUD requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval of the amendment by the City Council. City staff determined that a public hearing should be held at both the Planning Commission and City Council to ensure that the public had the opportunity to comment on the amendment. DISCUSSION Planning Commission Meeting - October 12, 2004 The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the amendment to the Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition PUD Agreement with the following conditions: I. The Pin Oaks need to be revised to show allowable street trees as per Section 10-6-10 (F). 2. A sidewalk needs to be installed on the west side of English Avenue. 3. Provide similar material (brick) on three sides ofthe trash enclosure. 4. Allow for a 30-foot deviation from the 50-foot setback requirements for a monument sign along Pilot Knob Road. The Developer agreed to the all ofthe above-mentioned conditions. Proposed Development The Developer proposes to demolish the existing shopping center and BP convenience store/gas station on the property. The existing shopping center and convenience store/gas station were part of an original PUD Agreement for the Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition (Exhibit B). The original PUD Agreement needs to be revised to allow for the removal of the shopping center and construction of a new convenience store/gas station (Kwik Trip) on the site (Exhibit C). Property Description The property is located directly north of Upper 183rd Street and is situated between Pilot Knob Road and English Ave. The property is surrounded by townhomes and single-family residential to the east, commercial currently under construction to the south, and multi-family residential (Cameron Woods) and single-family to the west. The proposed building would contain a total of 4,824.5 square feet of convenience store space. No car wash would be associated with the project. Allowable Uses/Conditional Uses Under the PUD agreement the below listed land uses would be permitted within the commercial development. All conditional uses authorized under the B-1 Limited Business District Zoning Classification would need to go through a CUP approval at the Planning Commission. Any other uses not currently listed in either the PUD Agreement would require an amendment to this PUD Agreement approved by the City Council. a. Convenience Store with Gas Site Design The total site area is 75,061 square feet. The proposed building will face north. The rear of the building will face Upper 183rd Street and the new retail building currently under construction south of Upper 183rd Street. The Developers propose to remove the existing shopping center and convenience store with gas in order to make room for a new K wik Trip Convenience Store with gas. The maximum lot coverage is 25%; the developer proposes 6% lot coverage with the building. The building setbacks meet all of the requirements of the zoning code, including a 50-foot setback from Pilot Knob Road, and a 30-foot setback from English Avenue and Upper 183rd Street. The trash enclosure is proposed for the rear of the building. A sidewalk is required along the west side of English A venue to connect with sidewalks to the south along the west side ofthe roadway. Development Timeline The Developer proposes to extract the existing gas tanks and demolish the existing building on the property during the upcoming months. The Developer proposes that the convenience store will be operating before school opens in the fall of 2005. The Developer will have the MPCA inspect the removal of the gas tanks to ensure that no pollution has occurred on the site. 2 Building Design The developer is proposing architectural treatments including a predominantly brick exterior with a glass storefront near the entrance, two complementary colors of brick (tan and red), tan stucco, and laminated black shingles make up the architectural treatments ofthe building (Exhibit D). Floor Plan The floor plan shows a typical convenience store layout with cooler units towards the rear of the store, display areas in the central portion of the floor plan, and the cashier's area towards the west side of the floor plan (Exhibit A). Parking Lot/Access The City Code requires 32 standard parking spaces equaling I space per 200 square feet of retail use. The developer proposes a total of 34 standard parking stalls including 2 handicap stalls. Vehicular access for the development will be one access from Upper 183rd Street and two accesses from English Avenue. The accesses are the original accesses that were approved in the PUD approved January 30, 1986. Lighting The developer is proposing four (4) light standards positioned around the parking lot. Two (2) of the standards are located along the parking lot perimeter on the north side of the site, and two (2) standards are located along the parking lot perimeter on the southeast comer of the site. The standards will be "shoe box" design with the lighting directed downward to minimize spill as shown on the attached photometric site plan (Exhibit E). The developer is also proposing lighting fixtures along the building. Additionally, the developer proposes lighting under the gas island canopy for lighting the gas pumps. The photometric plan shows that lighting will not extend beyond the boundaries of the site. Landscaping City Code requires a minimum of 10% landscape area within the B-1 zoning district (Section 10-6-14 (E) 5). The developer is proposing a total green area of32% of the site (Exhibit F). The developer is proposing a number of evergreens along English Avenue in order to provide screening for the residents living on the east side of English Ave. The area will contain 18 Austrian Pine. The developer also shows Pin Oaks along English Avenue. These are not an allowable street tree and will need to be revised. The developer also shows the remainder of the perimeter of the site to include both deciduous trees and both deciduous and evergreen shrubs. The developer proposes to sod the perimeter of the parking lot. Wood chips will be installed surrounding all planting beds. All landscaped areas and planting beds will be installed with an automatic sprinkler system. 3 Trash Enclosure A trash enclosure approximately 19' wide x 17' deep is proposed along the rear of the building. The developer proposes an external wood fence surrounding the trash enclosure with gates. However, staff suggests that the developer install similar material as the building (brick) around three sides of the trash enclosure to meet the requirement that the Farmington Gateway Shopping Center and the Farmington Marketplace met by installing brick on three sides oftheir trash enclosures. Signage The developer is proposing wall, pylon, and gas island canopy signage as part of the project. The City Sign Ordinance allows a maximum 10% of wall signage when both wall and pylon signage are proposed. Based on this formula a maximum of 200 square feet of wall signage would be permitted for the building and the canopy. One (1) 116.78 square foot pylon sign is proposed to be located at the northwest comer of the lot (Exhibit G). The height of the proposed sign will be twenty-three feet (23 '). The sign materials include aluminum cabinets with fluorescent lamps located inside of the cabinets. The gasoline prices will be lighted with LCD lighting. Brick columns will be provided on each side ofthe pylon. The developer is seeking a modification to the minimum fifty (50) foot front yard setback requirement by placing the pylon sign twenty (20) feet from the right-of-way easement. This would be a deviation of thirty (30) feet. The Planning Commission approved the same requirements with the Farmington Marketplace PUD and the Farmington Gateway Shopping Center PUD. The developer is required to apply for a sign permit for each ofthe signs they propose. Engineering Comments The Engineering Department has forwarded comments to the developer concerning engineering issues that need to be addressed at the construction phase of the project. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the site plan. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement of the Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition for the Kwik Trip project located on Lot I, Block I, Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition with the following conditions to the minimum requirements of the City Code: I. The Pin Oaks need to be revised to show allowable street trees as per Section 10-6-10 (F). 2. A sidewalk needs to be installed on the west side of English Avenue. 3. Provide similar material (brick) on three sides of the trash enclosure. 4 4. Allow for a 30-foot deviation from the 50-foot setback requirements for a monument sign along Pilot Knob Road. Respectfull / ~....".~.l.?/......... ./-,t..", ';' /" i /"/. , " ; Lee Smick, AICP City Planner Cc: Hans Zietlow, Convenience Store Investments, Inc. File 5 ~',~=~~-~~ ""\ ;1~':~' ~ r~ = = ~ ~ WJ '@3:~ L r f { f LJ I ~? ~t!! I \ V.lOS3NNIW 'NO.l!)NIWHV~ 'M '.lS C8~ H3ddn 'I U: AMH 'UNO ffY:" CJUI;;.. [....1::;' ['""""""" ..... ~;~:i (1)1:';; Z ::.- :: -", 3li01S 3::lN3IN3^NO::l NV1d 31lS AliVNII'\I113lid L. J g~~ .L33l1.\.S polE91 ~3ddn ~ ..,., \ \ \ \ E-XII /15/T A D LIII~1l1~ illll11liHiJ ==h i, tiL:' ..... Z iI . ~~ ~~ I~Hm ii . . i . H I hi" ~ in ~ i i ~ U'I m~ in Ii! hil. ~i .:~ I;!" ~i .'- t~'''''' i rll .U:I:i . .. h!~I:; ~ ~~i2 ii!'; .1 . -;!. 1~I~i h ! e b! _p.' i~ . i ,i~~ t n I" I P,=jl !H~'il ; . . ! ~ I"i.lihg I . . ~ !i...... ~ ; I!;. Id"d: ~ a iih i.llg 'I . . .:<1 .dhh.g "' ~ ~ J: 8 ~ i I · i. I ~ "i i · . ! I ; I p I Hi I ; I~~i I I ! : :i I It . = ;; ~ f I :I~;!II~ , = I ~~. i i ~ id ~~ I i.1 i ~ .~. s! . ~ h i ~ h 5 "=. .". I i II. ,a, r = h = i t i! I ai. i i =1 ~ I ~ 5nd~H ~ h L 'f ~~ .i. I II . Ii h h HI it f i; I i · i i i 5 i~ ~i l. to! . . III . e ,I = i ~ i I .,~ i I i = I · h. Ii. ; ~ II ~q d P . ~. ~.! II ~ _ - I I "'= "1 If. · S . · I Ii .,!h ide q !I I i~ l.iH Hi i! . . i i " .i~ ~. · !!. ; '!i..:U ;. r.ll . i . Utlil.a.AE :I:': "I . 1> :; ~ I:lBfUU:tt..f ~ .' ----,.....-(. . ~ , - - --- ',q (r ---'r'- - - - ~==..-- _.- '<'t. ~. ~.-=;, <. I': -...-------~ M .'_ \ -". Q:J,' ! . '- I ~ I ;'1 I \ -..-.". .' ,'c; \" I , . ;;1 '" I ~l '1lJ..- \\, r-r-i '~'- \ : ~J: -rl ' 4 I 1'----- ,--+- 1, '..l.,./ 00- ~ ". I L._ --+- : 2 '''-I ?' t. \. I f--. I I gl. ;:k:: ~, ~ ' "r--. ----r- . '< :: 0 I -. I ,II r = =F i . I ': ,,' I I or -=r= I I J+-! 0 I o~- u= _ .' I ..' Ii 1- ~... '. 1:P. '" \ \ I ,i ~ I 1 \ / I Ir(,~u!:~rH Uif . \ O~;: fElluUtUllr/ltHlf.UUfHUj : \ f ~ ,UI.,U'" I , 1 ....... ,..,.. / , , _ ...........".... f " .. IIU'-.ltUftfUll \ I E E UHr.tJUrrr: \ , t: · "".. , I 'e, \ I . \ \ I'll ' I ~. \. -II, \ U' \ ~ I 'I : 1\ E I .: cl: I ,II!~ -- .', i i I I: ~ ---.--1 , I!.'. .. Il ii, I: ~. -'-'-~\ i '. \ i Ig ---,--1 .1,(., 'I .. J I " I' I Ii' I:; 'u, I. 'lJ I' 'I ~ : t -- ..--i I (--.11 ~ .J; \1 '.--1;\!: U. , ,:::;;. Ira' r'~'" : ~i I I! - I i a.. - c'~=j ,,~I [ ] I' 0 , --' ;",1. !i '=.' ...... I.. ',! \ '" [~~I ... ~ 'I I. )! t'--. g '1 ,1__, ': 1 l-___ . , I' , . \ ~ " I \: i: I -, I, ': \ '. ! ! ,-\---., l~ - i I I; .c: ,\ ': I . ;! e : I ~) I I :! ,I ~ t. '~tU~ -r ~ I: ~ 1-1 . ~ I , I { 1\ \ i Y:./ \ l ~ ,./ .--------- ----- I U' .9 or- or- \..~~~ '\-, ..'...... '" ~ U "\0 i:::::.- ' n.,.....! O.'~:- .~ ,-om ----- ......_-~,...~\.''\. . /::::.::------ \\\'\ \'\ \\\ ""\....) "\;....>l:~,. /" \ \. \, :<'......... 'x/" \, // '\" \, '\ :' \, \........'\\. -----, -_.~ ~. ",1 \\ , .'\\ I. , ! \1 ~ / \, .~-_/ \\ =-! .../ -J :r fXI-I18Fr 15 s ~ , ~ r\\ ((1 \J , VJ(\ \~~ \.J\:t .t ~ r\ ; .......".'''..........''- .~-' z o - I- - Q C c( 0: ~:;f;~~~~ ;~. :1 .~~~i~~~~ ~i~ ,;,-;:. c:. ;~;' g~g, ':..~J~~~~~-;~. - ClI_":'_-.: l~~~~:i:i.G; ':~:~r:r:;i.i. .!;'; .~o:o~:_~.~v.; :i!~ J _'~c.~~~oo.. ~~.. c::le- ....,~~;:... :!f.o ~."'u~;~~~~..r~ ~~~: ~:!.i.;~-::'!r~~~ ~.;~ ~.~~~~~~~;;~:- ~C~ !r~:~.;; :~~~ ~~: ~ ...:; ~!: ::!i'.~:::,!:::: - ~~ .~. C _#.._c I~~~ !;;J~~rji~l~~; .:ot. .to ".. ~ 'II. 0;' .:,.... . s: f; a: e ~ i : : i ~.. : ~ ~ s; Clot.-.::..... ,;, aa... ",-ev- C~!Q!~:~~~:~~: ~~:: !~~j.:~;~;~~::'~ :~~: ..''::1''".,) ...0..: ~...~ t:"'~!i:f::~'~ii I=~~ ~'~..i,fjQ:.~i:~:;. loG_a :. - ..: ,.. '" ;,,: J' ., .. c ~:lc:-.:':.~~- 'Q~.. 'i...~...~oo~~=.,,: ~:l: ~~~:~=~:.;~~:~ .-:~ oJ ... c , . .: .. I; III 0 . II ~. "Jl oc... -..~-.. u. r. .. .. .. ;. II. . . J .:." . ~.... ...1JI,,_.o "'C. 1M.. .." .. .,.. l. ..... ...... ~!I;. i".O:;:~:~'~.: ,!&~: ~ :~"roc;~:;.~ ..l ~ ~;;~,.~~:~..:~., ;Aid :~=~~(~1i~~l:: ~!': .~~~~t ~.~I'o; ~ c. ...U ~...~ ..'U r~!~ ~::~!or!~;5:;i ~tc; uu~l:~.!l~ 3'- .rit."z ..._.",,_.0 .:l ~~E,.;.~~~It::.~ ~~~: ,~~i!iirij ~S! .....0 .......-..u-..- ca.. '1. .i ; ~:. o " . . 1. : i ,~ ,~ ~~ :; ~ l~]: '.I ,', , . , . '. ~, ..~ ' . '''':~ .~; ~; i-i'': .. 9 . : ; cZ , < i ; ;~ !~ :;1- - - -F'oO oz. ~ ,...... ~ g" ---- ,-- 1:' of: -" ~ : :- ... , I ~:I ! i ~~I , . . .. , . ~ 0 . ; , . C' ~,- ". , , :. 1: ~ Ihj . ,. r., ...- o ~'i::.1 t: .:t~:; ;!~ ~ z~;~ .. , a. a. _. ~ ; 'i:.: ~ l i ~ : H lLi ;~:; i~fI; ~iii ., I. .,. i: :: E~~; : 10 : ~ ; ~ i , : . ~ ; i :~~n'! :~;~; '. - . - ..: .C,.: I' :g)o,-~ 1lo.t:; ~ l' W" "0\111 : ~ ~.! ~ -0' 'a.: ~ ,~;: ' . , . < "-'. ~"..'