Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.12.98 Planning Packet . . t ! ! . -. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular May 12, 1998 ) 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) April 14, 1998 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M. a) Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit - South Suburban Medical Center b) Conditional Use Permit - Grading Permit for Charleswood c) Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition Final Plat d) Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD con't 4. DISCUSSION a) Comprehensive Planning Update Schedule b) Update of Development Policies -Turf Establishment -Erosion Control c) Builders Association Video - The Future is Now - Putting a Stop to the High Cost of Urban Sprawl * .,. City of Farmington Community Development Department Planning Division 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Community Dev. Planning Building Insp. (612) 463-1860 (612) 463-1820 (612) 463-1830 To: City Planning Commission From: Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator Date: May 12, 1998 RE: Planning Commission Recommendation Summary PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit - South Suburban Medical Center Recommendation While staff recognizes and respects the opinions of SSMC and also acknowledges the position of the City Council on this matter, it is still the position of staff that a sidewalk should remain on the north side of Elm Street for the reasons stated and thus we would recommend against the amending of the Conditional Use Permit for SSMC. b) Conditional Use Permit - Grading Permit for Charleswood Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the grading permit to be forwarded to the City Council contingent upon the signing of a development contract and the following Director of Public Works/City Engineer's conditions: 1. The issues identified in the grading review letter need to be addressed before a permit can be issued. CitlJ. of Farmint}ton 325 Oak Street · Farmint)tonl MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fa~ (612) 463-2591 ~ ~ 2. All of the information required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction Info Sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. . 3. The permit shall not be valid until the required surety is posted and the appropriate fees are paid. 4. It is understood the Developer grades this project according to the submitted grading plan at his own risk. Future review of utility construction plans could result in revisions to the grading design. c) Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition Final Plat Recommendation Recommend approval of the Farmington Middle School - 2nd Addition Final Plat subject to the conditions identified in the Engineering Division's April 30th letter to the School District's Engineer and forward the final plat to the City Council after comments have been met. d) Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD con't Recommendation Recommend continuance of the Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. If the developer requests a motion, recommend denial of the project. . 4. DISCUSSION a) Comprehensive Planning Update Schedule Recommendation Inform staff of any scheduling conflicts or objectives missing from the schedule. b) Update of Development Policies - Turf Establishment -Erosion Control Recommendation Direct staff to make any changes to the attached policies and recommend approval of the policies. . TO: City Planning Commission David L. Olson flP Community Development Director FROM: DATE: May 12, 1998 RE: Amend SSMC Conditional Use Permit! Relocate Sidewalk Applicant! Address: South Suburban Medical Center (SSMC) 3410 2 13th Street West Legal: See attached Zoning: R-l Single-family residential Request: SSMC is seeking an amendment to the conditional use permit that was approved in May of 1997 for the Clinic Expansion. This amendment proposes to relocate the sidewalk from the North to the South Side of the Elm Street Staff Review Several Board members of SSMC addressed the City Council at their April 20th meeting and expressed concerns regarding the originally approved location of the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street. The reasons for their concerns are addressed in the attached memo dated Apri120, 1998 from JohnErar, City Administrator and are as follows: . Mr. Nicolai, as the property owner, would be responsible for snow removal on the sidewalk; . Storage of snow on the boulevard would be problematic; . Ambulances entering and existing SSMC parking areas would pose a hazard to pedestrians; . Their belief that the cost of running the sidewalk on the north side would be higher than placing it on the south side of Elm Street. CitlJ of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street. FarminlJton, MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fax (612) 463-2591 City staff s recommendation is that the sidewalk should remain on the north side of Elm Street for the reasons stated in Mr. Erar's April 20th memo to the City Council and also for the reasons stated by Lee Mann, City Engineer in his comments to the City Council. These comments are included in the April 20th City Council minutes which are as follows: . Placing the sidewalk on the south side would introduce at least two to three additional pedestrian crossings along Elm Street. This includes forcing pedestrians to cross the frontage road and/or having to cross Elm Street at other undesignated crossings either on the curve of the street or at other points to access hospital property. . Placing the sidewalk on the north side of the property, on the other hand, would provide for a continuous pedestrian link between the East Farmington subdivision and the downtown area. It would also eliminate the need for any pedestrians to cross Elm Street at any point along the curve to access hospital property or to the downtown area. . Curb already installed along the north side of Elm Street is already designed for handicapped persons in wheel chairs. Without a sidewalk on the north side, disabled persons would have to cross Elm Street mid-block along the curve, that as a collector will be heavily traveled, exposing handicapped persons to additional safety risks. . When additional facilities are constructed on SSMC property in the future, the lack of a sidewalk on the north side would force both employees and patients to walk on the street along the north side or to cross over to the sidewalk on the south side and then back over to the north side. . In terms of ambulances entering and exiting the private driveways, it is a far safer scenario to have pedestrians stay on the northerly sidewalk to walk across SSMC private driveway entrances. This, in turn, would avoid forcing pedestrians to cross Elm Street from the south side to the north side with ambulances driving back and forth on Elm Street. . All private property owners are required to shovel snow along public sidewalks. It was discussed with SSMC that they may wish to offer the property owner some type of arrangement to assist him in keeping the sidewalk clear. Further, as the sidewalk will be on public right-of-way, private property owners have no exposure with respect to someone tripping or falling on the sidewalk. . Snow storage on the boulevard would be no less or greater a problem than if the sidewalk were on the south side. . Placing the sidewalk on the south side would necessitate having to redesign the project plans adding additional cost and delay to project completion which is scheduled to be completed within the next two weeks. . . , . . . . After discussion at the City Council, it was the consensus to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission which is the body that approved the original Conditional Use Permit. The majority of the Council did indicate that they were in favor the relocating the sidewalk to the south side of the street. Staff Recommendation While staff recognizes and respects the opinions of SSMC and also acknowledge the position of the City Council on this matter, it is still the position of staff that sidewalk should remain on the north side of Elm Street for the reasons stated and thus we would recommend against the amending the Conditional Use Permit for SSMC. cc: Lee Johnson, CEO, SSMC Western 400 feet, commencing at a point 700 feet North and 200 feet East, from the Southwest corner of the Northwest ~ of Section 32, Township 114, Range 19; thence running North 180 feet, thence running East 1120 feet, hence running South 180 feet. thence West 1120 feet to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof, the same being in the Middle 1/3 of the Southwest ~ of the Northwest ~ of said Section 32. . . . U41 iJI ~Cl ~4:::Ii. -O"tUl 4ts:J Hill (,;11'1: t'^l<J\11NbTUN If!) UUUl/U007 . City of Farmington Variance/Conditional Use Permit 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 612-463-il11 F.U6U-463-2591 APPLICATION FOR: 0 Variance ~ditional Use. (please check) ~requites an abstnlCtors certificate of O~Tle~ within 350 ft. (average cOst - S250.350) LEGAL DESCRlPTION OF PROPERTY: (Io~ block, plat name, section, to......nship, range) fa, office use NlTh'IBER ZONING DISTRICT II FEE OWNER'S NAME South Suburban Medical Center PHONE 460-1138 (AUDDFUESS: 3410 - 213th Street West, Farmington, MN 55024 A Street SIDle Zip Code WkESENT LAND USE: Rl - Bps'pi tal v.. SPECIFY NATURE OF REQUEST AND GROUNDS: Move sidewalk to the South side of Elm Street. FOLLOWING A IT ACHED~ (please ~heck) 0 Proof of Ownership 0 Boundary Survey ~plication Fee-Lt.,u--':O Copies of Site Plan o Abstract o Torrens (Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title Required) X Applicant's Signature ~p .~ Date . J../ - 3-3 - 'f f Applicant's Signature Date fOT office use only REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING CO:\fM1SSI0N ON ACTION: OPublic Hearing set for: o Denied Reason: FINAL ACTION: 0 Approved o Denied Comments: Reason: ZOl\'ING ADMINISTRATOR: DATE: sigr2arure --- ~ ~ WI Wi , IiI ' 'I t I <A t ~ g ~. o = mm ><r -t3: mCf) Z-t (f) - o z m r 3: (f) -i . . ~ o ~(n g 0 as. ep CI.l as:: f""t-r:;:r ~~ op = ~ -'('1) sQ. ~ _. Po) (') -Po) , - C::(j (I) _ ('I) er I-d _. ('I) (') s _. f""t- . 