.:'o :~~~ '. ~ .. i"~~ E~~~~ ..li~'.i !:::~~ 0,.1i >~\I; :0;-':; -j=il ~d .; ..,;.1 . . . . .\' i ~ ~ ~ in f~ ~~ '.' ;{!; ;;~:; , J.: ~i l~.: ,- :.':)'-j :-: r I; , ." t - 1,. ....1 : I : I .. .. ~:,..~ 1 ,~- 1 ~,. ~ ~: ,I ;' ,.~ I".' .,: ~d: ~ :,"; -', ~~ 01..... . (I ) It; 10 ./' 'Ill" IN, .... .,I.t; .., ,.., l J..I oo'.,l" .....J.....I to ,..l.1.5o.t_ HUlON c.)ooc!t; Q a: - :J: I- I- o ...J \ I ~I ...._L ~ c( c r~ J' : .... Il, ~... ' :~:~ ; ~ n ~ Ii ~:t ,;.~ ~:~;.~ ;~~ E~ 1- - :"; "N ~~J~ : ;;~ l' ~ . , . ; .. ., ~ '. . ! , } ; ~ : . . ; ; S . h , : , L - " ,11 . ~ j~: ~~~3 :'1 r- ; . "l "'j "') ,I .., ", to" ~ .r; lu oz 9 LO'Lno ~ Ol : ~i., ~.~ i ----..~~~~ ...-------', J. ,_. ;.: I : =.. _....: .; 0 I I - ~ ~ ' I ,'", ;::... I : I ~ ~ I ~-;f...''''' "'!. I C\J I. f~-.'. ' . ,.- ~ : ~. ! .tJ ~ ::. ~ : ~ >.......J 0 I I ."" ;.-..... ~ ~ I I t/) ~;:.._.~~~~ 10 W 8:"..1"::,~:g Ii ....1/ 'it ';' L- .~/ ~z I r:: 5 .:~ I ~ / ~ :":: ~~2 a...;;::: ,-3 ~~ r- ~ 'II" ," , Uj 9 "0 '.: ... " ~ .~ -J.,"V"" 3,,:I~ ,,~ W u ,~,,\u~'j;"~ ~ ,~>- Er"'l , . , . . . . . ., , :J' .... ,.... . .. . . . L , ., ~ ~ :~ ~ i . .- . . ,. Q o r"' - - - -- _0..;";0 ~6'''':':'' --_ ----wI (:0 , ,) )~Ii, I- o ...J Y: U o ...J m ~ 3: U o ...J m I i 0 l... ~i. g ,g ~~L: I: 0 !.e ~l. I~: I ".IIt I~ I I i~ i '~:'~ I I I.. I I>l I. or : :; T I'%~I I~ '1:;j9' :n -~al .. j ..,. :'I:: I~ 'ON H'f'S'J --- '--'- I ~ 'ON H\1'S'::; o .t - e::l= :r.a we I-ct , I , . I~ .. I t:J "':t:- I ~ ,. :~~~ :1 ~f j . E 1 ~~" '-, - t ~ .. ! ,.j : ,A :~ i .~ . ~;~:: .......z'" ;::i '.~lll!l I~"" a~J: !i:?i ~ ! ~.. ~;: ta ~~; ~: ." N~ t2 :::~- ~..... iS~ f=c~ ~~, --. -.oQ =z~ =all ds i~~ l!lUl!l::'" ,.-- ; . '.. go ~; .' W' ..z ;;. ~! -..) .~.. !~~ ... ._, :.~ .. "-j- -, ~... ,;; z , ~ . L.... ~!~ ............ ~!~ o.c "", ~II - ~---- ..(,;ia CS',..."" .. I /1 OZ"9C\ il/'\. +h 0:2 ,-' ..~~o:. a-.~! -~~~~ ~i~~ ug~;: ;!2:~ ~!: ~!U~ at MEMO TO: LARRY THOMPSON, ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: DAKOTA COUNTY ESTATES III, P.D.D. DATE MAY 30, 1985 The Planning Commission at a special meeting held on May 7, 1985 discussed verbal comments on Dakota County Estates III from City Engineer Glenn Cook and written comments from Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District and Parks Director Bell. It was the consensus of the members present that the second major north/south street east of Pilot Knob Road should follow the alignment of the north/south drainage ditch. Jack Benedict agreed to revise the PUD and subdivision accordingly. The Commission also recommended that the proposed bike path in the current city application for a LAWCON/LCMR park grant should ultimately connect with the bike path already dedicated for park purposes in Dakota County Estates I. The developer has shown a dedicated route from the before mentioned drainage way along proposed streets in the plat to the path dedicated in the first plat. The Commission also discussed some unsuitable lot arrangements which the developer also agreed to change. Late commentary from the Dakota County Surveyor indicated that the County Platting Commission objected to the access on Pilot Knob Road because it was too close to a similar access in Dakota County Estates I. The staff and the developer were able to meet with the County Engineering staff to explain that the design was determined by the access road already platted in the Terra Subdivision. We were able to point out that one cross intersection would be better for traffic movement than two "T" intersections. It is now believed that the Platting Commission will approve the access as proposed. y. /, V\ The developer has indicated to the Planning Gommi.s,s.;i.en.that the first phase of the subdivision will include approximately ten acres in the northwest corner of the development. This will involve one shopping/service station and two 16 unit apartment buildings. The understanding Of die (;omm~ss~on ana-the staff was that portions of one north/south street and two east/west streets would be constructed within this first phase. The strength of a convenience commercial center at this site is the ability of persons moving into Dakota County Estates I and II to use the shopping center without driving on Pilot Knob Road. Currently the developer is contemplating a plat with no road access to Dakota County Estates I. The planning staff does not favor this approach. I would suggest that. it would be well to discuss this change in approach now in case .the City Council has strong feelings one way or another. The Planning Com- mission has forwarded Dakota County Estates III P.D.D. and preliminary plat to the City Council with the recommendation that it should be approved. , ~ If/, 4 U\.. ~ . ..J~ It.( Charles Tooker, Planner CT/mh q'!lIC/TC AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT dated , 20_, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation (referred to herein as "City"), and , a (referred to herein as "Developer"). RECITALS A. Developer owns property situated in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota County Estates Third Addition. B. By Resolution R5-86, adopted February 3. 1986, the City approved the Final Plan of Dakota County Estates Third Planned Unit Development (PUO) and the Final Plat for Dakota County Estates Third Addition (plat), recorded as document 729374 on June 11. 1986 in Office of the Dakota County Recorder. c. Developer desires to redevelop Lot 1, Block 1 of the Plat and to amend the PUD to reflect the redevelopment. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1 1. Request for Approval. Developer has asked the City to approve a planned unit development amendment for Lot 1, Block I of the Plat. 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves an amendment to the PUD to redevelop Lot 1, Block I of the Plat subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement. 3. Plans. The City grants approval to the redevelopment of Lot 1, Block 1 of the PUD in accordance with the following plans which are on file at Farmington City Hall. The plans are not attached hereto. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the plans shall controL The plans are: Plan A - Site Plan Plan B - Grading and Landscape Plan Plan C - Utility Plans and Specifications Plan D - Elevations Plan E - Sign Plan 4. Terms of Site Development. The Subject Property shall conform to the following minimum requirements: A. Building Area - The building shall not exceed a footprint of 4824.5 square feet. B. Building DesignlMaterials - The building design and materials will be consistent with that ofthe elevation plan and building details approved by the City CounciL C. Parking - A minimum of 32 standard parking stalls and a minimum of 2 handicap accessible parking stalls will be maintained and used for commercial use by customers, vendors and other visitors to the Subject Property. D. Landscaping - Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, the Landscape Plan will meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the City's Landscape Ordinance. 2 E. Sidewalk - The Developer will be responsible for the construction of the sidewalk along English Avenue. F. Trash Enclosures - The Developer will provide one (1) trash enclosure that will be constructed with the similar materials as proposed for the main structure. G. Compliance with the recommendations contained in the City Planner's report dated October 12, 2004 and the City Engineer's Report dated 5. Zoning The following land uses are a permitted use under this Agreement: a. Convenience Store with Gas The following land uses are conditional uses under this Agreement, requiring a conditional use permit in accordance with the process outline in the City's Zoning Ordinance: a. All conditional uses authorized under the B-1 Limited Business District Zoning Classification Any other uses not included above will require either: (i) an amendment to this Agreement approved by the City Council. 6. Compliance with Permit and Licenses. It is the responsibility of the Developer to obtain and comply with all necessary approvals, permits, and licenses from the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Health, and any other regulatory agency affected by or having jurisdiction over the site. All costs incurred to obtain said approvals, permits, and licenses shall be the responsibility of the Developer. 3 7. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. Developer represents to the City that the proposed redevelopment complies with all applicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and regulations. 8. Enforcement. Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within sixty (60) days after receipt. Bills not paid within sixty (60) days shall be subject to an eight percent (8%) per annum interest charge. 9. Miscellaneous. A. Breach of any material term ofthis Agreement, including noncompliance with the approved Plans specified in Paragraph 3 by Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, issuance of stop work orders, suspension or revocation of certificates of occupancy, or other remedies available to the City. B. If any material portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Amendment Agreement is for any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge brought by Developer, their agents or assigns, the City may, at its option, declare the entire Agreement null and void and approval of the final planned unit development shall thereby be revoked. C. The action or inaction of any party shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties, and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement after expiration of time in which the work is to be completed shall not be a waiver or release. 4 D. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded in the Dakota County Recorder's office. E. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors, or assigns, as the case may be. F. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. G. Except as otherwise specified herein, Developer shall pay all costs incurred by them or the City in conjunction with the development of the PUD, including but not limited to Soil and Water Conservation District Charges, legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the plat, the preparation of this Agreement. H. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. 10. Notices. Required notices to Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand-delivered to , its employees or agents, or mailed to by registered mail at the following address: Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand-delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: Farmington City Hall, 325 Oak: Street, Farmington, Minnesota 55024. CITY OF FARMINGTON 5 By: Gerald G. Ristow, Mayor And David M. Urbia, City Administrator CONVENIENCE STORE INVESTMENTS By: Edward G. Strahs, Presidenti of Convenience Store Investments, Inc. General Partner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20_, by Gerald Ristow and David Urbia, the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf ofthe corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ( ss. COUNTY OF LA CROSSE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20_, by Edward G. Strahs, President of Convenience Store Investments, Inc., General Partner of Convenience Store Investments, a Wisconsin limited partnership. Notary Public 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20_, by Gerald G. Ristow and David M. Urbia, the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf ofthe corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,20_, by , the of , a , on behalf of said Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: 651-452-5000 JJJ 7 "IONI- II0RTH ELEVA 1I0tl ... ..re-. 'NEST ELEVA TlCII KWIK TRIP STORES FARI\IINCiTON. !\IN =:r~l?~ h' I.'" 6'xJ;/;;-I.[) (0\' .'L."H(",\'UF\ ...... - ~ = NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION KWIK TRIP STORES FARMINGTON, MN ~, ~ ~ ......... ~ ~\ '\1 ,mr,K -.'" KWIK TRIP .. STORES ~. i ; t, L EXf!J!}/T E LJ 'V10S3NNIW 'N01~NIWH'V~ 'M 'lS ce~ H3ddn 'I ~C "MH 'UN:> I~ ~~ NV1d OIlU3Vt10J.OHd 3HOJ.S 30N3IN3^NOO L J Hi;:,g~~ ;;.:.; ;; .: ;. "6\';J.:!Plfl.S pkh-:~~~ ;. ;. ;. ;. ;. ,. .. ..., :: ~ ;. , .: , .= , ;. ,.,." J..:;' } } \ " \~. ;;;;:, ;,; ; , " " '"I'" ,.,; '. ~\ I~ ~:~ \\ I- - -. ~\ \\ . ~ I '\\ "\ I~ ~ II \~\ \ :: ~1I1; ~ \ \ I I I ~ \ \ I I I \ \ \ \ I I I \ \ \..J I I \ \-::__--------'-J \c- \ \ \ OJ I"w ~ ! ! ! ! ! . i i ~ Ii I i .1 I- I" I il ; ! ! .1 ; ! ; n ~ I I , P- . . i r'~ '!I H ~ h'~ !~, d h IS II~il In .,! il bfl lib 1m !n 1m ;;; ci z ~ :I: ci u t ~ , ~ ~. l' i' l t' t ~;<lIlgl( F Ll 11:; ~~ u:r "'~OSllNNIVI 'NO~:lNIVlY"'~ ~'J!ll I ~ (JJ i~:; 'M .~S e8~ Yllddn 'I ~e AMH ',uNO E-<r-' iill!' ~ ;~;~ 3110.LS 30N3IN3^NOO Ulil~ "'1 00(; !{*~ a=11~ ~ IIIII N"9"d 3d"9'OSON"9" 'WI1311d mli~ !llllll ..l. , WI I .... J. ~ I . ~ ~ ~~ - ~~ i~ I .~! I i .~:. ~~;~! a'. ~ _ .!.i . :'1" hI . Ie .......... St!ic....1 lill "ill"" _, ~I ~! i. I ~i ;. ~;!~ ~ ..., .. ~ ... I::: iii d. . o' hi, ul I O. U 0.-1 I ~ -!II nr: , .r. !l ~ DI ; I n~~ I.!! III i I:i!~ ,:~i In ~ e... !~i! m . !:~.~ !:~~ ..- \ ~J Ilj g~i n 'M .l331U.5 PJEQll:13ddn ~... ~ ....'\ ;;> \ \ < ~ e % ~ %U j~ LD u~ ~i l . t . i ~ ! ~n = ;;;: OJ U _ I- t!' ... <( D ~ ::; ~ ~ !z I :t :5 g n. ! l i ! ;-I! d~. o. j!' I illi! ~ i .~;~ n ~3. i!il iil ~ . RI1.~;~ .11 ~hll; I ~ ~jS!~!~ ~.o ~.t: ~~~ ~ i ;I;;'i~ dl If! If i .fl~!.i ~ i, OI~D h~~. lii.!!~~, ;.! ij.-S h~i~ D'!.= ~'I ~s~ !Oi~ f~siil~~fa~l~i~ f~! .11: ~i~i~!;;;~~!~iL~il; iii~. 11~IJih'~'I;d~a.a ';j!3 ahoil~hl'U;;~h;jii ~!i1 l!l eC-::tYe ::s a:.I"'a!!!~ U ."'llllaul' ,,!- S". . I -Eo 8(0'0" .'.Ii" i~~~!~! h~jii~ii!i~hsl h=Ms ~d;i!'~h5:ni~ Ullmm!,dUiilmU ; 5" ~ '~f~ "9_ ~ ~ . e~ 0 ; is. i-~ . t . I~! e & 0.-1 .h ! 'w! '~t ).t .!:. :'z ~ lii.~~~ i Ii i: !ii~ Ui I i!"~" . e- .g~' ..= " hll~~ I ~i OJ! ~i~& "! i ~:I~i.; ~~ ii ~in "!" f ~H~gl._ .. i" ~!I~ j5u ! ~:hlnf ~ES .~ H' ~d I ih= f~! i~! ~i n:~ !Ii. i ~5i~~'i: ~~! gi Ei!! i~!i ~ 1"fUII liS io '~.- I n i ~jiiie~i l~t~~i ~=ii I~u j il;oi!~.:~;.gu; ~e~o .~.~ ~ .!iS~!!!;gi.~Us~'~'~ ~~'~ d!lo '~~MI~h~aUi~:.i'!1 '"' .1.. 8 "!5t ;j!:~.. is !iii ~i!::oCL !:~ 1,1~lt~i~-".~~i~h~il~i~1 10/07/2004 15:49 FAX 608 781 8960 KWIK TRIP I4J 002 ".::.,::~ '..'. '."",="' :;' .:....::. 'd -F,:~; : . -~[.- . ,......;..:. .-. , ~:,:.~:?~\ ..~~'~. ,;. '-' t j'1I/l} l-r' ': if , E . . ..... ..... r_ _..:..~ ......,..'.. '-, . :11":. :;;:J:.;..:.,_._,. ..;;: ':.. :'L~:~7.";~:"-::'''',::"" ~ :.~~;.. :.~'r::it";~~: .:~.: .~~~:,~.-..; ", "" :,,; '; ,'''",;" .::,~ " . ,',.. . ',. ~~~Ii!~~~slio.re.. ..... ..... j.', ..;~::::it ..3~~f~, , '- "".,'~ ':-~:;': . 7:7:::: ~ -,.- i " I ,i I t. ,. f. r t ! j t I ~ [ I t j o ~ . .' " .~ 6 ..... ~ ,.... 0, r , r , ~'. ... :;ff.i'=:;"i 'I;";';;":';'~ '. ,. . '.< i s-ea f!<:'3IB"" "'1' '-:;:'~:~,.-~; '~)j),:~::_, .~: ~1fIl"'~EJ>:* irmngtn . . . . . -';" '.... IOc::z, 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, ;/)),/jj /J City Administrator ~, vv ! FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat DATE: November 1,2004 INTRODUCTION New Century, on behalf of the Knutsen family, submitted a preliminary plat on August 27, 2004 for Vermillion River Crossing located at the southwest intersection of CSAH 50 and Denmark Avenue (see Exhibits A and B). The property is zoned Spruce Street Commercial (SSe) and Park/Open Space (POS). The property consists of 60 acres, of which approximately 40 acres is developable. DISCUSSION Existing Conditions Site topography is generally flat in the northern western section of the property and rises in elevation near the southwest until the topography falls off to the Vermillion River along the southern property line. The easterly portion of the site is lower in elevation than most of the property. The property is bounded by C.S.A.H. 50 on the north, Dakota County maintenance facility to the west, Denmark Avenue to the east, and the Vermillion River and agricultural land to the south. Wetland areas do exist along the south and southwestern portion of the property. Dakota County Surveyor, Todd Tollefson, submitted a letter to the City on September 23, 2004 from Dakota County Attorney, Mike Ring, concerning a permanent easement for wetland purposes to the east of the gas pipeline easements. That letter is attached as Exhibit C. The City does not foresee this permanent easement as an obstacle to the approval of the preliminary plat since the easement lies outside of the developable property on the plat. A flood plain currently exists on the easterly portion of the property. DISCUSSION Section 11-3-2 of the Farmington Subdivision Code requires that the subdivider provide specified types of information needed for the review and processing of a preliminary plat. Upon review of the Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat, staff determined that the plat met the requirements in the above- mentioned sections of the code, and therefore, set a public hearing for the plat for September 28, 2004. The following comments are based on the preliminary plat submitted: 1. Right-of-way on C.S.A.H. 50 and Denmark Avenue - The original preliminary plat did not show the right-of-way on C.S.A.H. 50 and Denmark Avenue that is owned by the Knutsen family. On October 27,2004, the Developer's surveyor submitted a revised preliminary plat that shows the previously-omitted right-of-way (see Exhibit A). 2. Minimum Lot Size - According to the Zoning Code, the minimum lot size in the Spruce Street Commercial zoning district is one (1) acre (43,560 square feet). The original preliminary plat included a lot located at the northwest corner of the Knutsen property that was approximately 12,610 square feet, approximately 30,950 square feet less than the 1 acre minimum lot size requirement. The revised preliminary plat (Exhibit A) now shows a larger lot, which complies with the Code. . 3. Proposed Lot Acreage and Uses Lot 1 Block 1 2.14 acres Convenience Store Lot 2 Block 1 1.50 acres Retail Lot 3 Block 1 1.49 acres Retail Lot 4 Block 1 1. 72 acres Automotive Lot 5 Block 1 4.06 acres Retail Lot 6 Block 1 1.15 acres Retail Lot 7 Block 1 6.27 acres Large Retailer Lot 8 Block 1 2.30 acres Retail/Mixed-U se Lot 1 Block 2 1.14 acres Retail Lot 2 Block 2 1.01 acres Retail Lot 3 Block 2 1.80 acres Fast Food Lot 4 Block 2 2.34 acres Retail Lot 5 Block 2 1.81 acres Hotel Lot 6 Block 2 2.79 acres Retail/Mixed-U se Outlot A 21.48 acres Storm W ater/W etlands Outlot B 2.34 acres Wetlands Outlot C 0.73 acres Town Square 4. Transportation and Pedestrian Access The plat shows three accesses along CSAH 50. The westerly and easterly accesses are right- in/right-out accesses. The central access is a full intersection (an access currently exists to the north into the Northern Natural Gas property). The fourth access (Spruce Street) is located along Denmark A venue and will be a full intersection. The accesses were reviewed and approved by the Dakota County Plat Commission on September 20, 2004. Sidewalks are proposed throughout the plat including both sides of the north/south public street. However, sidewalks need to be added on one side of the private streets. 5. Comments from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources/Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District submitted letters concerning the preliminary plat as shown in Exhibits D and E. Both agencies have requested that the City not approve the preliminary plat until their issues have been resolved. The City Engineer and other staff have been working to resolve these issues. The Developer's engineer, Bob Wiegert, has prepared a memo dated October 26,2004 (Exhibit F) in which he explains changes that he proposes to make to address concerns that have been expressed by the DNR, the Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District, and others. Several state and local agencies were in the process ofreviewing Mr. Wiegert's memo at the time that the City Council's agenda packet for the November 1st meeting was being prepared. City staff members do not currently know whether the affected agencies have found Mr. Wiegert's proposed plat revisions to be acceptable. If the agencies provide written comments prior to the finalization of the agenda packet, those comments will be included in it. If written comments arrive later, they will be delivered to you or distributed at Monday night's meeting. Agency representatives may also be in attendance at Monday night's meeting to provide verbal comments. [See attached letter dated October 28, 2004 from Mr. Brian Watson of the Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District. (Exhibit K)] ISSUES TO BE REVIEWED AT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW STAGE As stated in Section 10-6-23 of the Farmington Zoning Code, a formal site plan review and approval is required upon the proposed "construction of new structures" on "vacant undeveloped land." Therefore, each Lot within the proposed Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat needs to be reviewed through the formal site plan process by the Planning Commission after the final plat is approved but prior to construction. The plat is considered a "Major Project" and will be reviewed during the formal site plan process under Section 10-6-23 (E) of the Farmington Zoning Code that is attached to this packet as Exhibit G. Additionally, the developer will be required to comply with Section 10-6-21 (Exhibit H) of the Farmington Zoning Code concerning the Design Standards for the Spruce Street Commercial zoning district that is also attached to this packet. As shown in the attached code requirements, a number of issues need to be reviewed including but not limited to the following items: 1) Parking space needs 2) Handicap parking space needs 3) Landscaping 4) Refuse/loading areas 5) Lighting 6) Sidewalks/Trails 7) Grading 8) Building elevations - Floor plans 9) Fire protection plan 10) Site amenities 11) Signage plan 12) Variances to City Standards 13) Conditional Use Permits Along with the above items, the following items need to be discussed in detail at the site plan review stage: 1. Front Yard Setback - According to the provisions for the Spruce Street Corridor zoning district, at least 50% of the front face of a structure must be located within 20 feet of a public street right- of-way or private street edge. As shown on the plans, the proposed structures fronting C.S.A.H. 50 are not located within 20 feet of the right-of-way. The purpose of this provision is to create a streetscape within the entire Spruce Street Commercial zoning district that is similar to the existing downtown (with building fronts close to the road). The concept of buildings fronting C.S.A.H. 50 is not provided for in the Spruce Street Commercial district. If the plans for each lot along C.S.A.H. 50 represent a desirable development pattern, a variance from the setback requirement would be necessary. 2. Conditional Uses - The following proposed uses are conditionally allowed in the Spruce Street Commercial zoning district and therefore would require a conditional use permit: . Convenience Store . Hotel . Fast Food Restaurant The conditional use permits may be applied for at the same time as the review of the site plan. 3. Parking Spaces - Exhibit I is a parking analysis for each lot within the development. As shown in the analysis, most of the lots show a shortage of parking spaces. The Developer needs to meet parking space requirements for each lot, or a variance would need to be applied for at the site plan review stage. Staff is currently reviewing the City's parking standards to determine whether the existing requirements are appropriate for some of the proposed land uses in the development. Staff will present its findings to the Planning Commission when completed. 4. Landscaping - According to the Zoning Code concerning perimeter parking lot landscaping, the requirement is 1 tree and 3 shrubs for every 40 feet of parking lot perimeter is required. The Developer will need to meet these requirements for each lot at the site plan review stage. 5. Sidewalks/Trails - According to the Spruce Street Design Standards, sidewalks are required on both sides of streets. The City's Development Committee has recommended that on private streets, one sidewalk would be required along the private street. These sidewalks need to be shown on the plan. Randy Distad, the Parks and Recreation Director submitted a detailed trails plan to the developer showing trails throughout the development. These trails need to be shown on the trails/landscape plan. 6. Street Lighting - According to the Spruce Street Design Standards, any light along the perimeter of parking lots and streets shall be installed as illustrated in the City's standard detail plate as "streetlight - downtown district" (see attached Exhibit J). 7. Site Amenities - Per Section 10-6-21 of the Zoning Code, the Spruce Street Design Standards require 1 amenity for every 10 acres of developable area. Therefore, the Developer needs to provide 4 amenities within the development. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt a resolution approving the Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat if all unresolved issues have been addressed to the City Council's satisfaction by the time of the Council meeting on November 1, 2004. Any such resolution should include the following contingencies: 1. Final design of the infiltration basins including the proposed installation of vegetation needs to be reviewed by the MPCA and Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation. 2. The Preliminary Plat approval is contingent on the approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. Respectfully submitted, Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Pederson Ventures RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT VERMILLION RIVER CROSSINGS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 1 st day of November, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the preliminary plat of Vermillion River Crossings is now before the Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held for the preliminary plat on September 28, 2004 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 City Council reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above preliminary plat be approved with the following stipulations: 1. Final design of the infiltration basins including the proposed installation of vegetation needs to be reviewed by the MPCA and Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation. 