0e .. TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: South Suburban Medical Center - Sidewalk Installation DA11S: April 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION The SSMC Board has raised concerns over the installation of a sidewalk on the northerly side of the Elm Street Extension. Staff bas reviewed their respective project concerns, and met with Mr. Lee Larson. SSMC Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Ralph Nordeen. SSMC Chair .uuJ Mr. Mark Nicolai. a resident abutting the SSMC property to discU$S these issues. . DISCU~$ION On Wednesday, April IS, 1998 and Thursday, April 16, 1998, statfmet with SSMC oftioials to discuss ~ of CQncern relative:: to the installation of the sidewalk o~ the north side of the Elm Street . Extension. SSMC ofticials and Mr. Mark Nicolai brought forward several issues and concerns. SSMC Sidewalk Placement Issues Regarding their position that the sidewalk should be installed on the south side versus the north side ofBlm Street, the following points were presented to City staff. ~ Mr. Nicolai, as the property owner, would be responsible for $!lOW removal on the sidewalk; ~ Storage of snow on the boulevard would be problematic; ~ Ambulances entering and exiting SSMC parking areas would pose a hazard to pedestrians; ~ Their belief that cost of nmning a sidewalk on the north side would be higher than placing it on the south side of Elm Street. Project Process Background It should be noted that a Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1997, with the SSMC Executive Director agreeing to the plan requirements. Plans and Specification were approved by Council on June 16, 1997, with construction beginning on October 7, 1997. Pursuant to the City Code, a sidewalk is required to be installed along one side of a collector street. . CitIJ. of Farmington 325 0.1c StrUt · F<<rmilfft"", IAN 55024 · (612) 463.7J J J · FlU (612) 463.2591 Mayor and Council Members SSMC - Sidewalk Installation Page 2 of3 In this case, a thorough review of the project by the Development Committee in April 1997 . suggested that a sidewalk should be installed on the north side of Elm Street to facilitate a _ number of concerns associated with site plan desiSDt pedestrian safety and future facilities planning. SSMC Director Johnson was contacted by staff on numerous occasions regarding project requirements, specifically the requirements for a sidewalk on the north sido of Elm Street which are clearly marked on project plans. City engineering staff also offered to contact affected residents regarding project requirements, but were told that SSMC would facilitate discussions with abutting property OWllCl'S. Response to SSMC Concerns In review of recently stated SSMC concerns, the conditional use permit and construction plans for the Elm Street Extension project have been reviewed again by staff from the Engineering and PlanniQg Divisions and Police Chief Siebenaler. It WIll the consensus of departmental staff that the placement.ofthe sidewalk on the north sideofEim Street was ofsignitlcant importance for the reasons stated below. In addition, these same points were discussed with SSMC officials find Mr. Mark Nicolai on Thursday, April 16, 1998 on the site. The supporting rationale for placing a sidewalk on the. north side as opposed to the south side of Blm S1lcet is as follows: > PlaQing the sidewalk on the south side would introduce at least two to three additional pedestrian crossings along Elm Street. This includes forcing pedestrians to cross the frontage road and/or having to cross B1m Street at other undesigt'luted crossings either on the curve of the street or at other points to access hospital property. > Placing the sidewalk on the north side of the property, on the other hand, would provide for a continuous pedestrian link between the East Farmington subdivision and the downtown area. It would also eJimil'JUe the need for any pedestrians to cross Elm Street at any point along the Qurve to access hospital property or to the downtown area. > Curb already installed along the north side of Elm Street is already designed for handicapped persons in wheel chairs. Without a side walk on the north side, disabled persons would have to cross Elm. Street mid-block along the curve, that as a collector will be heavily traveled, exposing handicapped pedestrians to additional safety risks. > When additional facilities are constructed on SSMC property in the future, the lack of a sidewalk on the north side would force both employees and patients to walk on the street along the north side curb or to cross over to the sidewalk on the south side and then back over to the north side. > In tenns of ambulances entering and exiting the private driveways, it is a far safer scenario to have pedestrians stay on the northerly sidewalk to walk across SSMC private driveway entrances. This, in turn, would avoid forcing pedestrians to cross Elm. Street from the south side to the north side with ambulances driving back and forth on Elm. Street . . . . . Mayor and Council Members SSMC - Sidewalk Installation Page 3 of3 >> All private property owners are required to shovel snow along public sidewalks. It was discussed with SSMC that they may wi$b to offer the property owner some type of arrangement to assist him in keeping the sidewalk clear. Further, as the sidewalk will be on public right-of-way, pfivate property owners have no exposure with respect to someone tripping or falling on the sidewalk. >> Snow storage on the boulevard would be no less or greater a problem than if the sidewalk were on the south side. >> Placing the sidewalk on the south side would necessitate having to redesign the project plans adding additional cost and delay to project completion which is scheduled to be completed within the next two weeks. Conclusion to Project Issues Raised by SSMC While staff is genuinely appreciative and respectful of concerns expressed by SSMC, it is the consensus of staff that placement of the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street is a logical and well--reasoned design standard. Further, there are concerns that elimin..ung the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street . could expose the City to potential legal liability for failing to take appropriate public safety issues into consideration. As the Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planni"g Commission, it is the City Attorney's opinion that the Conditional Use Permit would have to be brought back to the Planning Commission for modifying action. In addition, the contractor would need to $tOp any additional work in the right-of-way until any alternate design is approved delaying potentially any further project work. It should be noted that the Planning Commission could still deny SSMC's request altogether based on the origuw public safety considerations. BUDGET {MPACT As this public improvement was petitioned for by SSMC, any costs associated with this project will be 100 percent assessed against SSMC. ACTION REQUESTED Council review and discussion of SSMC issues relative to the installation of sidewalk on the northerly side of Elm Street. If the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit are to be modified then the action would be to return the Conditional Use Permit to the Planning Commission for action. Council Minutes (Regular) April 20, 1998 Page 2 . 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. MOTION by Cordes, second by Gamer to proclaim that the City of F . I designate April 22, 1998 as Earth Day. APIF, MOTION C D. Proclamation Declaring Earth Day Dennis Walter, 18235 E id Avenue, questioned ho e right-of-way proceeds for Hill Dee Park property would be 'lized relative to th SAH 31 project. City Administrator Erar indicated staff would prep written re nse to Mr. Walter within two weeks. b) Resident Comm s - James Gunderson - edged. - Seal Coat Project . a) Resident Comments - Judy Council acknowledged. Res' nt Comments - Rudy Garcia (Lime Rock Ri ouncil acknowledged. c) Resident Comments - David Gerardy (501 Oak St.) - Seal Cos Council acknowledged. e) South Suburban Medical Center Lee Larson, CEO of South Suburban Medical Center (hereinafter "SSMC"), was in the audience (as well as four SSMC Board Members) and pleaded his case to Council for the sidewalk in question to be installed on the south side versus the north side of Elm Street. He noted that the Hospital Board opposed the installation ef sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street. John Curry, SSMC Board Member - Added that their main concern is the area at Highway 50 and Highway 3, since it is the major traffic route to the hospital. Dan Nicolai, SSMC Board Member - Studied the site and feels the proposed sidewalk on the north side would "look like a stretch of sidewalk going nowhere" and would be rarely used. It would also be a great expense to the hospital to maintain. e Council Minutes (Regular) April 20, 1998 Page 3 . . City Engineer Lee Mann presented staff's position and reasoning for installing the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street as follows: > Placing the sidewalk on the south side would introduce at least two to three additional pedestrian crossings along Elm Street. This includes forcing pedestrians to cross the frontage road and/or having to cross Elm Street at other undesignated crossings either on the curve of the street or at other points to access hospital property. > Placing the sidewalk on the north side of the property, on the other hand, would provide for a continuous pedestrian link between the East Farmington subdivision and the downtown area. It would also eliminate the need for any pedestrians to cross Elm Street at any point along the curve to access hospital property or to the downtown area. > Curb already installed along the north side of Elm Street is already designed for handicapped persons in wheel chairs. Without a sidewalk on the north side, disabled persons would have to cross Elm Street mid-block along the curve, that as a collector will be heavily traveled, exposing handicapped pedestrians to additional safety risks. > When additional facilities are constructed on SSMC property in the future, the lack of a sidewalk on the north side would force both employees and patients to walk on the street along the north side curb or to cross over to the sidewalk on the south side and then back over to the north side. > In terms of ambulances entering and exiting the private driveways, it is a far safer scenario to have pedestrians stay on the northerly sidewalk to walk across SSMC private driveway entrances. This, in turn, would avoid forcing pedestrians to cross Elm Street from the south side to the north side with ambulances driving back and forth on Elm Street. > All private property owners are required to shovel snow along public sidewalks. It was discussed with SSMC that they may wish to offer the property owner some type of arrangement to assist him in keeping the sidewalk clear. Further, as the sidewalk will be on public right-of- way, private property owners have no exposure with respect to someone tripping or falling on the sidewalk. > Snow storage on the boulevard would be no less or greater a problem than if the sidewalk were on the south side. > Placing the sidewalk on the south side would necessitate having to redesign the project plans adding additional cost and delay to project completion that is scheduled to be completed within the next two weeks. . Council Minutes (Regular) April 20, 1998 Page 4 . Mr. Mann further stated that since the road was put in, he has observed pedestrians walking on the street almost daily. It is also his understanding that hospital employees walk to work. It should be noted that a Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1997, with the fonner SSMC Executive Director, as well as the Hospital Board, agreeing to the plan requirements placing the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street. Council approved the plans and specifications on June 16, 1997. It was further noted that the installation