2. The Preliminary Plat approval is contingent on the approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 1 st day of November, 2004. Mayor Attested to the _ day of November, 2004. City Administrator ,~ J~ w~ ", -- ~.-,- I I I i l ti . w ~- (f) l..9" Z I I--l I (f) I (f) I 0 I 0::: I U I 0::: I W I > I I--l I IT I I Z I 0 I I--l I ~ I ~ H I :L I IT I W I > I I ~I i= ff) w > ... 1;; 3nN3^V: i ... LLE M E~..~..OH I )\~VWN30 -; '.. h! m - . . w'i iil' . :h ~~ . ~ -1B$;~=~~~ ?fi!~H~.~ :~: !Hlli~:..s /~~~, II s!i; ;' . ~!; ",:' \; - ~~~liI ;C~~!. ~, f, ....:: t-':1-' ~:~fi Ii it:i-:: ,J,g~.!lil..oH g..'06 K O~ .ea.~ON '" N I- W W ... a: l- I- ff) a --l I- :::> a I I- C\J ..... C\J o lD !:!l f ; ~ ;; , I I 01 ZI I 1 I I >-' <1:1 >1 1:51 HI II I 1 I I 01 ~I:; 1. I' .I~ I' I' WI' I;;;: I~ I- 1 ff)1 I I III I \\\. IUJ' .. >- Ill).-I; r- I~N.J Z ....If}. 6 ~d:~ UI1- I : r II : I II I II : I II 1- 4- ~I :1 0 il ~ --t-J I CD I r-i I Q.. I I ::::>-. I L I CD I C .r-! I E I .r-! I r-i I OJ I L I Q.. I I I I \ \ \ \ .i!IItl'1 iI.li,.,lION .cr iii ~./. '''.01'1.., (T) 1'1'0llI 1I.ID,LO.lION N lI'lIDi 1I.ID,tD.OlIN (T) n.... "'... N , ,; , ...... iI.A,a.DIII z ~~ ~ ~ ,,,, ..... ~ ,\ ~ [f'l~J M.99.9€.OOS Z a ..... I- CL W U x W r- -------------- till.. III U . U U ~~~~ ~;;~i1i "';"';"';N .. I' NNNN ~~li .K.x,x.x NOll(1 uuuuuu ~~~.s~.2'I'1 mCDlDmmCD.cmuO ....niri..;.;w~~~~ ~....~....~.................... .3.3.9.9.9.9.3aaa Il'J Il'J .. .. . Il'J .. . ~~~i~~ti~ ;j~:5~::~ I I I I . . I I ".x.xJiC.x,x.x.)C.)C Uluuuuuuuu m a 0 a a 0 0 0 0 "'............................. t.,mmmCDlI:Jmmm c(....nicri..;ariui...:1Ii ~55555:35j ,.. ! <.. ~ 0 ., ~ .... .5 <.. .. => ~ '" " ~ vi 0 .... ~ 0 ~ , '" " c <.. , '" ,.. ., .. ., ~ 0 '" <.. .... " => <.. 0 Ul "<r 0 '" Z '" ~ " <> C <> ., ., .. '" i: ~ CO <> ...J c ~ .. ~ N ,.: '0 a: c '" .... .... '" .... .e i ::l " 5 " <.. " 5. " '" Ul " :I: ., => ., a ~ r .. 0 ~ '" ,.. E " .... <.. .... c a '" <.. Ul ~ ., ~ '" u a ., l- X '" e ~ ., 0 <.. iii a. -g Ol '" '0 '" ;.:. to "Ii: c e III ~ .... ~ a: ~ <.. " I '" .... .s ., '" ~ a " '" '" >< i "<r <.. .... Ul .. ~ a '" a '" ~ ~ <.. '" .. l- e e a. to Ul '" ~ Ul Ul 1i! '-' a: .... "<r W ~ i:; " " '" .. a: <.. '" " .... S oUl z fu ~E '" E ~ to ;.:.'" 15 ."<r '-' '" ,..~ ",CD a: <.. ~.... I W ::J+'u....1D > +1UJCrol ctuO>o .,z '" ; U IUmru to....... ., 3:.........-1 aN mOl:::J aID " a. ZlDUlctOl => <.. ,.. a ~ ~ Ul .s ~ ~ Co -:;; .. c <.. e a. 0 N bff/8/TA ru a. " ~ ru ....0 ....CO ;:;In 0", CD:: "- .... ~ a. . . . . . . <..<.. <.. :il:il~ .__M~::> 11_:).1 I SSe:> S~I~ NOllIW~3^ ""'-'lIIl 8fT JZ... ., -- &/11 v ~!~ ~; }}/ - ---- ~ o eo:: ~ o~ ""'0 ""u 01- 0....... 0..... ,., eo:: eo:: ~ 0..1- Z ........" lJ..... Z ~~ O .." eo:: -0.. N c.:s.." U'; "'9~ <l / /,/.},! ill! -------- ---.-- 0 -----.:-..-..---- . t , , (<'>~~::>~ -----:...~:.::-.. ,,\: ,_::::::::':::-:::-_::.:--;;.-:_~----._-. . ""--'-"""010.___ _" //i// \\\\\ \\ \" \\:~\\ \~\ \\, \ \\ ,\ \ ---- ~i ~~~ ':i:1iiI ~' , ! \m._ _': 9 Ii :::'::l '" l<7.:>l\rO 1- /> II ~~. ~ ~,- ]~- .~.__.- --~ - - ._--:':'=':'":.\."':":::.-=-"=: ;:;:: SMOISlA3H MOlJ.'1:llollWlXl 31ft _.u a.m 1M51a llAlllYJ w~"ln\t"l UoOlltlW501BllSD')W0fM. N~IS3a .. :>Nlll33N'::>N3 .lNno....,- v~v d ....J.OS3lNNIW ".A3,'VA U"ldd..... .l..3~~..LS H..L9vL. "N\. SL-69 ^~n.LN3::> N\3N """"""'" ._~ ~ S~NISSC>~:::> - lH^I~ NOllIW~3^ Z ::) ....,.,.~0V'lII!:l ~ \, '\ \ c: - " . \ -,-::- - -''''1, -- --"'~~=:-----~~'-' ~~ '\ , ------__J 6 sH mH ! ! ! ~ i HI; ! : I I i i II. . ~ lln! ~ i I , " I _~_ \ 1 I } ----l. I. ii------_'~,~--i~~ / -,"; u.-" ( I ../"i : \ . ~ \, \ ~\ f- ) :/1\ ...~...... ; 1\ .._~'I- ) I" ,:' .8 ...;: I' ~ '-, ,..- / ' I (J/\: / (': \1' 3!... \ \ ~....._ II \ - , \"" \\ \I~ '" m_, " ,. -, "~i-.J' '\.-" <", '. . \ ~ r, fil on 2 'l,: '--+:-"- " II -~~;. = ~~ I~~ ",.,:=""..:a:."?_~~'\"~-_~.= ",,":_ _ .........._.._c............~...~ _..c.. SJl,OISW1H NOU,V:)l.IJllI3:l _ ~Utl 1M'l"W(l.5'f11lW ..JO\7INNI'V....,4U.CIllt UI'l5' WIIS 1INJW..... N=>IS:la ~ ::>Nlll:l3Nl:::>N:l l.N()O""'V~Vd f-L+-----m-n--- .----------- I 'I rfT....n~..~=.,~-:;...... ~ i i: - .~; ,~~~.:-,-~~~~-~----:::~:::-:::::---~--______ ,.\ [, ~I! .Ir~'", -,' ---..... '- 11; <li~i I.",,;. '-'.. ,,'.. --- - :,:.1,: :1' ~ "::"';", ii!_I"I~1 I. '. '- ' '-- -,-' II: II: ' "'i ~~ tJJi.- ;,I! I' , ' . . g" , I : 8 . " ill I 'I' , II ~I~ II I I il: : II f :11 III I" , ili I Q I , , ~ i i i ; I ~i ~ I .;- II 1"1 ~ I: : I! ! II r Ii ! il ~ II i i I I! I'\~ il Ii, .' r II: jil I ! I.! l! 'i , I. 'P ~~111 ~ III ,II ~ II , '. :~~ ~~~~- I~ ... o -' ~i; J...l.'C=l3dOC!:ld .l.J.Nno,=, 'V' J.O~C] ;~ m V.1.0S3NNIW 'A3"""^ ;J.,dd.... .l33~~S HJ.9v\... OM 51..69 ^~n.LN3:::> ^^3N - ..~~-~ ~ S~NISSC>~:::> - ~3^1~ NO"I\I'I~3^ ~_~ ...,,. iIIl1mael-/lQ,l.. "Of(.l.3DIS (II I !~I ! -- --j -------- I i III o -' 8 . Ii o -' i'i' ll!. . ~; ~ ---~--- ill; m .......LQ53NNIW "A3"""^ 01'.,.,.... J.33l1...l..S H...l..9vL .^^ SL69 .A~n..LN3:J ^^3N - s:::>N"7SSC;~::::> 117-::)1 ~3^,"ll NOllIW"ll3^ """,. aaL'fTI'l' ..~ .l.ilftP'J.1NV'i .ON ./.3:JKG " ~~. ~ ~I~- .._._.._...oan__ ..... _ d===.:.m...":l:.'l'I..-:='G''"''l ::.::.- SHOISlAJH KOlJ.'1':)l.iWlJ:':) :1<00 --.uDS9I 165t1J.lII"'-lllVJ v~'v1V..lS.IJD[UR'Wl1SJOY.)IVortl N~IS30 ~ ~Nlli33NI~N3 ..LNnO........V~Vd , '-- \ \ --- \ --_-.l. ~~ , .. t.. I.: j -Ii i I,. " i; ~ ~ ! ~ i ~ Hi! ~I tt rr ~I ii1 i Ii ---'-- 1 I ! II .1 I J- i' i ;'i ~ I I r l.~, I i III ! I ~ II '! 21'-- III ~~ 'I. i I I II: : ,i I I I: : illr 'j j I~ I : ! I I Ii: :1 . \~lii ~ : ;i! I li'!ll : I iil \, ill r- o ..J ~~ ~ll "" Il, Iii' :\1 ~gi ! I ~ 11 .J I I 8 // i / : ( I 3 I \ I \ ' \~m~ i \ <~'\ I } ~3cl~ .uNnO::l '1 J.O>I'1CJ ~i5 ~")" hhi_____ ~~I____ ~l avOll N05Ol1H ~06 ~. ...W-Wll!i'l 16U1Ull!i'l)llV~ p~ VI~"""..1i'OIllUll15'uw.SlOV)""om _. N:::>I$30 7f1' :::>NI}t3'iNI:::>N3 ,,:;:']: J..NnO"fY V ""21 V d VJ.OS..NN'......, .A3"....^ ..,dd...... ..L33~.l.S H.L9tl-L oM SL69 A~nJ..N3:J N\3N ........... .,~~_.. [g" ~ r.....H 5 5 c::> ~ :::> - ~3^1~~~~~~3^ .~ 2 A~3S~()N ~mD A311V ^ SNI3H 1--:1 .~ ..~ ....- } 1.. I'" - eJ 1.-',-- / I ~ ~ ; 0 i I - '. -./ J rti '!i' I .~ " it I / !~11l ~"II-.......: '!, : . i I .I, I :Jt~tlIJ.l 1 i . ~! ! I / . tl~*~1li5....... l~ ~t ,I .., .... .,. . o. . ~~3 ~ --- J:.._: \,~ 2 1 r"-i.1 " 1 "-1 s ~ :~_..e i ~;:~~--.i~~__i -~- ~ ! h' .." , f . ~ ~,' 3 ti! : t .~ l tit: ~ ~ ,~UI t -.~ :. 'Ii ill il. (:~:; ~ .~ . ~{~ it ita; ;! ~ i 1 if ~! ~li\ I il \ ~ : :t#. ~- r..-----.t----+----- ' ! 1101010l_<< i 0 t>... _1- ~ II \ u l H \ I -\ ~ II I ~ i {i-- 1;: ! , -I . I III o ..J a /1 ) ! j I / I : ( , ~\ ! \\m_ \ ,<"'~&, -\ .~ ~i 6 ~I; ...I b'11i ~Ii jl J.2:l3dO~d J..LNno'::;l 'V lO>lV'C E)( If 18fT C Kevin Carroll :rom: lent: (0: Subject: Jim Atkinson Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:20 AM Kevin Carroll; Lee Mann; Lee Smick FW: Plat Commission Meeting 9-20-04 fyi.. . Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner City of Farmington (651) 463-1821 -----Original Message----- From: Tollefson, Todd [mailto:Todd.Tollefson@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:13 AM To: Jim Atkinson Subject: FW: Plat Commission Meeting 9-20-04 Jim, Please see the comments from Mike Ring regarding the wetland area for VERMILLION RIVER CROSSING. Todd Tollefson County Surveyor Secretary, Dakota County Plat Commision 952-891-7070 -----Original Message----- > From: Ring, Mike > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 1:54 PM > To: Tollefson, Todd; Chatfield, Kurt; Elwood, Kristine; Franchett, Gene; McConnell, Gordon; Peters, Scott; Sebastian, Kristi; Zech, Dave > Cc: Zech, Dave > Subject: RE: Plat Commission Meeting 9-20-04 > > During our review of the proposed plat of VERMILLION RIVER CROSSING on 9/20/04, I raised an issue concerning the possibility that Dakota County obtained a wetland easement over much of the land bordering Pilot Knob Road south of CSAH 50. In checking my project file for CP 50-05 I see that we did obtain and record a permanent easement for wetland purposes over 4.41 acres from Melford and Genevieve Knutsen. That easement was recorded as document no. 1370368. The county also recorded a declaration of restrictions and covenants for replacement wetland against the same land which was recorded as document no. 1382304. I doubt the developer will be permitted to use our wetland replacement area as a settling pond for stormwater drainage purposes, unless they replace our wetlands at a 2:1 ratio. Todd, please forward this email to the planner from Farmington who attended our plat commission meeting. He will need to let the developer know that they must work through the county to resolve drainage and use issues if they intend to use any part of those 4.41 acres. > > Mike Ring > Assistant Dakota County Attorney > mike.ring@co.dakota.mn.us > > This email and any attachments are intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this email may be )roprietary, confidential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If .he reader of this email is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, the reader is hereby put on notice that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender 1 by email and delete all copies of this email along with any attachments. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tollefson, Todd > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 1:04 PM > To: Chatfield, Kurt; Elwood, Kristine; Franchett, Gene; McConnell, Gordon; Peters, Scott; Ring, Mike; Sebastian, Kristi; Tollefson, Todd; Zech, Dave > Subject: Plat Commission Meeting 9-20-04 > > See the attached agenda for the next Plat Commission meeting on September 20th. > > > <<File: agenda2004_09-20.doc >> 2 EXfll8rt D Lee Smick rom: ,ent: fo: Cc: Subject: Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us] Tuesday, September 21,20043:07 PM Lee Smick Lee Mann; watson@co.dakota.mn.us; Brian Nerbonne; Michele Hanson Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat (Spruce Street Development) Lee: I received the mailing regarding the hearing next week on the Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat. Michele Hanson and I have had only a moment to quickly review the materials, and offer the following comments for inclusion in the hearing record next week: DNR staff have met with city staff and consultants in February and March of this year to discuss potential development of this area adjacent to the Vermillion River, a designated trout stream. Our early comments and concerns focused primarily on the anticipated vehicular and trail crossings and on stormwater management. In particular, we expressed our desire to minimize the number of crossings of the channel to protect the high-quality habitat that has been documented along the stream corridor. I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate those concerns again. There are issues with floodway encroachment associated with crossings as well. Of greater concern are the likely stormwater impacts from the proposed development. The ponding/infiltration areas that are depicted on the current drawings are not much different than those which were shown in earlier drawings which we expressed concern about. We are not ;onvinced that the stormwater management as proposed will effectively mitigate the thermal _mpacts from the runoff generated by this proposed development. The automotive/service station depicted in the northwest corner of the site does not appear to have its own on-site treatment of stormwater. These types of facilities present a greater risk of contamination to receiving waters. The current plan shows that area being served by the overall site stormsewer system. This may be inconsistent with the requirements of the NPDES Phase II permit requirements. The current proposal closely resembles that which was discussed earlier this year. We were hopeful the city would encourage the incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) strategies within the Spruce Street development, particularly in light of its proximity to the sensitive and high value trout stream. The high density, high impervious surface coverage proposed is not in keeping with LID design. We respectfully request the Planning Commission consider not approving the preliminary plat until the development incorporates stormwater management strategies that will result in a measurable reduction in stormwater runoff and adequately protect the health of the trout fishery. Pat Lynch Area Hydrologist Michele Hanson Watershed Coordinator 1 EIHIS!7'[' DAKOTA COUNTY SO/L. & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center 4100 220lh Street West, Suite 102 Farmington, MN 55024 Phone: (651) 480-7777 FAX: (651) 480-7775 www.dakotacountyswcd.org ~~@~O\;g~!~) . SEP 2 I 2004 II )1 ,\ It;:; Ref.: 04-FRM-147 September 17, 2004 Lee Smick City of Farmington Planning Department 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: VERMILLION RIVER CROSSING - PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW Dear Lee: The Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) has reviewed the grading and storm sewer plans dated August 24,2004 for the above-mentioned site. We submitted comments on the Spruce Street AUAR and have had ongoing discussions about this development for the past several months. Other than the proposed water quality ponds and infiltration basins, there are no temporary or permanent erosion controls shown on the plans. The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that complies with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The information submitted does not appear to comply with the NPDES program and most importantly adequately protect water quality. Temperature mitigation and stormwater treatment will be critical elements of the SWPPP. The proposed infiltration areas do not meet standard design specifications, such as those listed in the Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual (Metropolitan Council). To function properly, infiltration basins need to meet specific design criteria. The following are a few of the concerns' that need to be addressed if the infiltration basins are going to be of beneficial use: . There should be three feet of separation between the bottom of the basin and high groundwater table. The proposed deveIbpment plans show infiltration areas where these design criteria may not be met but may be possible. . Vegetation is the key to the long-term viability and aesthetics of the proposed infiltration basins. Accordingly, the maximum depth of water within the basin should be one to two feet (depending on the plant species) with duration of no longer tha.n n hours. The plan shows no vegetation in the infiltration basins. . The bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration basins is 1.5 feet lower than the proposed Normal Water Level in the stormwater pond. How will permanent standing water in the infiltration basins be avoided? Shallow standing water will increase water temperatures. . The removal of suspended solids prior to discharge to the basins is an important component of functional infiltration basin designs. We encourage the use of vegetated filter strips or swales to provide this pretreatment. In addition to providing presettlement, these biofilters will reduce runoff and remove other pollutants as well. Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat Review 04-FRM-147 ....~-...... 2 4., . The-frt1iltration system should be designed to allow high flows to bypass the basins. The emergency spillway shown on the north infiltration basins should be eliminated and placed in the water quality pond. . Enhanced etosioncontrol measures are needed to protect infiltration basins during construction. Jhese should be specified on the plans and detail sheets. . Soil compaction should be avoided or corrected in soils used for infiltration basins. This should be specified on the plans and detail sheets. There are opportunities to reduce stormwater volumes and improve water quality discharged from the site. Bioretention, vegetated drainage swales, reduced impervious areas, and other practices are encouraged and need to be discussed. Many of these same comments were provided in the past. The Spruce Street AUAR Response to Comments and Final Mitigation Plan, dated June 2004, indicated that specific water quality protection issues would be discussed and communicated during the platting process. We expect and anticipate an increased effort by the developer to protect water quality within this portion of the Vermillion River Watershed, a designated trout stream. Compliance with the NPDES permit is uncertain and it is practical and feasible for the City to require submittal of the SWPPP prior to the City approving the preliminary plat. Accordingly, we recommend that the preliminary plat and any potential bid schedu1e be suspended until the issues noted above are addressed. You may call me at (651) 480-7777 if you have questions. (J:: tJ~~ Brian Watson, District Manager Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Cc: John Jaschke, Dakota County Water Resources Manager Pat Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist Brian Nerbonne, DNR Trout Habitat Specialists Brian Gove, "MPCA '!i" -E;(!!I!}!! P MEMO TO: Lee Mann, City of Farmington Jay Riggs, DCSWCD Todd Smith, MPCA Michele Hanson, MDNR FROM: Bob Wiegert DATE: October 26, 2004 RE: Vermillion River Crossing Farmington, Minnesota INTRODUCTION The project location is in the southwest quadrant of T.H.50 and Denmark Avenue. The proposal consists of a commercial development on the westerly forty acres of the sixty acre site. The easterly twenty acres will remain unchanged from their current condition. The proposal has been informally reviewed/critiqued by City staff for the past eighteen months. In August of 2004, an application for preliminary plat was deemed complete by City staff, and the formal review process began. BACKGROUND: Current Design ~ The six northerly lots (Lots 1-3, Blocks 1 and 3) discharge all roofrunoff and a portion of parking lot runoff to the northerly swale. This swale will have all vegetation and silty material removed and clean on-site sand installed to 1-2 inches below finished grade. An on-site sandy topsoil would be installed and then seeded. ~ The remainder of the site will discharge to two water quality ponds. The larger water quality pond discharges to the two infiltration basins. ~ Both types of basins will provide more volume than standards require. ~ The infiltration basins are separated by the water quality basin. The water quality basins are designed to be 'wet'. The bottom 18 inches and side berms will be built with either on-site silty material or imported clay. ~ The infiltration basins will have all vegetation and any silty material removed. As a minimum, excavation to the 904 elevation will occur. This elevation should encounter sand at both infiltration basin locations. Any over excavation necessary will use poorly graded sands from on-site as borrow material ~ Vegetation, including shrubs/trees, will be installed to promote infiltration. Agency Involvement Prior to the City of Farmington Planning Commission's action on the Preliminary Plat submittal, the DNR, MPCA and DCSWCD expressed concerns with the proposal. At the Planning Commission's Public Hearing representatives from the DNR and DCSWCD, made comments resulting in a Planning Commission recommendation requesting that the City Council not approve of the project prior to comments from the agencies that the project has been/will be modified to alleviate concerns they have. The Farmington Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat at their September 28,2004 meeting. Subsequently, a meeting was held on October 1, 2004 with staff from the referenced agencies to discuss their concerns. Another meeting was held with representatives of the Developer, City, MPCA and DSCWCD on October 13,2004 to further clarify desired modification to the design. PROPOSAL The following items are proposed to be implemented as a part of the project design and/or construction. ~ The six northerly lots (Lots 1-3, Block 1 and Block 2) will have roofrunoff discharge to the northerly grass swale. Also some portion of parking lots will discharge to the same grass swale. The swale will be designed to allow infiltration to occur with small events (~"). This is the current design for these six lots. ~ Buildings lying west of the main north/south street will be constructed with roof runoff discharged to an infiltration trench system designed for the ~" rainfall event. This system will be designed similarly to the Met Council's "Infiltration Trenches" "Infiltration Systems" guidelines. The location of each building's infiltration trench system will be determined at the time of building site design. The location will likely be under the parking lot. ~ The buildings lying east of the main north/south street will discharge, as currently designed, to the water quality basin. ~ The easterly water quality basin will be sized per City and NPDES requirements. The size will not be larger than required. The outlet structure, for the ponding system, will be located in the water quality basin. This is a requested change to the current design. Side slopes will then be planted with native trees to provide shade, however their locations cannot interfere with future city maintenance. The infiltration basins will be approximately the same size as currently proposed. No decrease in their sizes will occur due to infiltration trenches proposed for buildings elsewhere on site. Plantings will consist of native trees and shrubs that can flourish on side slopes or basis slopes. Farmington-memo 4~-6-23 (j)EJ Ell! 113fT ,... (::r: ......-- . 10-6-23 ",. (b) Site plans involving properties within approved planned un' developments shall be subject to applicable evaluation criteria in is chapter. (c)''A.Qy major variance proposal will automatically quire the entire apPllc;:ation to be processed in accordance wit he planning commission'); view and city council approval provi ons of section 10-3-7 of this t e. (d) Administra e approval including all applicable conditions and requirements sh II be made in writing the zoning officer. The applicant, in addition to all other app. able requirements, shall submit a written ackn wledgment of that approval prior to the commencement of any de elopment d prior to the issuance of any permits. (e) Any unresolved disput as to administrative interpretation of city code, ordinance, or oli requirements may be formally appealed pursuant to this apter. (f) Site plans inv ing condition y permitted uses are subject to the review requir ents found in sec 'on 10-3-5 of this title. 3. Certification Taxes Paid: Prior to app ving an application for a minor project he applicant shall provide ce 'fication to the city that there are 0 delinquent property taxes, ecial assessments, interest, city utility fees due upon the parcel f land to which the minor' oject application relates. r Major Projects: A "major project" is defined as one both of the following and subject to review as prescribed in this secti 1. Constructio~ of new structures that mayor may not be in conjunction with site improvements on redevelopment site or vacant unde~..eloped lands, and/or 2. Building projects that comprise more than a thirty percent (30%) building footprint expansion and/or fifty percent (50%) increase in the assessed value of the structure as determined by the Dakota County assessor, (a) Procedures: Pursuant to MSA section 15.99, an application for site plan approval shall be approved or denied within sixty (60) days from the date of its official and complete submission unless extended pursuant to statute or a time waiver is granted by the October 2002 City of Farmington -:t..o-6-23 -. 10-6-23 applicant. If applicable, processing of the application through required state or federal agencies shall extend the review and decision making period an additional sixty (60) days unless this limitation is waived by the applicant. (b) Site Plan Review Requirements: (1) Certificate: Certificate of survey. (2) Filing; Application: Request for site plan approval, as provided within this chapter, shall be filed with the zoning officer on an official application form. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for in this code. Such application shall also be accompanied by detailed written and graphic materials, the number and size as prescribed by the zoning officer, fully explaining the proposed change, development, or use and a list of property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the subject property in a format prescribed by the zoning officer. The request shall be considered as being officially submitted and complete when the applicant has complied with all the specified information requirements. (3) Proof Of Ownership Or Authorization: The applicant shall supply proof of ownership of the property for which the site plan approval is requested or supply written authorization from the owner(s) of the property in question to proceed with the requested site plan approval. (4) Recommendation On Action: The zoning officer shall coordinate the review of the site plan, and provide general assistance in preparing a recommendation on the action to the planning commission. _ (5) Additional Information Upon Request: The planning ,',," commission and city staff shall have the authority to request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or to retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. Said information is to be declared necessary to evaluate the request and/or to establish performance conditions in relation to all pertinent sections of this chapter. Failure on the part of the applicant to supply all necessary supportive information may be grounds for denial of the request. October 2002 City of Farmington ~1.Q.