of the sidewalk on one side of Elm Street would be consistent with the City's Sidewalk Policy. Mayor Ristow asked Council for their opinion as to whether the sidewalk should be on the north side or the south side of Elm Street. The responses were as follows: Councilmember Cordes - north side; Councilmember Gamer - south side; Councilmember Fitch - agreed to send back to Planning Commission and look at changing sidewalk to the south side; Councilmember Strachan - south side; Mayor Ristow - agreed to send back to Planning Commission and look at changing sidewalk to the south side. Mayor Ristow indicated the main reason for . agreeing to recommend installing the sidewalk on the south side is that the sidewalk would connect with an existing sidewalk on the south side of Oak Street to 9th Street. Councilmember Fitch requested that a letter be sent to the hospital confirming their request to change the location of the sidewalk. The letter should specifically state that in the event there are delays or additional construction costs, the hospital will be responsible for 100% of the costs as per the original Development Agreement. After lengthy discussiont it was decided by Council to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation to change the location of the sidewalk frOOl the north side to the south side of Elm Street. This item will be on the agenda at the next Planning Commission Meeting on May 12t 1998. Community Development Director David Olson indicated that regardless of whether or not the Planning Commission approves SSMC's amendment, the determination will end there, since the Planning Commission is the body that approves Conditional Use Permits. If rejected by the Planning Commission, SSMC would have to appeal directly to Council to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. . Council Minutes (Regular) April 20, 1998 Page 5 . City Administrator Erar indicated that the contractor must be notified immediately regarding the potential change and delay in construction. Citizen Marv Wier, 808 3rd Street, claimed Highway 50 has only one approved crosswalk between the stop light at Highway 3 and Akin Road. One crosswalk approved by the County is at 3rd Street. Pedestrians from the south side of Elm Street will cross Highway 50 and County approval will be needed to put in a crosswalk at that location. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Strachan, second by Gamer to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) b) c) d) . e) f) g) h) i) j) k) I) m) Approved Council Minutes 4/6/98 (Regular) Approved Agreements - Clean-up Day Approved Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation Department Adopted RESOLUTION R41-98 Approving Reimbursement of Expenditures - CSAH 31 Approved Agreement for Professional Service - Comprehensive Planning Consultant Acknowledged Release of Right-of-Way Proceeds - D & 0 Properties Approved School and Conference Request - Administration Department Approved School and Conference Request - Parks & Recreation Department Approved School and Conference Request - Fire Department Approved Compensation Adjustment - Administration Department Approved Appointment Recommendation - Community Development Department Approved Municipal Liquor Operations - Downtown Store Remodeling Project Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT - None . TO: City Planning Commission Michael Schultz ^' f) Associate Planner .JJX FROM: DATE: May 12, 1998 RE: Genstar Grading CUP INTRODUCTION Genstar Land Company is seeking a conditional use permit for grading on the proposed first phase of their Charleswood development. Planning Deoartment Review Applicant: Genstar Land Company 11000 West 78th Street, Suite 201 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Referral Comments: I. Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Section 3-22: Excavation Grading and Mineral Extraction 2. Conditional Use Permit Application 3. Grading Application 4. Location Map 5. Proposed First Phase Site Plan Location of Property: South of 19Sth Street W., south of the Troyhill and Fairhills developments. Size of Grading Area: Approximately 49.6 acres Existing Zoning: R-3 PUD Grading Area Bounded By: Single-family residential across 195th St. W., Agriculture Comprehensive Plan: Single-family residential Current Land Use: Agriculture and Natural Open Space CitlJ of FarmintJ.ton 325 Dale Street · FarminfJton, MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fair (612) 463.2591 Bac~round Information: The Charleswood PUD was approved at the Planning Commission on October 14,1997 and at the City Council on November 3rd 1997. The first phase preliminary plat was approved at the Planning Commission on February 10, 1998 and at the City Council on February 17, 1998. . Additional Comments: Genstar Land Company is seeking the conditional use permit to begin grading the first phase of the single-family portion oftheir Charleswood development, though the first phase final plat has not yet been approved. Genstar is scheduling for either the May 26th or June 9th Planning Commission for final plat approval, City Council approval would occur at the earliest date following the meeting. The EA W that was required for this development received a negative declaration at the May 4th City Council meeting. The negative declaration by the regulating governing unit (RGU) assumes that there will be no significant environmental impacts due to the proposed development. Though this process is has not been typical in the platting of residential development, City Staff feels that with properly established agreements and/or sureties, the City will be able to effectively protect the overall completion of the development. Requested Action: Planning Staff recommends approval of the grading permit to be forwarded to the City Council contingent upon the signing of a development contract and the following Director of Public Works/City Engineer's conditions: . I. The issues identified in the grading review letter need to be addressed before a permit can be issued. 2. All of the information required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction Info Sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. 3. The permit shall not be valid until the required surety is posted and the appropriate fees are paid. 4. It is understood the Developer grades this project according to the submitted grading plan at his own risk. Future review of utility construction plans could result in revisions to the grading design. . TO: Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Charleswood Conditional Use Permit- Grading. DATE: May 7, 1998 DISCUSSION /RECOMMENDATION The engineering division has reviewed the proposed grading plan submitted by Genstar Land Company for the first phase of Charleswood. There are several minor issues identified in the review letter to the Developers Engineer. It is recommended from an engineering standpoint that the Conditional Use Permit be approved with the following conditions: 1. The issues identified in the grading review letter need to be addressed before a permit can be issued. 2. All of the information required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction Info Sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. 3. The permit shall not be valid until the required surety is posted and the appropriate fees are paid. 4. It is understood that the Developer grades this project according to the submitted grading plan at his own risk. Future review of utility construction plans could result in revisions to the grading design. Respectfully submitted, ~}n~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file . C;tIJ of Farm; ntJton 325 Oak Stroot . Farmington, !.IN 55024 · (612 J 463-7111 · Fa, (612 J 463-2591 . May 7, 1998 Mr. Dwight Jelle Westwood Professional Services 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Grading Plan Review, Charleswood Dear Mr. Jelle: The Engineering division has reviewed the grading plan for the above referenced project . for the purposes of making a recommendation for a grading permit. The grading permit will be conditioned on the following comments being addressed: I. A flat landing area with a maximum grade of 2% extending 50-feet to the west of the curb line on Everest Path should be incorporated at the intersection of Eider Street and Everest Path. 2. Incorporate a low point with catch basins where Egyptian Path and Everest Path intersect County Road 64 to prevent runoff from the site from discharging onto the County Road. 3. The erosion control plan will be further reviewed in the field and additional items may be required by the City Engineer based on field conditions. 4. A plan outlining the re-vegetation of the site will need to be submitted before the permit can be valid. 5. Storm sewer plan and profile sheets with the required calculations were not submitted. The grading of the site based on this plan will be at the Developers risk. Future review of utility plans may necessitate revisions to the grading. . CitlJ. of FarminfJton 325 Oale Street · Farmington, MN 550211 · (612) 1163-7111 · Fa/( (612) 1163-2591 . . . Charleswood Grading Plan Review May 7, /998 Page 2 of2 If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at 463-1601. Sincerely, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public W orks/City Engineer cc: Dave Olson, Community Development Director Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator Steve Juetten, Genstar Land Company 3-22-1 . 'SECTION: 3-22- 1: 3-22- 2: 3-22- 3: 3-22- 4: 3-22- 5: 3-22- 6: 3-22- 7: 3-22- 8: 3-22- 9: 3-22-10: 3-22-11 : 3-22-12: 3-22-13: 3-22-14: 3-22-15: . 3-22-16: 3-22-2 CHAPTER 22 EXCAVATIONS AND MINING Purpose and Intent Definitions Permit Required Exemptions From Permit Requirements Applications for Permits; Procedures, Contents of Applications Council Review and Approval of Overall Plan; Function of Renewable Annual Permits Termination of Permit Annual Permits; Renewal; Conditions Issuance of Permit Imposes No Liability on City and Relieves the Permittee of No Responsibilities, etc. Fees Performance Bond or Irrevocable Letter of Credit Standards - Extraction Site Location Fencing Appearance and Screening at the Extraction Site Operations; Noise; Hours; Explosives; Dust; Water Pollution; Topsoil Preservation Rehabilitation Standards 3-22-1: PURPOSES AND INTENT: The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community and to establish reasonable uniform limitations, standards, safeguards and controls for excavation and mining within the City. 3-22-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words. terms and phrases shall have the following meanings respectively ascribed to them: A. Any excavation made by the removal of the natural surface of the earth, whether sod, dirt, soil, sand, gravel, stone, or other matter, creating a depression or depressions. MINE or EXCAVATION: These provisions previously supplemented 772:480:883:584:686:789:891 . 