-6-23 1 Q-6-23 (6) Planning Commission Appearance: The applicant or a representative thereof may appear before the planning commission in order to present information and answer questions concerning the proposed request. (7) Recommendation Of Actions Or Conditions: The planning commission shall recommend such actions or conditions relating to the request as they deem necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this chapter. (8) Approval By Majority Vote: Approval of the site plan shall require passage by a majority vote of the planning commission. (c) Certification Of Taxes Paid: Prior to approving an application for a major project, the applicant shall provide certification to the city that there are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, interest, or city utility fees due upon the parcel of land to which the major project application relates. (F) Evaluation Criteria: The planning commiSSion shall evaluate the effects of the proposed site plans. This review shall be based upon compliance with the city comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and other city codes and policies. (G) Information Requirement: The information required for all site plan applications generally consists of the following items, and shall be submitted when requested and specified by the zoning officer: 1. Site Plan: (a) Certificate of survey. (b) Name and address of developer/owner. ... (6') Name and address of architect/designer. (d) Date of plan preparation. (e) Dates and description of all revisions. (f) Name of project or development. (g) Scale of plan (engineering scale only, at 1 inch equals 50 feet or less). October 2002 City of Farmington ...,J.D-6-23 -.- 10-6-23 (h) North point indication. (i) Lot dimension and area. (j) Required and proposed setbacks. (k) Location, setback and dimension of all buildings on the lot including both existing and proposed structures. (I) Location of all adjacent buildings located within one hundred feet (10Q') of the exterior boundaries of the property in question. (m) Location, number,' dimensions, and type of surfacing material of existing and proposed parking spaces. (n) Location, number, dimensions, and type of surfacing material of existing and proposed loading spaces. (0) Curb cuts, driveways. (p) Type of surfacing material. j"!~ (q) Vehicular circulation. (r) Sidewalks, walkways. (s) Location and type of all proposed lighting. (t) Location of recreational and service areas. (u) Location of rooftop equipment and proposed screening. (v) Provisions for storage and disposal of waste, garbage, and recyclables. (iN) Location, sizing, and type of water and sewer system mains, fire hydrants closest to the property and proposed service connections. 2. Grading/Storm Water Drainage Plan: (a) Existing contours at two foot (2') intervals. (b) Proposed grade elevations, two foot (2') maximum intervals. October 2002 City of Farmington ...1~-6-23 10-6-23 (c) Drainage plan including configuration of drainage areas and calculations. (d) Storm sewer, catch basins, invert elevations, type of castings, and type of materials. (e) Spot elevations. (f) Proposed driveway grades. (g) Surface water ponding and treatment areas. (h) Erosion control measures. (i) Calculation of total square footage of site to be covered with impervious surfaces. 3. Landscape Plan: (a) Planting schedule (table) containing: ".i (1) Symbols. (2) Quantities. r" \ (3) Common names. (4) Botanical names. (5) Sizes of plant material. (6) Root specification (bare root, balled and burlapped, potted, etc.). .. (7) Special planting instructions. "Ii- (b) Location, type and size of all existing significant trees to be removed or preserved. (c) Planting detail (show all species to scale at normal mature crown diameter or spread for local hardiness zone). (d) Typical sections in details of fences, tie walls, planter boxes, tot lots, picnic areas, berms and the like. October 2002 City of Farmington -~10-6-23 10-6-23 (e) Typical sections of landscape islands and planter beds with identification of materials used. (f) Details of planting beds and foundation plantings. (g) Note indicating how disturbed soil areas will be restored through the use of sodding, seeding, or other techniques. (h) Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas with respective areas in square feet. (i) Coverage plan for underground irrigation system, if any. (j) Where landscape or manmade materials are used to provide screening from adjacent and neighboring properties, a cross through section shall be provided showing the perspective of the site from the neighboring property at the property line elevation. (k) Other existing or proposed conditions which could be expected to affect landscaping. 4. Other Plans And Information (May Be Required By The Zoning Officer) : (a) Legal description of property under consideration. (b) Proof of ownership of the land for which a site plan approval has been requested. (c) Architectural elevations of all principal and accessory buildings (type, color, and materials used in all external surfaces). (d) "Typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan. ~) Fire protection plan. ,:~;,... (f) Extent of and any proposed modifications to land within the wetland, shoreland or floodplain district as described and regulated in this title. (g) Wetland delineation and report. (h) Type, location and size (area and height) of all signs to be erected upon the property in question. October 2002 City of Farmington -4.0-6-23 10-6-23 (i) Certification that all property taxes, special assessments, interest, or city utility fees due upon the parcel of land to which the application relates have been paid. (j) Solid waste removal plan. (H) Lapse Of Approval: 1. Unless otherwise specified by the zoning officer or planning commission as may be applicable, the site plan approval shall become null and void one year af1er the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has substantially started the construction of any building, structure, addition or alteration, or use requested as part of the approved plan. The property owner or applicant shall have the right to submit an application for time extension in accordance with this section. 2. An application to extend the approval of a site plan for up to an additional one year shall be submitted to the zoning officer not less than thirty (30) days before the expiration of said approval. Such an application shall state the facts of the request, showing a good faith attempt to utilize the site plan approval, and it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the proposed construction. The request shall be heard and decided by the zoning officer prior to the lapse of approval of the original request. After two (2) years have expired without substantially commencing construction, the site plan shall become null and void and no further extensions can be granted. The site plan review process must be reinitiated for projects that have exceeded two (2) years: ( 3. In making its determination on whether an applicant has made a good faith attempt to utilize the site plan approval, the zoning officer or the planning commission, as applicable, shall consider such factors as the type, design, and size of the proposed construction, anYe.pplicable restrictions on financing, or special and/or unique circumstances beyond the control of the applicant which have caused the delay. (I) Site Improvement Performance Agreement And Financial Guarantee: Following the approval of the site plan required by this chapter and before issuance of a building permit, the applicant, as required by the city, shall guarantee to the city the completion of all private exterior amenities as shown on the approved site plan and as required by the site plan approval. This guarantee shall be made by October 2002 City of Farmington -;u)-6-23 10-6-23 means of a site improvement performance agreement and a financial guarantee as provided below: 1. The applicant shall execute the site improvement performance agreement on forms provided by the city. The agreement shall be approved as to form and content by the city attorney and shall define the required work and project completion schedule and reflect the terms of this section as to the required guarantee for the performance of the work by the applicant. 2. The required work includes, but is not limited to, private exterior amenities such as landscaping, private driveways, parking areas, recreational fields structures or buildings, drainage systems, water quality ponds, wetland mitigation; wetland buffers, erosion control, curbing, fences and screening, and other similar facilities. The required work shall also include all aspects of a tree preservation plan and reforestation plan, if applicable. 3. A financial guarantee shall be submitted with the executed site performance agreement as provided herein: (a) Financial guarantees acceptable to the city include cash escrow; an irrevocable letter of credit; or other financial instruments which provide equivalent assurance to the city and which are approved by the zoning officer. (b) The term of the financial guarantee shall be for the life of the site improvement performance agreement, and it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that a submitted financial guarantee shall continue in full force and effect until the zoning officer shall have approved and accepted all of the work undertaken to be done and shall thereby have released the guarantee or reduced the amount of the guarantee as provided in this section. tc) When any instrument submitted as a financial guarantee contains provision for an automatic expiration date, after which the instrument may not be drawn upon, the expiration date shall be November 15. Further, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to notify the city in writing, by certified mail, at least sixty (60) days in advance of the expiration date of the intention to renew the instrument or to not renew the instrument. If the instrument is to be renewed, a written notice of extension shall be provided thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date; if the instrument is not to be renewed, and has not been released by the zoning officer, another acceptable financial guarantee in the appropriate amount shall be October 2002 City of Farmington .-.lQ-6-23 ...." 1 0-6-23 submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration. The term of any extension shall be approved by the zoning officer. Upon receipt of an acceptable substitute financial guarantee, the zoning officer may release the original guarantee. (d) The amount of the financial guarantee shall be established by the zoning officer based upon an itemized estimate of the cost of all required work. A cash deposit or irrevocable letter of credit shall be in the amount of one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the approved estimated cost. The amount of any other approved financial instrument shall be determined by the zoning officer. (e) The applicant may submit a separate financial guarantee for that portion of the required work consisting solely of landscaping improvements with another financial guarantee for all other exterior amenities and improvements which comprise the work. (f) The time allowed for completion of the required improvements shall be set out in the site improvement performance agreement. The agreement and the financial guarantee shall provide for forfeiture to the city to cure a default or reimburse the city the cost of enforcement measures. As various portions of such required work are completed by the applicant and approved by the city, the zoning officer may release such portion of the financial guarantee as is attributable to such completed work. Landscaping materials shall have a two (2) year guarantee provided to the city. ( (g) The applicant shall notify the city in writing when all or a portion of the required improvements have been completed in accordance with the approved plan and may be inspected. Upon receipt of such notice, the zoning officer shall be responsible for the inspection of the improvements to determine that the useful life of all work performed meets the average standards for the particular industry, profession, or material used in the performance of the work. Any ..required work failing to meet such standards shall not be deemed to be complete and the applicant shall be notified in writing as to required corrections. Upon determination that the work has been completed, including the winter season survivability of all landscape improvements, a notice of the date of actual completion shall be given to the applicant and appropriate action, to release or to reduce the amount of the financial guarantee shall be taken by the zoning officer. (J) Minnesota State Building Code: The review and approval of site improvements pursuant to the requirements of city adopted building October 2002 City of Farmington ~W-6-23 10-6-24 and fire codes shall be in addition to the site plan review process established under this section. The site plan approval process does not imply compliance with the requirements of these building and fire codes. (K) Plan Agreements: All site and construction plans officially submitted to the city shall be treated as a formal agreement between the building contractor and the city. Once approved, no changes, modifi- cations or alterations shall be made to any plan detail, standard, or specifications without prior submission of a plan modification request to the zoning officer for review and approval. Significant changes as deemed by the zoning officer may be subject to planning commission review and approval. (L) Enforcement: The zoning officer shall have the authority to order the stopping of any and all site improvement activities, when and where a violation of the provisions of this section has been officially documented by the building official. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 002-477, 7-15-2002) 10-6-24: B D AND BREAKFAST STANDARDS: (A) (B) pose: The city recognizes tha ed and breakfasts are an asset to t community and help t preservation of historic structures becau the expense of ow Ing and maintaining historic structures has ma them less suita e for single-family dwellings or businesses. Conversi of historic ructures into multi-family uses is usually determined by e nei orhood where it is located. It is therefore the intention of e y to limit bed and breakfast uses to those structures where the se would benefit the surrounding area by allowing appropriate a ive reuse of historic structures. Bed and breakfasts are allo ed by conditional use permit, subject to the conditions provid tl under s tion 10-3-5 of this title and the follo'4:ing conditions in the R-1, , R- T, R-D and B-2 zoning districts as regul ed in this sectio subject to the conditions outlined in subs~ion (B) of this section. Standards: J .I 1. The structure is listed on the National His ric Register, designat6d on the city's list as a Farmington heritage ndmark or identified as an historically significant property by the ritage preservation commission. August 2003 City of Farmington Ex!llgiT ff' ~i-O-6-20 1.0-6-21 any building wall. Pole signs will not be allowed. Adverti . g billboards are not allowed within the overlay zone. ( neral guidelines for signage available through the city planner.) 1. Owners and occupants of any or all of a . e have the duty and responsibility, at their sole cost and ex nse, to keep the site, including buildings, improvements and grounds, well maintained, safe, clean and aesthetically pleasin . Such maintenance includes, but is not limited to, the following: (H) Maintenance: (a) Prompt removal of all r er, trash, refuse and wastes. (b) Provide such car as required to maintain all vegetation in a healthy and aesthetical pleasing appearance. (c) Maintain e erior lighting and mechanical facilities in good working order. (d) Mai ain parking areas, driveways and roads in good repair. (e) rompt repair of any exterior damage to any buildings and impr ements. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 002-477, 7- -2002) 10-6-21 : DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SPRUCE STREET COMMER- CIAL, MIXED USE, AND BUSINESSIFLEX ZONING DIS- TRICTS: (A) Site Development Standards (In Addition To Any Performance Standards That May Be Applicable): These standards apply to the business/flex, mixed use, and Spruce Street commercial zoning dist~~9ts unless otherwise specified. The zoning districts are depicted on the official zoning map. 1. Outdoor Storage: All materials shall be stored and/or warehoused within the principal building. 2. Off Street Parking: Off street parking areas shall be designed and located to minimize their impacts on adjacent development, streets and pedestrian corridors. Parking lot landscaping is required per this chapter. April 2004 City of Farmington _-,10-6-21 -~- 10-6-21 (e) Any other well designed area and/or focal feature that the city finds consistent with the intent of these design standards, and that substantially enhances such development and serves as a gathering place for residents, visitors, customers, and employees. 7. Parking Of Bicycles: Bike parking spaces shall be installed at ten percent (10%) of the total number of automobile spaces within the development. For convenience and security, bicycle parking facilities shall be located near building entrances, shall be placed parallel to the sidewalks, shall be easily visible and shall not be located in remote automobile parking areas. Such facilities shall not, however, be located in places that impede pedestrian or automobile traffic flow or that would cause damage to plant material. Bike racks shall provide a means for the bicycle frame and one wheel to be attached to a permanent fixture (designed for securing bicycles) by means of a lock. (B) Architectural Standards: 1. Fronts Of Buildings: Any building face and yard that abuts CSAH 50, Spruce Street, or Pilot Knob shall be considered a front and shall reflect a level of aesthetic treatment equal to or greater than that of building faces and yards that abut the north-south corridor and the major roads in the mixed use district. 2. Unifying Design Theme: Buildings and/or streetscapes in the Spruce Street commercial district and the business/flex district shall reflect a unifying design theme that incorporates features found along the north/south corridor and within the mixed use district. City staff and the planning commission shall determine whether development proposals satisfy this requirement. 3. Exterior Surfaces: Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in plac~ or precast panels, decorative block, or approved equivalent, as determined by the city. The following may not be used in any visible exterior application except when specifically permitted by the city in areas with limited public view: exposed cement (.cinder.) blocks; fabricated metal or pole construction structures, including sheds, warehouses, and industrial buildings constructed either on or off site of corrugated metal panels; exterior brick that is painted over; or experimental materials with no proven record of durability or ease of maintenance in the intended application. April 2004 City of Farmington ~.:t,o-6-21 _...~, 10-6- 21 4. Facades: Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the community development department, developers of buildings located along the north/south corridor and within the mixed use district shall use facade variations to differentiate separately leased commercial spaces. Facade variations shall incorporate modulated and articulated building wall planes and rooflines through use of: (a) Projections, recesses, and reveals expressing structural bays or other aspects of the facade, with a minimum change of plane of six inches (611). (b) Changes in color or graphical patterns, changes in texture, or changes in building material. (c) Varying parapet heights and designs that demonstrate that the buildings are different from each other and that add interest to the streetscape. (d) Recessed entrances. (e) Building entrances that incorporate elements providing shade from the sun and weather protection for pedestrians. (f) Corners which are distinguishable from the remainder of the building through the use of towers, architectural treatments, arches, roof forms, or ..size and mass. All buildings along the north/south corridor and within the mixed use district shall be constructed with at least one functional or decorative (false facade) upper story. To the extent practical or feasible, variations in rooflines or heights shall be used to differentiate separately leased commercial spaces within buildings. 5. Windows: Windows shall be provided on walls that are adjacent to public or private rights of way, parking lots and sidewalks. False windows are allowed. 6. Projections: Buildings may have one of the following projecting from the building facade: (a) Awnings/canopies over the first floor windows and along the frontage of all building entrances. (1) Projection: Awnings and canopies shall not project more than five feet (5') into the public right of way, except where April 2004 City of Farmington _""')-to-6-21 _...~- 1,0-6-21 3. Sidewalks: Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of all streets. Trails may be required instead of sidewalks as provided in the city's trail master plan. (a) All pedestrian walkways shall have and maintain a minim'um unobstructed pathway width of fifteen feet (15') along the north/south corridor (i.e., the first roadway constructed between CSAH 50 and Spruce Street, west of Denmark Avenue) and within the mixed use area. Pedestrian walkways bordering off street parking areas shall be at least eight feet (8') wide. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways connecting to greenways or trail systems are subject to standards in the city trail master plan. (b) Walkways shall be designed to create a safe and uninterrupted pedestrianway, and to avoid frequent crossings by driveways and streets. (c) Pedestrian walkways shall be designed as amenity areas with approved landscaping, benches, lighting, signage, and street furniture. (d) Pavers shall be required within the sidewalk design and within the crosswalk areas. Installation of the pavers shall comply with city standards. (e) Electrical and water services shall be required within the sidewalk areas to prepare for amenities including (but not limited to) water fountains, clocks, kiosks and seasonal lighting, and shall be master planned during the design phase of the project. 4. Screening: Screening of service yards, refuse, and waste removal areas, loading docks, truck parking areas and other areas which te_nd to be unsightly shall be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, dense planting, or any combination of these elements. Screening shalL block views from public rights of way, private street and off streef parking areas, and shall be equally effective in winter and summer. Chainlink and slatted fencing are prohibited. 5. Lighting: The lighting in the Spruce Street area shall be designed to create a well balanced, integrated lighting plan for public and private locations that enhances vehicular and pedestrian visibility while minimizing glare and contrast. Exterior lighting shall comply with section 10-6-8 of this chapter. The intent for lighting is to provide needed illumination of the site, while at the same time preventing glare to residential uses either within or adjacent to the April 2004 City of Farmington -=1.0-6-21 -- 10-6-21 site. Light fixtures should be oriented to pedestrian circulation so that pedestrian walkways are emphasized and safety is enhanced. (a) At the time of site plan review for the development, a detailed lighting plan shall be submitted. (b) Any lighting required on the perimeter of parking lots or along streets shall consist of fixtures illustrated in the city's standard detail plate as "streetlight - downtown district". The interior portions of parking lots may be lit with cobra lights. 6. Required Amenities: For each development, one of the following amenities per ten (10) acres of net developable land area shall be required and installed at the time of construction of the project. The amenities shall be highly visible, easily accessible outdoor focal points or gathering places for residents, employees, and visitors to the development site: (a) Patio and/or plaza with permanent seating areas; provided such patio or plaza has a minimum depth of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum total area of three hundred (300) square feet. (1) Pavers as required in the city standards shall be installed within the patio or plaza. ( (2) Patios and plazas shall include pedestrian amenities intended to support these places as gathering areas such as benches, water features, kiosks, etc. . (b) Landscaped minipark, square, or green, provided such amenity has a minimum. depth and width of fifteen feet (15') and a minimum total area of six hundred fifty (650) square feet, and includes pedestrian amenities intended to support these places as gathering areas. The landscaped miniparks, squares or greens do not ~ount toward the park dedication requirements. (c) Protected customer walkway, arcade, or easily identifiable building pass through containing window displays and intended for general public access. (d) Water feature, such as a pond or fountain, provided the feature is easily accessed by pedestrians and includes or integrates permanent seating areas for pedestrians. April 2004 City of Farmington -=te-6-21 1-0-6-21 located above an entrance, in which case the maximum projection shall not exceed eight feet (8'). In no event should an awning or canopy be supported by poles or other structural elements located in the public right of way. (2) Length: Awnings and canopies should emphasize the rhythm of the facade bays, windows and entrances, and shall not continue uninterrupted along the building facade. . (3) Height: The bottom of awnings and canopies should be at least eight feet (8') above sidewalk grade. (4) Illumination: Back lit awnings and canopies are not permitted. (5) Inscription: Lettering on awnings and canopies shall comply with subsection 10-6-3(8) 1 (k) of this chapter. (6) Materials: Awning and canopy materials should be limited to cotton, acrylic or vinyl coated cotton, copper or bronze coated metal, or clear glass. Other materials may be used if approved by the community development department. Awnings shall be designed with a slope. No horizontal awnings are allowed. Structural supports shall be constructed of steel and/or aluminum and shall (if or where visible) incorporate ornamental features. (b) Projecting signs perpendicular to the building. Projecting signs shall comply with subsection 10-6-3(B)5(e) of this chapter. 