1092 City o( Farmmgton 3-22-4 3-22-5 is integral to construction or maintenance of roads, highways or utilities. . (0) Curb cuts, utility hookups or street openings for which another permit has been issued by the City. (E) Excavation of less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards In a calendar year. (F) Excavation of less than one hundred (100) square teet of surface area in a calendar year. (G) Excavation or grading for agricultural purposes. (H) Excavation or grading in accordance with development contract approved under the City's Subdivision Ordinance. If the development contract requires that a letter of credit or other security be posted, the letter of credit or other security must be posted before any excavation takes place. (Ord. 092-278, 8-3-1992) 3-22-5: APPLICA TIONS FOR PERMITS; PROCEDURES. CON- TENTS OF APPLICATIONS: (A) An application for a mine or excavation permit shall be processed in accordance with the same procedures and requirements specified in the City Code relating to conditional use permits. However, the hearing shall be held by the City Council following a review and recommendation from the Planning Commission. All applications dealing with land in flood plains shall also comply with requirements listed in Title 10, Chapter 10, of this Code. (Ord. 096-375, 7-1-1996) . (B) An application for a mine or excavation permit shall contain: 1. The name and address of the operator and owner of the land. 2. The correct legal description of the property where the activity is proposed to occur. 3. A certified abstract listing the names ot all landowners owning property within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the boundary of the property described above. 4. Specifications of the following, using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: 597 . City 0; Farmington 3-22-5 . . . 3-22-5 (f) The criteria and standards to be used to achieve final rehabilitation as well as intermittent stabilization. 11. A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure compliance with the permit conditions. method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may anse as a result of complaints. 294 City of Farmington 3-22-6 3-22-8 3-22-6: COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OVERALL PLAN; FUNCTION OF RENEWABLE ANNUAL PERMITS: . (A) A public hearing shall be held before the Council on each permit application. Notice of the hearing shall be published by the Clerk at least ten (10) days before the hearing. The City Council shall review the permit application and shall approve the permit if it is in compliance with this Chapter, the City's Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. The Council may attach conditions to the permit approval to promote safety and prevent nuisance conditions. The rehabilitation plan shall only be approved if it is consistent with the uses allowed in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (B) Implementation of the overall plan shall be by means of renewable annual permit. The purpose of the renewable permit is to assure compliance with the longer range overall plan and to retain the ability to modify existing or to attach new conditions in accordance with changing characteristics of the site or its surroundings. The City Administrator, after consultation with appropriate City staff, may issue renewal licenses upon satisfactory proof of compliance with this Chapter. If the City Administrator denies a renewal license, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal wi.th the City Clerk within ten (10) days after the City Administrator denies the permit. 3-22-7: TERMINATION OF PERMIT: . (A) The material excavation permit may be terminated for violation of this Chapter or any conditions of the permit. No permit may be terminated until the City Council has held a public hearing to determine whether the permit shall be terminated, at which time the operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the termination. The City Council may establish certain conditions, which if not complied with. will result in immediate suspension of operations until the public hearing to consider termination of the permit can be held. (B) It shall be unlawful to conduct mineral extraction or excavation after a permit has been terminated. 3-22-8: ANNUAL PERMITS; RENEWAL; CONDITIONS: (A) Application for renewal of an annual permit shall be made sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date. If application for renewal is not City of Farmington . 1092 3-22-11 3-22-14 . property or easements, if any. to the City and to comply with such conditions as may have been established by the City Council. Such agreement shall be accompanied by bond with surety or condition acceptable to the City Administrator in the amount of the established costs of complying with the agreement. The aforesaid agreement. bond or letter of credit shall be provided for guaranteeing completion and compliance with the conditions set forth in the permit within the time to be approved by the City Council. The adequacy, conditions and acceptability or any bond or letter of credit hereunder shall be determined by the City Administrator. The adequacy of the bond or letter of credit shall be reviewed annually by the City. The City may direct the amount of the bond or letter of credit be increased to reflect inflation or changed conditions. 3-22-12: 5T ANDARD5 - EXTRACTION SITE LOCATION: Operations permitted under this Chapter shall not be conducted within: (A) Fifty feet (50') of an existing street or highway; (8) Thirty feet (30') of the right of way of an existing public utility; (C) Fifty feet (50') of the boundary of any zone where such operations are not permitted; or (D) Thirty feet (30') of the boundary of an adjoining property not in mining use; or as directed by the City Council. . 3-22-13: FENCING: During operations which have received a permit under this Chapter, any area where collections of water are one and one-half feet (11/2') in depth or more. or where excavation .slopes are steeper than one foot vertical to one and one-half feet horizontal (1 :11/2), and any other areas where obvious danger to the public exists, shall be fenced when such a situation has existed or will exist for a period of five (5) working days or longer. The City Engineer shall review such fencing to assure its adequacy. He may waive this requirement or require additional measures based on his judgment and the characteristics of the particular instances. As an alternative, the City Engineer may require perimeter fencing of the entire extraction site. 3-22-14: APPEARANCE AND SCREENING AT THE EXTRACTION SITE: The following standards are required at the extraction site of any operation permitted under this Chapter: . 1092 City of Farmington 3-22-15 3-22-16 D) waste products or process residue shall be deposited in any lake. stream or natural drainage system. All waste water shall pass through a sediment basin before drainage into a stream. . (E) All topsoil shall be retained at the site until complete rehabilitation of the site has taken place according to the rehabilitation plan. (F) Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke and fumes caused by the operations. 3-22-16: REHABILITATION STANDARDS: The following rehabilitation standards shall apply to the site of any operation permitted under this Chapter. (A) Rehabilitation shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after the extraction operation has moved sufficiently into another part of the extrac ~n site. (B) All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the rehabili~ tation plan submitted with the permit application. (C) Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate topsoil to secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it is self-sustained. (0) All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon rehabilitation of the site. In unique instances where the City Council has reviewed proposals for water bodies at the time of approval of the overall plan and has determined that such would be appropriate as an open space or recreational amenity in subsequent reuse of the site, water bodies may be permitted. . (E) No part of the rehabilitation area which is planned for uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for connection to a sanitary or storm sewer. (Ord. 092-278, 8-3~92) 1092 City o( Farmington . .\ M I UWt:=ST ; 4-22-98 ; -n: ~~ ;- - - -GtNSTAK MlUWt::ST-" oll ~o~ ~591;# 2/ 2 ~;' > ;( <I'....'.',.........'... la City of Farmington Variance/Conditional Use Permit 315 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 61%-463-1111 FAX 611-463-1!91 APPLICATION FOR: 0 Variance HI Conditional Use* (please check) -requires an absnctors certificate of owners within 350 ft. (averale cOSt- $250-350) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: (lot, block. plat name, section. township, range) Leaal deserip~inn nf p~np.rty ~." b~ "fOUA4 9a tho fiRal plat submitted on 04/21/98. for offic, us, NUMBER ~B OWNER'S NAME James M Seed 'llDDRESS: 11000 West 78th street, Eden Prairie. Street Still. PRESBNTLANDUSB: Low Denisty/Medium Density SPECIFYNATUREOFREQUBST AND GROUNDS: To allow grAning n1"l 'cmh~act prOPQrty to avoid missing the 1998 construction saaaon. FOLLOWING ATI ACHED: (please cheek) ~~! o~ OWD_~ Jdi) Boundary Swvey already' sub- HA~JSUbU8B'Pu:tl ent UJ Copies of Site Plan mltted o Abstraet already sub- o Torrens (Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title Required)m1tted AppUcant'sSipturc ~~~ ~"61.) Applicant'sSignann Date q_~ Date ZONING DISTRICT R-3 PHONE 947-?A.44 MN 55.344 Zip Code P.U.D I()r oJllce 11$. only REQUEST Stml\UTI ED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ACTION: OPubUc Hearing set for: o Denied Reason: . FINAL ACTION: 0 Approved o Denied ONING ADMINISTRATOR: Commcnts: Reason: DATE: signature SENT BY:GENSTAR MIDWEST 5- 8-98; 12:32 GENSTAR MIDWEST~ 612 463 1611;# 2/ 2 CITY OF FARMINGTON EXCA V AnON GRADING AND MINERAL EXTRACl10N APPLICATION . Date May 6., 1998 Type C.U.P. To Grade Residential Propel'\)' No. Name of Applicant Genstar' Land Comp~y MIdwest Addrosa 11(!OO West 18th Street. Suite ~I. Eden PrairiO, Minnesota 55344 UlcatIon of Operation S. of J95th Street. E. of Co. Rd. 31 and at the Everest Path Extension. Name and Address ofLaod OWner The AstJ'l GenstJu' Partnership. L.L.P. Dimensions of 11'01 in which work wDl take place ApDroximate1y 1.800 feet b,yl.200 feet Maximum depth of excavation Approx. IS f~ Maximum height of fill Approx. 10 feet. Chuge In site elevations ~~ submitted arradlnl plan. Or,des chanJinll to ,ccomdate future residential develO,pment. Bstimated quantity to be moved: No material II PfQJ)Osed to bf; brourbt to the Jite or removed from the site. ~wroximately 145.600 yards of commun ~1Lcavation and ~rOOO yards of .ubvafle excavation is eJ(pected.. Date operation wDl start Early Jun~ 2. 1998 Dale operation will end B~pected roueh J1'adlne is eXDtcted to be glll\Plete by October 31 ~ 1998. Normal Days of operation PrimM")' Monday throurh Friday wUh Rome Saturd~ Houn Mondl\)' Jhroup frid,y - 7:00 I.m, to 7;00 p.m. If SaturdJO' 8:00 to ~:OO p.m. Does appnWlt plan to: J. Fence the operation? EroslftJI eontrol fence will be used )"here required. 2. Post warnin& alps? No sit!ns are antJelpap!. 