7. Public Entrances: For commercial buildings located along the north/south corridor, each separate ground level tenant space shall have at least one public entrance that faces the north/south corridor. For buildings located within the mixed use district, each separate 9r04f1d level commercial tenant space shall have at least one public entrance that faces the nearest major public or private street. Developers shall be encouraged to also provide public entrances adjacent to off street parking areas. 8. Site Plan Review: All applications shall comply with the requirements of subsection 10-6-23(E) of this chapter for site plan review. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include building and plant materials, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building components and details, height, roofline and setback. April 2004 City of Farmington -'<':1>€)-6-21 -...-.. 10-6-22 9. Screening Of Roof/Exterior Equipment: Mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, and other utility hardware, whether located on the roof or exterior of the building or on the ground adjacent to it, shall be screened from the public view with materials identical to or strongly similar to building materials, or by landscaping that will be effective in winter, or they shall be located so as not to be visible from any public right of way, private street or off street parking area. In no case shall wooden fencing be used as a rooftop equipment screen. (Ord. 004-506,2-17-2004) 10-6-22: BUSINESS PARK DESIGN STANDARDS: (A) 1. Storage An isplays: All storage and displays shall be enclosed within the princip building. 2. Parking Areas: Par . g areas should be designed and located to minimize their impacts 0 djacent development, street and ,~ "jfp" April 2004 City of Farmington EXHI81t :t- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us TO: Community Development Director, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Engineering Division, Parks & Recreation Director, Fire Marshal, Building Official FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner RE: Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat - Parking Analysis DATE: August 30, 2004 A parking analysis for the Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat was prepared and the following calculations were determined: Lot 1 Block 1 Convenience Store - Retail = 1 parking space/200 square feet plus 1 per employee 7,000 sf- Required Parking = 35 spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 31 spaces Shortfall of 4 or more parking spaces Lot 2 Block 1 Retail = 1 parking space/200 square feet plus 1 per employee 6,000 sf - Required Parking = 30 spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 83 spaces Overage of approximately 53 parking spaces Lot 3 Block 1 Retail = 1 parking space/200 square feet plus 1 per employee 6,000 sf - Required Parking = 30 spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 83 spaces Overage of approximately 53 parking spaces Lot 4 Block 1 Automotive - Minor = 2 parking spaces/bay + 2 parking spaces/service station Required Parking = Unable to determine number of bays or service stations Proposed Parking = 28 spaces Lot 5 Block 1 Retail = 1 parking space/200 square feet plus 1 per employee 27,000 sf - Required Parking = 135 parking spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 193 parking spaces Overage of approximately 58 parking spaces Lot 6 Block 1 Retail = 1 parking space/200 square feet plus 1 per employee 10,800 sf - Required Parking = 54 parking spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 44 parking spaces Shortage of 10 or more parking spaces Lot 7 Block 1 Retail = 1 parking space/200 square feet plus 1 per employee 114,000 sf - Required Parking = 570 parking spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 218 parking spaces Shortage of 351 or more parking spaces Lot 8 Block 1 Retail = 1 parking space/200 square feet plus 1 per employee 27,800 sf - Required Parking = 139 parking spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 105 parking spaces + Number of Employees Shortage of 34 or more parking spaces Mixed Use Housing Units? Lot 1 Block 2 Retail = 1 parking space1200 square feet plus 1 per employee 4,900 sf - Required Parking = 25 parking spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 22 parking spaces Shortage of 3 or more parking spaces Lot 2 Block 2 Retail = 1 parking space/200 square feet plus 1 per employee 4,000 sf - Required Parking = 20 parking spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 18 parking spaces Shortage of 2 or more parking spaces Lot 3 Block 2 Class II Restaurant = 1 parking space/every 2 customers to maximum seating capacity 4,600 sf - Required Parking - Unable to determine number of seats in restaurant Proposed Parking = 66 parking spaces Lot 4 Block 2 Retail = 1 parking space/200 square feet plus 1 per employee 27,000 sf - Required Parking = 135 parking spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 78 parking spaces Shortage of 57 or more parking spaces Lot 5 Block 2 Hotel = 1 parking space/rental unit + 1 parking space /employee 50 Units - Required Parking = 50 parking spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 77 parking spaces Overage of approximately 27 parking spaces Lot 6 Block 2 Retail = 1 parking space/200 square feet plus I per employee 26,000 sf - Required Parking = 130 parking spaces + Number of Employees Proposed Parking = 188 parking spaces Overage of approximately 53 parking spaces Mixed Use Housing Units? Required Parking not including employees and Lot 4 Block 1 and Lot 3 Block 2 = 1,353 Proposed Parking not including employees and Lot 4 Block 1 and Lot 3 Block 2 = 1,234 Shortage of 119 parking spaces ~~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner I I I I I I I I I Ie I I' '.II! I I I I I I I, e/fll8ff J Electrical outlet 30" cast aluminum crossarm l.O I '<t Color shall be PANTONE 560C (Dark Green) Multi-volt (105-285) NSP material specs. +DOE-48. Fisher Price model +6690B-ES538509 OAE Photo lamp COLUMBUS 3" x 5" min. handhole Base mounted extruded aluminum pole 3" 00 10 AMP fuse 30 Electrical conduit Screw in anchor base 50" long shaft by 5-5/8" diameter slots for 10-15" bolt circle diameters . ..... . . . ". See footing detail city standard plate GEN-04 .. '-. .' .. ,'4'" 0" . ,~' . NOTE: 1. A tapered screw in base may be used as an alternate to the concrete base if approved by the City Engineer. 2. Lamp-100W/55V. 155W/55V clear mogul based lamps. 3. Fixture-70W/120V. 100W/120V. 150W/120V HPS high performance acorn style luminaire Type III light distribution. NOT TO SCALE Lost Revision: H.May 2000 STANDARD - DETAILS STREET LIGHT -DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. City Plate No. '. ( 'FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA) GEN::-07 H:\STANDARDS\SIANDARD PLATES\GEN-07.DWG [jll/O/l K DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVA TION DISTRICT Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center 4100 220th Street West, Suite 102 Farmington, MN 55024 Phone: (651) 480-7777 FAX: (651) 480-7775 www.dakotacountyswcd.org October 28,2004 Mr. Kevin Carroll City of Farmington Planning Department 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Ref.: 04-FRM-147 RE: VERMILLION CROSSINGS Dear Kevin, Thank you for forwarding the memo from the development team regarding Vermillion Crossings. Efforts have been underway to minimize the adverse impacts of the proposed development on the Vermillion River, however we have not been provided with an actual grading plan that incorporates the concepts discussed with the development team since the September 28th Planning Commission meeting. We understand that this development is important to the community. However, we are not supportive of approving a preliminary plat. There is concern that "promises" will not turn into reality during development of a final grading plan. We recommend that the City consider their flexibility to make necessary changes to the site plan if the preliminary plat is approved. If preliminary plat approval occurs, assurances should be provided that hold the development accountable for erosion and stormwater compliance during the final platting process. Approving a preliminary plat, at this specific site, without comprehensive erosion and stormwater controls can create a false impression that the issues have been adequately addressed. We appreciate the progress that has been made since the September 28th Planning Commission meeting. However, design and construction details of stormwater management and erosion control practices will be equally important for water quality protection. The SWCD reviewed the proposed plan on September 17, 2004 and noted the following: The information submitted does not appear to comply with the NPDES program and most importantly adequately protect water quality. . . . We expect and anticipate an increased effort by the developer to protect water quality within this portion of the Vermillion River Watershed, a designated trout stream. Compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is uncertain and it is practical and feasible for the City to require submittal of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the City approving the preliminary plat. Accordingly, we recommend that the preliminary plat and any potential bid schedule be suspended until the issues noted above are addressed. Similar concerns were expressed earlier in the year during the review of the Spruce Street AUAR dated May 12, 2004: Insufficient documentation was provided to show how temperature changes to the Vermillion River from the proposed development would be mitigated. Reducing runoff sources, infiltration and on-site retention are all possible techniques to mitigate temperatures. We anticipate working with the City and other stakeholders during review of the preliminary grading plans to review adequacy of proposed temperature mitigation techniques. As mentioned, non-degradation standards set forth in Minnesota 7050 rules will need to be applied to this project. We encourage runoffvolume reduction practices to protect the Vermillion River Watershed and maintain natural hydrology to the extent possible. To accomplish this we suggest discussing stormwater controls throughout the site to retain runoff rather than end-of-the-pipe infiltration. Open conveyance systems, bioretention, impervious area reduction, and impervious area disconnection are just a few of the potential practices that can be implemented to reduce stormwater runoff. If landscape features are designed to be multi-functional, stormwater can be distributed throughout the site with minimal reduction to the amount of developable land. In summary, due to the amount of grading and resulting impervious surfaces that this development entails, strong mitigation measures will be needed to protect the Vermillion River and it's cold-water fishery from the impacts. Discussions and documentation will need to continue during preliminary and final grading plan approvals to show how this proposed development will not adversely impact water quality. While the October 26 memo summarizes practices they are considering, the actual grading plan lacks adequate stormwater and erosion control best management practices. Unless these practices are better detailed on the preliminary plan, we are concerned there will be no assurances they will appear in later versions of the plan. We encourage the City pursue development of a management plan for Farmington's designated trout streams. This process provides stakeholder input and generates a document that provides guiding principles both for community growth and natural resource protection. Our experience has been that this process reduces confusion and delays spent on individual plats when sensitive resources are involved. There are models within Dakota County and the Vermillion River Watershed that can be examined. Weare willing to work with the City in pursuing funding opportunities to initiate and complete a trout stream management plan. Again, we understand the importance of this development to the community. The regional significance and sensitivity of the trout stream within this property is also important. This development is the first phase of the larger Spruce Street expansion area and it is vital that, with all of us working together, we secure a defendable process and assurances that protect water resources during this growth. We will be available to answer questions during the City Council meeting on Monday, November 1 st. Please call me at 651-480-7779 if you have questions in the interim. Sincerely, Jay Riggs, CPESC, CPSWQ Urban Conservationist Cc: Todd Smith, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Michele Hanson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources John Jaschke, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Suzanne Savanick-Hansen, Soil and Water Conservation District Board Chair 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.