3. Amm&e for props" drainage? Yelii 4. Arnn&e for noise suppression? ISo noise suppresslopls antidpated 5. Observe a butter from boundary Bnts? Becatl,e 'his is a _deal;.) proted. Vldln,ls ~ IQ) to the bound.1)' Dnell. ~ ,. Repair streeas damage from operation? With all work on site, no dallUlJf! II _peeled. 7. Furnish before and after topos? Befor~ tope and pro~ed "Rer ...po bas btQI submitted. As eam indivicl"al house Is qlm,)eted. an asj)ulll survey will be provided by the builder mnfirmlPJ ftpBI tt)J)OS. 8. FurnJsh . bond to the City? If .. bond or letter pr rredit is required one will be provided. 9. Furnish . Certlftcate or Insurance? The Qmtr.dor will proYide a Certifiaate of Insurance . Fee: Based on achedule of fees under RIlIolution R through ~. : $ VaUdl'rom s--~.. ..9/3 Date ~#--' Signature of plicant . Applialtion (approved. denied) by the City Coundl this _ day of . Date City Clerk: Charleswood Grading CUP II i[ II 1\ i ~.I CL1nl---J - - - 1---------11 -,--L-----J I 1\ r-:':--lLn _ __ __ --I--T-II~jf-~--T--r-- I I J( ~" I L_ I L-~11 I I \ I [ ~,i ! I ' I I il I _~___,"~.::==LI//~~ ~----TJ----------- I ~_ I I If------J I' ]' ---I II ~J I II I II . __IL~_~ {=--==1--- I II / --1---1~=~ i _J.. __nJ,'~l--t~ LJ -- ~ t~ "I r~~=) I II i IJI /1 l' ,-__~J l_,______,__________Jl___~_~____----J Blj--~-----,--j~=~ ",J, Tr-- II r"' f^rr't -lr~~J-- -L H- - r---~r ~' 0.5 , o 0.5 1 Miles , N W*E /\/ City BOWldary ,'"\,' MUSA BoWldary Scale s ~ DUi II NE Cor. of the, I ,I I SE 1/4. Sec. 23. \ Twp. 114. Rge. 20 \ I fakota Co. C.I.M.) \ I ~ _ _ --1\ ESSE): ~~'E. - - . a T - - 1/ <0 ~ 60, Z G:: c:i I ;C C) LI~ "'( Ireast line of the SE 1/4. Sec. 23 I I N 00018'38- E - ........ ..... ..... ..... ........ ...... ..... ........ ............... ..... ...... ..... .....'::::-.....- ................... ~ ---~~ ......~.......J ....., ............. ...... ..... ........... ........ C) .................. IV ......~..... ........__ //'"I:xis,,;., ..................:: - _ // locot. '!1 _..... ~.......... ed, ........~- .......................... ............... ..... '-. ~.'''I''':: C~ C::} "'( n -,... ~'::: "t- I~/ 'k:'''' ,,-r Edge of /.f"V" / Wetland . / I I ~ ~~ I v ,r.;6 I $1'0 OJ'}, e ~? ~~. ~\br':) b,br.9 ."~ o 0$1'.. '/ 1'0'" -; bro~ 00 .~ ;'/ ~b,~ \;? .r.;6 ----;.~ OJ~ 1 " ~A:? ,\,\.e ~ .::::- - -,#'--,' ".. "b- o / l.:) -.. -..l -=;.:. -.... G:: ~- "'( LJ_ " NW Cor. of the --" SE 1/4. Sec. 23. Twp. 114. Rge. 20 N 00007'43- W \ \ \ '-- west line of the SE 1/4. Sec. 23 ". , TO: City ~lanning Commission Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator [)aZ:J FROM: DATE: May 12, 1998 RE: Farmington Middle School2Dd Addition Final Plat Planning Department Review Applicant: Independent School District # 192 510 Walnut St. Farmington, MN 55024 Referrals: 1. Lee Mann, City Engineer Attachments: I. Final Plat 2. City Council Memo - April 6, 1998 Location of Property: South of 208th St. W., east and north of existing Middle School and west of the railroad ROW (SWif4 of the SEif4 if Section 30, Township 114 North, Range 19 West) Size of Property: 23.92 Acres Building Area: 163,747 S.F. Existing Zoning: R-3 (High Density - Other) Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Area Bounded By: Single-family residential is located to the west, agriculture to the north within Empire Township, railroad tracks to the east and City property to the south. Current Land Use: Agriculture Terrain: Terrain is mostly flat open space with little elevation change and a wetland area exists on the site. CitlJ. of FarminlJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · FaN (612) 463-2591 .. . . Staff Review: The Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat was approved by the City Council on April 6th contingent on the stipulations stated in the attached City Council memo and resolution. The Board of Adjustment on April 14th approved a Conditional Use Permit for the extraction and storage of materials within the floodway district. The City Engineer and Planning Coordinator have reviewed and approved the Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition Final Plat contingent on minor engineering and planning comments. Requested Action: Recommend approval of the Farmington Middle School - 2nd Addition Final Plat subject to the conditions identified in the Engineering Division's April 30th letter to the School District's Engineer and forward the final plat to the City Council after comments have been met. . . . :t () i:: ..... Q Q ~ ~ () ~ (I) ..... 0 () . ~ CI) LIJ .... Q Q ~ :t 0 I-- CJ ~ ~ ~ . ~ I I I !~ !~ r 1~ ,,~ "I ~ i! ~>, 1: <:tQ <:to if i~ lid ~ ~';Z. !! ~ !! j ~ 1-----_ -, I !! Q'~c..y;~,;;lt '::;J~~::'~r.:' :~;~J ....,:., ~o ~:; :~ ~ !~ ! !~ ','1 ~I I: tI o. l ............ It ~ ;> ~~ a: ~~. ~ ~~~ IiZ' ~~,~",. " ~~ :~ s~ ~ :~ g l~ / ~(~ . ' tl &a J It /'--- -~ -\.. l av.-?I4-' 'I '-, .j I " ", _ !i ~ ---------~~~------~~~_:~------- R ~ ~ ~ ~ ... I ~ ,.. "[6~9 f~ ~i -.:~-.._ :1 ..91,"'000 N fS ~:: I"~ ,,/ ,c, I<~ ,I I _ _ _ J<,j I:'L ~:~~ _ _ _ ~('~ I:JL _ _ ~ I I ----l I : ..,...... {''-'..,......, .1... .,;;. , ,~.... I -- <-,.-l I..~':_ - I I "'I ,--, I I I I ,~ ".I I i:( .' ~ Ja I~ Ai I \'t is ." ~..I~ ~ ... ~~I i~ ." . - \ i" ;;;Jll 0" ~~ / ~ H~ ~'1~ h.; 1;sl rib 15~6 ill l;;1I. r~:i ijii I!i~ uH !1 -, L ~ ... Ii; i" ~ ': ~ -. ~ ~ i~ ....;j i~ <3" 1i} iJ! n ~6 :;~;:%-;:-;:~ ',~~-:, -- ~~ ~I t-.1I Y) -I ~l i 1i .. 1i .. i ~ ~-- "'-!'t T ~.;." ~ L..~~~:"~ ~I ~ i~~~~~l ~! I----~-: ~i l ~ : ~ ~.!: SIt I a iii, L___.l___...J ! ::.-.';...~:'.~l!,; I I-- I -- 1 ~tt - - - - -. !1 I ~ .I 1 ; '-"'-,...",-- f --------/~ , " ~ or.""'S '../..IIs.""o_,...J u...::- I Jt-~ ~ t,<J -, ..:J:!~ ~;l () ~~ .;:) 1:\ ,., (~ ~~ ~ l .\ I ~ lit f~ ~j I~ " t~ .. TO: Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator . FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer . SUBJECT: Farmington 6-7 Middle School- Final Plat DATE: May 7, 1998 DISCUSSION /RECOMMENDATION The engineering division has reviewed the construction plans and the plat for the above referenced project. It is recommended that the final plat be approved at the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Council for approval contingent on the following: The Engineering Division's comments identified in the letter dated April 30, 1998 to the School District's Engineer need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. That the School District enter into a Development Contract with the City as stipulated at the time of preliminary plat approval. . Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file . Citlj of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fa/( (612) 463.2591 TO: . Mayor, CounciImembers, City Administrator FROM: Lee Smick, . Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat DATE: April 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION Independent School District 192 is seeking approval of a preliminary plat to locate a 163,747 square foot middle school building on 23.92 acres ofIand located to the east of 20 8th Street. DISCUSSION The entire plat consists of23.92 acres and is subdivided into two lots. Lot 1, Block 1 consists of8.19 acres and includes two ballfields and a soccer field and Lot I, Block 2 consists of 14.29 acres and includes the proposed middle school building. Right-of-way for 208th Street consists of 1.44 acres. The current zoning for the site is R-3 and has recently been approved for a conditional use permit to locate a school facility in an R-3 zone on February 10, 1998. The new school will serve grades 6 & 7 with the existing middle school housing grades 8 & 9 while the high school will serve grades 10 through 12. This rearrangement in classes will alleviate space requirement needs in both the existing middle school and high school. The School District proposes to house 1,050 students at its maximum capacity in Phase 1 of the proposed middle school. Upon future expansion of approximately 19,500 square feet, the school will house 1,350 students. Preliminary architectural plans show 24 typical classrooms, 6 science classrooms, 2 art classrooms, 2 home economic labs, 2 technical education labs, 3 music classrooms, 3 gymnasiums, a media center and a cafeteria along with administration offices. The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat on March 24th, contingent on engineering and planning comments. A summarization of the special meeting held on March 17th was presented to the Planning Commission and is addressed in the attached Planning Commission memo dated March 24, 1998. The following shows a brief summarization of the meeting comments: I. The proposed 208th Street roadway will be constructed at 24 feet in width and will meet the 35-mph speed requirement. When the 56-foot wide roadway is constructed, the school will rebuild it to MSA standards with a 10-ton road limit and will be assessed 100% for the construction of the 56- foot wide roadway. 2. A pedestrian crosswalk will be marked on the pavement for pedestrian access to the ball fields. 3. The proposed right-of-way alignment for 208m Street shows curve data and a legal description, which corresponds, to data provided by the Bonestroo Engineers and has been shown on the plat. 4. The northerly entrance is required to be a one-way, right-in, left-in roadway and will be maintained privately. When the 56-foot wide roadway is constructed, the northerly entrance is required to connect with 20Sth Street at a 900 angle. 5. The Fire Marshall made a recommendation that the existing entrance to the existing middle school remain in order for fire vehicles to access the existing middle school efficiently and in a timely CitlJ. of FarmintJton 325 Oale Street. FarminfJtonl MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · FaJr (612) 463.2591 8. manner. By removing the entrance, it does not violate the Fire Code, but, the School District assumes any liability for the inability for fIre vehicles to promptly arrive at the school site in case of a fIre. Sanitary and storm sewer locations will be further reviewed at the fmal plat stage. The School's engineers will work with Bonestroo.engineers to meet the requirements in utilizing the infIltration areas. The landscape buffer proposed to be located between the ballfIelds and Riverside Estates will provide adequate screening for the residences to the west. The ballfIelds have been located fIfty- three feet from the Riverside Estates' property line allowing for a larger buffer than was previously proposed. The backstops are located near the residential area rather than towards the wetlands because of inherent grading problems associated with the site. A 6-foot high fence will be located along the railroad right-of-way to the east of the proposed school and will begin at the northeast comer of the property and terminate at the southeast comer of the school property, requiring 1,345 linear feet of fencing. . 6. 7. 9. Any additional requirements presented by City staff in previous meetings are contingent on engineering and planning approval. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat contingent on Engineering and Planning comments. Respe~~~IlY su!'..ptitted, ..) .-).e( ~" '-' i Lee'Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator . . . . . RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FARMINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL 2ND ADDITION 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 6th day of April, 1998 at 7 :00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, a public hearing to review Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition preliminary plat was held on the 24th of March, 1998, after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended favorable action by the Council with certain conditions after receiving and evaluating comments from various parties; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above preliminary plat be approved with the following stipulations: 1. The proposed 208th Street roadway will be constructed at 24 feet in width and will meet the 35- mph speed requirement. When the 56-foot wide roadway is constructed, the school will rebuild it to MSA standards with a 10-ton road limit and will be assessed 100% for the construction of the 56-foot wide roadway. A pedestrian crosswalk will be marked on the pavement for pedestrian access to the ballfields. The proposed right-of-way alignment for 208th Street shows curve data and a legal description, which corresponds, to data provided by the Bonestroo Engineers and has been shown on the plat. The northerly entrance is required to be a one-way, right-in, left-in roadway and will be maintained privately. When the 56-foot wide roadway is constructed, the northerly entrance is required to connect with 208th Street at a 900 angle. Sanitary and storm sewer locations will be further reviewed at the final plat stage. The School's engineers will work with Bonestroo's engineers to meet the requirements in utilizing the infiltration areas. The landscape buffer proposed to be located between the ball fields and Riverside Estates will provide adequate screening for the residences to the west. The ball fields have been located fifty- three feet from the Riverside Estates' property line allowing for a larger buffer than was previously proposed. The backstops have to be located near the residential area rather than towards the wetlands because of inherent grading problems associated with the site. A 6-foot high fence will be located along the railroad right-of-way to the east of the proposed school and will begin at the northeast comer of the property and terminate at the southeast comer of the school property, requiring 1,345 linear feet offencing. Any additional requirements presented by City staff in previous meetings are contingent on engineering and planning approval. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 6th day of April, 1998. . Mayor . Attested to the _ day of April, 1998. City Administrator . . tI '* TO: City Planning Commission /'tJ (0 Lee SmIck, Plannmg Coordmator !y FROM: DATE: May 12, 1998 RE: Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD Comments: The attached memo by Tony DeMars involving the drainage and environmental issues along with recommended design changes to the Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD reveal the need to re-evaluate the layout and design of the PUD because of the potential adversity to the environment. Mr. DeMars states that because the 3D-day comment period has already ended for the EA W, the City cannot evaluate a second development scenario without resubmitting a new EA W and an alternate development scenario for another 3D-day review. The most efficient way to proceed would be to meet with the project developer and discuss specific changes to the project along with mitigation strategies. By implementing the changes in the memo and developing a sound mitigation plan, the developer and City will likely be able to proceed with the project following the May 18th Council Meeting. The TEC team reviewed the site on April 14th and May 7th and found numerous design issues concerning the potential impacts to the existing environment on the site and within Empire Township. The Record of Decision will be presented at the May 18th City Council meeting to meet the May 25th review period, therefore City staff recommends that the Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD be continued to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the City and the developer to prepare mitigation strategies. If the developer requests a motion from the Planning Commission, City staff recommends denial of the schematic PUD. Requested Action: Recommend continuance of the Prairie Creek East Schematic pun to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. If the developer requests a motion, recommend denial of the project. CitlJ of FarminiJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmin9tonl MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fair (612) 463-2591 ". ~ ~ - 1\11 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Bonestroo, Rosene, IInderllk and Associates. Inc. is anllffirmative IIction/Equal Opportunity Employer P,incipals: Otto G. Bonestroo. PE. . Joseph C. And..,lik, PE. . Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. . Richard E. Turner. PE. . Glenn R. Cook. PE. . Thomas E. Noyes. PE. . Robert G. Schunicht. PE. . Jerry A Bourdon. PE. . Robert W. Rosene, PE. and Susan M. Eberlin. C.PA., Senior Consultants IIssociate Principals: Howard A Sanford. PE. . Keith A. Gordon. P.E. . Robert R. Pfefferle. PE. . Richard W. Foster. PE. . David O. loskota. PE. . Robert C. Russek. AI.A . Mark A Hanson. PE. . Michael T. Rautmann. P.E. . Ted K:Field7 P.E. . Kenneth P Anderson, PE. . Mark R. Rolfs. PE. . Sidney P Williamson. PE.. loS. . Robert F. Kotsmith Offices: St. Paul. Rochester. Wi/lmar and St. Cloud. MN . Mequon. WI . Engineers & Architects Date: May 8, 1998 RE: Prairie Creek East Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) TO: Dave Olson, Community Development Director Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator Lee Mann, City Engineer John Erar, City Administrator At your request I have prepared alternatives for the City to consider as "next steps" in the Prairie Creek East EA W process. It is also my understanding that the project proposer has requested that the Planning Commission consider Schematic PUD Approval at the next Planning Commission Meeting and have therefore included citations of Minnesota Rules of the Environmental Review Program as guidance in this matter. The Prairie Creek East EA W was submitted for review to the official mailing list of the EQB on February 23rd 1998. On March 25th the 30-day comment period ended. After reviewing comment letters, City Staff determined that additional information was needed to make a Decision on Need for an EIS. For this reason, the City postponed the Decision of Need for an . EIS until the May 18th Council Meeting. . . The Decision of Need for an EIS requires that the City consider the following criteria as stated in MN Rules 4410.1700, subpt. 6: A. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects; B. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. The extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EIS's previously prepared. In evaluating the potential environmental impacts as measured by these criteria, the City may choose one of the following alternatives: . Make Decision of Need for an EIS based on project with only minimal modifications. Based on agency comments, it seems likely that the City would be compelled to make a positive declaration (require an EIS). . Require substantial changes to project including a mitigation plan that adequately addresses all substantive comments received during the 30-day comment period (no EIS required). . . Withdraw Prairie Creek East EA W, revise project and resubmit as new EA W. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 · 612-636-4600 ~ . . . ~ City of Farmington BRA File 141-1050 May 8. 1998 Page 2 Because the 30-day comment period has already ended, the City cannot evaluate a second development scenario without resubmitting the EA W and an alternate development scenario for another 30-day review. The most efficient way to proceed would be to meet with the project proposer and discuss specific changes to the project along with mitigation strategies. As a starting point for discussion, we have outlined proposed changes based on our analysis and discussion with commenting agencies. By implementing these changes and developing a sound mitigation plan, the project proposer and City will likely be able to proceed with the project following the May 18th Council Meeting. We recommend the following modifications to the Prairie Creek East PUD Concept Plan: I. No excavation of the drainage corridor within Empire Township should be permitted. Our analysis suggests that benefits from this work would not outweigh the environmental impacts to the riparian wetlands and the economic cost to the City. Agencies have indicated that mitigation, possibly at a ratio of 2: I, would be required if excavation work was completed within Empire Township. 2. Wetland Classifications. Based on input from the Technical Evaluation Panel, wetlands within the project site were determined to have the following stormwater management classifications: Basin A - Manage I Classification; Basin B & C - Manage 2. Classification. Stormwater management standards as prescribed in the City's Surface Water Management Plan for water quality, bounce and buffers must be followed. 3. Work resulting in negative impacts to wetlands should be avoided, especially in wetland Basin A. Our analysis and discussion with agencies suggest that significant impacts would occur to sensitive sedge-meadow wetlands and wildlife habitat of Basin A. Agencies have indicated that excavation of stormwater ponds within this wetland will be viewed as a negative impact and subject to mitigation. The intent of Farmington's Surface Water Management Plan was to protect all wetlands from impacts, except those classified as Utilize. 4. Wetland mitigation sequencing requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act must be followed. The proposed roadway crossing over Basin A and proposed fills in Basins B & C must follow WCA sequencing requirements. The location of the second road crossing should be evaluated to avoid impacts to a sensitive sedge meadow wetland along the north side of the drainage corridor. 5. Construct water quality basins and mitigate for unavoidable wetland impacts adjacent to the drainage corridor and the existing wetland complex (Basin A) within Farmington. This will improve the environmental, aesthetic and recreational link between Lake Julia and the North Creek. 6. The existing tOO-year floodplain along the drainage corridor within Farmington be defined and protected. The floodplain along the drainage corridor is separate from the North Creek floodplain through most of the City of Farmington. Only the North Creek floodplain has been defined at this time. All requirements of the City Floodplain Zoning Ordinance must be adhered to. Protection of future lots and property is of long term City of Farmington BRA File 141-1050 May 8, 1998 Page 3 importance to the City. The upper half of the drainage corridor has been artificially confined due to ditch digging in the past. The issue bf an appropriate corridor width to convey flow from Lake Julia and the surrounding development while allowing room for a pedestrian trail will need to be addressed. In terms of project approval (including preliminary plat approval) prior to completion of the EA W process, Minnesota Rules 4410.3100 states that conditional approval may be granted only if conditions (as imposed by the City as discussed above) are met by the project proposer. Conditional approval does not allow for approval to commence project construction. If you have any questions about these comments, please feel free to contact me at 604-4710. Sincerely, oz:;. }r{ ~ ~ Anthony R. DeMars Natural Resource Specialist C: BRA Pile 141-1050 .... " . . . ,. TO: City Planning Commission Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator oP May 12, 1998 FROM: DATE: RE: Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule Comments: The attached memo by Community Development Director Dave Olson explains the updated Comprehensive Planning process that was initiated on April 20th by the hiring of RLK and Jim Brimeyer. As witnessed by the timeline, the Community Visioning section of the plan will begin on June 1 sl and will involve interviews with community leaders and two days of workshops to determine the vision of the City. Planning Commission members will be contacted by RLK representatives shortly for one-on-one interviews and the workshops will be scheduled shortly thereafter. Requested Action: Inform staff of any scheduling conflicts or objectives missing from the schedule. CitlJ of FarminlJton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 55024 · (612) 463~ 7111 · Fax (612) 463.2591 /D6 ' TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator~ David L. Olson Community Development Director . FROM: SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule DATE: May 4, 1998 INTRODUCTION The City Council authorized retaining the finn ofRLK-Kuusisto and Jim Brimeyer at the April 20th Council meeting to assist the City in the update of its Comprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION City staff met with Steven Schwanke of RLK and Jim Brimeyer of the Brimeyer Group on April 27. 1998 to discuss a proposed project schedule prepared by City staff. A cony . of this schedule is attached. It was agreed that while this schedule is ambitious, it is the schedule we would need to follow to complete the Plan update by the end of the year. Based on the number of public meetings that are proposed and depending on the amount and nature of public input received, additional time may be required to complete this important project. The Met Council has already indicated infonnally that requests for extensions to the December 3 t, t 998 will be considered. It was discussed and recommended that the annual City Council I City Board and Commission meeting be scheduled after the first of two "Visioning Workshops" to be held in June. Upon completion, the annual meeting would be scheduled. It is likely that representatives of a number of the City's Boards and Commissions will be participating in the interviews as well as the Visioning Workshop(s). BUDGET IMPACT The cost of the consulting services is being funded by grants that were received by the Met Council, Dakota Electric and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. . CitlJ of Farmin9ton 325 Oale Street · Farminfton, JAN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fax (612) 463.2591 ACTION REOUESTED . This is for information only. Respectfully submitted, ~~ David L. Olson Community Development Director . . ... . . . . ~. . PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS Task . Hire Consultant . Project Initiation Clarify Responsibilities Refine Scope of Services Establish preliminary meeting schedule Begin discussions of key issues Execute a consultant contract for project Product: Clarified Schedule, Contract Signed · Comprehensive Plan Schedule Update at City Council . Comprehensive Plan Schedule Update at Planning Commission . Community Profile Data gathering of population, households, etc. Assemble info on transportation, natural resources and Public facilities City provides base map for land use mapping One visual inspection tour Product: Community Profile · Community Visioning Personal interviews with community leaders Two Days Visioning Workshops Two Days Product: Shared Community Vision · Policy Statements & Future Land Use Plan City staffwill work in conjunction with consultant to finalize Land Use Plan Joint meeting with City Council & Planning Commission Make Revisions from meeting Date April 20, 1998 April 27, 1998 May 4,1998 May 12, 1998 April 28 - June 1 June 1, 1998 June 1 - July 10 June 29 - Draft July 10 - Final July 10 - Sept 11 September 16, 1998 Sept 17 - Oct 2 Product: Policies and Land Use Plan . Neighborhood Meetings Product: Neighborhood Review of Plan . Draft Comprehensive Plan City staff will work in conjunction with consultant to finalize Comprehensive Plan Present Draft to City Council & Planning Commission Make Revisions from meeting Product: Comprehensive Plan . Planning Commission & Public Review . City Council Review . City Council Approval Product: Comprehensive Plan . Metropolitan Council Submittal **Due Dates shown in bold October 2,1998 Oct 3 - Oct 16 June 29 - Oct 21 October 28, 1998 Oct 29 - Nov 18 November 18, 1998 November 24,1998 December 7,1998 December 21, 1998 December 31, 1998 . . . .' TO: City Planning Commission Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator OF May 12, 1998 FROM: DATE: RE: Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule Comments: The attached memo by Community Development Director Dave Olson explains the updated Comprehensive Planning process that was initiated on April 20th by the hiring of RLK and Jim Brimeyer. As witnessed by the timeline, the Community Visioning section of the plan will begin on June I st and will involve interviews with community leaders and two days of workshops to determine the vision of the City. Planning Commission members will be contacted by RLK representatives shortly for one-on-one interviews and the workshops will be scheduled shortly thereafter. Requested Action: Inform staff of any scheduling conflicts or objectives missing from the schedule. Citlj of FarminfJ.ton 325 Oale Street · Farmington, MN 55024 · (612 J 463- 7111 · Fax (612 J 463-2591 / DfJ , FROM: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator~ David L. Olson Community Development Director . TO: SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update Schedule DATE: May 4, 1998 INTRODUCTION The City Council authorized retaining the firm of RLK-Kuusisto and Jim Brimeyer at the April 20th Council meeting to assist the City in the update of its Comprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION City staff met with Steven Schwanke of RLK and Jim Brimeyer of the Brimeyer Group on April 27, 1998 to discuss a proposed project schedule prepared by City staff. A cony . of this schedule is attached. It was agreed that while this schedule is ambitious, it is the schedule we would need to follow to complete the Plan update by the end of the year. Based on the number of public meetings that are proposed and depending on the amount and nature of public input received, additional time may be required to complete this important project. The Met Council has already indicated informally that requests for extensions to the December 31, 1998 will be considered. It was discussed and recommended that the annual City Council I City Board and Commission meeting be scheduled after the first of two "Visioning Workshops" to be held in June. Upon completion, the annual meeting would be scheduled. It is likely that representatives of a number of the City's Boards and Commissions will be participating in the interviews as well as the Visioning Workshop(s). BUDGET IMPACT The cost of the consulting services is being funded by grants that were received by the Met Council, Dakota Electric and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. . C;tlJ of FarminiJton 325 Oaft Street. FarminlJtDn, MN 55021, · (612) 1,63.7111 · Fait (612) 1,63.2591 ,.,. ACTION REOUESTED . This is for infonnation only. Respectfully submitted, ~~ David L. Olson Community Development Director . . . . . PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS Task . Hire Consultant . Project Initiation Clarify Responsibilities Refine Scope of Services Establish preliminary meeting schedule Begin discussions of key issues Execute a consultant contract for project Product: Clarified Schedule, Contract Signed . Comprehensive Plan Schedule Update at City Council . Comprehensive Plan Schedule Update at Planning Commission · Community Profile Data gathering of population, households, etc. Assemble info on transportation, natural resources and Public facilities City provides base map for land use mapping One visual inspection tour Product: Community Profile . Community Visioning Personal interviews with community leaders Two Days Visioning Workshops Two Days Product: Shared Community Vision · Policy Statements & Future Land Use Plan City staff will work in conjunction with consultant to finalize Land Use Plan Joint meeting with City Council & Planning Commission Make Revisions from meeting Date April 20, 1998 April 27, 1998 May 4, 1998 May 12, 1998 April 28 - June 1 June 1, 1998 June I - July 10 June 29 - Draft July 10 - Final July 10 - Sept 11 September 16, 1998 Sept 17 - Oct 2 Product: Policies and Land Use Plan . Neighborhood Meetings Product: Neighborhood Review of Plan . Draft Comprehensive Plan City staff will work in conjunction with consultant to finalize Comprehensive Plan Present Draft to City Council & Planning Commission Make Revisions from meeting Product: Comprehensive Plan . Planning Commission & Public Review . City Council Review . City Council Approval Product: Comprehensive Plan . Metropolitan Council Submittal **Due Dates shown in bold October 2,1998 Oct 3 - Oct 16 June 29 - Oct 21 October 28, 1998 Oct 29 - Nov 18 November 18, 1998 November 24,1998 December 7, 1998 December 21, 1998 December 31, 1998 . . . 1 - TO: City Planning Commission IV (0 Lee SmIck, Plannmg Coordmator !y FROM: DATE: May 12, 1998 RE: Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD Comments: The attached memo by Tony DeMars involving the drainage and environmental issues along with recommended design changes to the Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD reveal the need to re-evaluate the layout and design of the PUD because of the potential adversity to the environment. Mr. DeMars states that because the 3D-day comment period has already ended for the EA W, the City cannot evaluate a second development scenario without resubmitting a new EA W and an alternate development scenario for another 3D-day review. The most efficient way to proceed would be to meet with the project developer and discuss specific changes to the project along with mitigation strategies. By implementing the changes in the memo and developing a sound mitigation plan, the developer and City will likely be able to proceed with the project following the May 18th Council Meeting. The TEC team reviewed the site on April 14th and May 7th and found numerous design issues concerning the potential impacts to the existing environment on the site and within Empire Township. The Record of Decision will be presented at the May 18th City Council meeting to meet the May 25th review period, therefore City staff recommends that the Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD be continued to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the City and the developer to prepare mitigation strategies. If the developer requests a motion from the Planning Commission, City staff recommends denial of the schematic PUD. Requested Action: Recommend continuance of the Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. If the developer requests a motion, recommend denial of the project. CitlJ of FarminfJton 325 Oak Street · Farminfjton, MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fa/( (612) 463-2591 ... - ~ - 1\11 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Aceion/Equal Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, PE. . Joseph C. AnderJik, PE. . Marvin l. Sorvala, PE. . Richard E. Turner, P.E. . Glenn R. Cook, PE. . Thomas E. Noyes, PE. . Robert G. Schunicht. PE. . Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. . Robert W. Rosene, PE. and Susan M. Eberlin, C.PA., Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. . Keith A. Gordon, PE. . Robert R. Pfefferle, PE. . Richard W. Foster, PE. . David O. Loskota, PE. . Robert C. Russek, A.l.A. . Mark A. Hanson. P.E. . Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. . Ted K:Field~ P.E. . Kenneth P Anderson, PE. . Mark R. Rolfs, PE. . Sidney P Williamson, PE.. l.S. . Robert F. Kotsmith Offices: St. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud, MN . Mequon, WI . Engineers & Architects Date: May 8, 1998 RE: Prairie Creek East Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) TO: Dave Olson, Community Development Director Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator Lee Mann, City Engineer John Erar, City Administrator At your request I have prepared alternatives for the City to consider as "next steps" in the Prairie Creek East EA W process. It is also my understanding that the project proposer has requested that the Planning Commission consider Schematic PUD Approval at the next Planning Commission Meeting and have therefore included citations of Minnesota Rules of the Environmental Review Program as guidance in this matter. The Prairie Creek East EA W was submitted for review to the official mailing list of the EQB on February 23rd 1998. On March 25th the 30-day comment period ended. After reviewing comment letters, City Staff determined that additional information was needed to make a Decision on Need for an EIS. For this reason, the City postponed the Decision of Need for an EIS until the May 18th Council Meeting. . The Decision of Need for an EIS requires that the City consider the following criteria as stated in MN Rules 4410.1700, subpt. 6: A. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects; B. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. The extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or of EIS's previously prepared. In evaluating the potential environmental impacts as measured by these criteria, the City may choose one of the following alternatives: . Make Decision of Need for an EIS based on project with only minimal modifications. Based on agency comments, it seems likely that the City would be compelled to make a positive declaration (require an EIS). . Require substantial changes to project including a mitigation plan that adequately addresses all substantive comments received during the 30-day comment period (no EIS required). . . Withdraw Prairie Creek East EA W, revise project and resubmit as new EA W. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 · 612-636-4600 , ., City of Farmington BRA File 141-1050 May 8, 1998 Page 2 . Because the 30-day comment period has already ended, the City cannot evaluate a second development scenario without resubmitting the EAW and an alternate development scenario for another 30-day review. The most efficient way to proceed would be to meet with the project proposer and discuss specific changes to the project along with mitigation strategies. As a starting point for discussion, we have outlined proposed changes based on our analysis and discussion with commenting agencies. By implementing these changes and developing a sound mitigation plan, the project proposer and City will likely be able to proceed with the project following the May 18th Council Meeting. We recommend the following modifications to the Prairie Creek East PUD Concept Plan: 1. No excavation of the drainage corridor within Empire Township should be permitted. Our analysis suggests that benefits from this work would not outweigh the environmental impacts to the riparian wetlands and the economic cost to the City. Agencies have indicated that mitigation, possibly at a ratio of 2:1, would be required if excavation work was completed within Empire Township. 2. Wetland Classifications. Based on input from the Technical Evaluation Panel, wetlands within the project site were determined to have the following stormwater management classifications: Basin A - Manage 1 Classification; Basin B & C - Manage 2. Classification. Stormwater management standards as prescribed in the City's Surface Water Management . Plan for water quality, bounce and buffers must be followed. 3. Work resulting in negative impacts to wetlands should be avoided, especially in wetland Basin A. Our analysis and discussion with agencies suggest that significant impacts would occur to sensitive sedge-meadow wetlands and wildlife habitat of Basin A. Agencies have indicated that excavation of stormwater ponds within this wetland will be viewed as a negative impact and subject to mitigation. The intent of Farmington's Surface Water Management Plan was to protect all wetlands from impacts, except those classified as Utilize. 4. Wetland mitigation sequencing requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act must be followed. The proposed roadway crossing over Basin A and proposed fills in Basins B & C must follow WCA sequencing requirements. The location of the second road crossing should be evaluated to avoid impacts to a sensitive sedge meadow wetland along the north side of the drainage corridor. 5. Construct water quality basins and mitigate for unavoidable wetland impacts adjacent to the drainage corridor and the existing wetland complex (Basin A) within Farmington. This will improve the environmental, aesthetic and recreational link between Lake Julia and the North Creek. . 6. The existing IOO-year floodplain along the drainage corridor within Farmington be defined and protected. The floodplain along the drainage corridor is separate from the North Creek floodplain through most of the City of Farmington. Only the North Creek floodplain has been defined at this time. All requirements of the City Floodplain Zoning Ordinance must be adhered to. Protection of future lots and property is of long term City of Farmington BRA File 141-1050 May 8. 1998 Page 3 importance to the City. The upper half of the drainage corridor has been artificially confined due to ditch digging in the past. The issue of an appropriate corridor width to convey flow from Lake Julia and the surrounding development while allowing room for a pedestrian trail will need to be addressed. In terms of project approval (including preliminary plat approval) prior to completion of the EA W process, Minnesota Rules 4410.3100 states that conditional approval may be granted only if conditions (as imposed by the City as discussed above) are met by the project proposer. Conditional approval does not allow for approval to commence project construction. If you have any questions about these comments, please feel free to contact me at 604-4710. Sincerely, ~J11.~~ Anthony R. DeMars Natural Resource Specialist C: BRA Pile 141-1050 ., . . . " .. TO: City r1anning Commission Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator .tttI FROM: DATE: May 12, 1998 RE: Farmington Middle School20d Addition Final Plat Planning Department Review Applicant: Independent School District # 192 510 Walnut St. Farmington, MN 55024 Referrals: I. Lee Mann, City Engineer Attachments: I. Final Plat 2. City Council Memo - April 6, 1998 Location of Property: South of 208th St. W., east and north of existing Middle School and west of the railroad ROW (SW~ ofthe SE~ if Section 30, Township 114 North, Range 19 West) Size of Property: 23.92 Acres Building Area: 163,747 S.F. Existing Zoning: R-3 (High Density - Other) Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Area Bounded By: Single-family residential is located to the west, agriculture to the north within Empire Township, railroad tracks to the east and City property to the south. Current Land Use: Agriculture Terrain: Terrain is mostly flat open space with little elevation change and a wetland area exists on the site. Citl}. of Farmint}ton 325 Oak Street. Farmington, MN 550211 · (612) 1163.7111 · Fax (612) 1163.2591 " . . Staff Review: The Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat was approved by the City Council on April 6th contingent on the stipulations stated in the attached City Council memo and resolution. The Board of Adjustment on April 14th approved a Conditional Use Permit for the extraction and storage of materials within the floodway district. The City Engineer and Planning Coordinator have reviewed and approved the Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition Final Plat contingent on minor engineering and planning comments. Requested Action: Recommend approval of the Farmington Middle School- 2nd Addition Final Plat subject to the conditions identified in the Engineering Division's April 30th letter to the School District's Engineer and forward the final plat to the City Council after comments have been met. . . . CI: 0 i:: ..... Q Q ~ ~ -- ~ 0 (.) 1&1 <I) ...... 0 ~ . CI) Lu .... Q ~ ~ :c: 0 ..... ~ ~ i ~ . ~ 1 n~ -'!IS . hi ~_4 &i~ .~& !t~ 1iti'l. r~lli -j:~ -'u rf~~ ~!f~ "Hi- ~ i i I Ii 1~ 1- &- ~t :t .1 -. - ~ i! h ~i ~! .t !. Ii 1l ~ ':Z. ~ .. ~ j r-- ------ r I -- -- 8 -- --- -- C';--Q,Y~~'~l,t ';'~;~~;~.:' ~' ~:;~J ......., ~ ~~ ~~ ~{ ~ i~ ! l~ ............... ','1 ~ I 1 : fi d l it ~ :> s~ ~ .J. .. ~i~ . ~l. ~.! <" s~ ~J 3 :~ f: 0; 50 ~~ ~ it ;., i: ~ ~ .. ~ .~ <J I !~ ~ ,g ,~ ~~ I is ji / / , / ~(/ H l ~ ~... J '" 15 ... I ~ } - ,1- ~J!l ~~ -", J I ,... tl6S'9 ~::: :: \....., 3 .91.~roOD N f~ ~:I I"~; I '.', I<~ " (::l ~. ~~'" ('~ ,oIL I _ _ _ J'" l.'IL _>'''::''''- _ _ _ ..J _ _ ---J I _l,," :.;.. '''V L---l r-~-~-l ~--~ I I I "'\". I ~ I I / " I;" I' I I ., L I ,----- , - ---- 1 -- -- -- 't, -- '. ~ ~ ~" i~ ..lll ill d~ :1 :e.s n ~I -- -- - 8~ Of :t., "'" (1)1 ~l 1 1; ... '\ ... 1 ~ ~ ~/;~i':';j":~ ~:':...' ~ :a~ 1::' ~i s J'''~' r~ T -;" I ,.........~-.. 'I f)~~, ~---,,-'fBj;j I " ,~lllD : ~ I ~ &i: L___.1.___-' " ! -- :! ... ;:; ~ ~ f -- -- --- .C'.~.~7.~(/.""; ~ '-- I ~ J ~ I ',".".00." '" -f""~ - - - - - - - -, " " " ~ /JC """5 ',;" MS"~',o...." ,.",J <1",:;;:- I JI-: ~ t.~ I il~~ I ,-' ;t~ I I () ~? .,) I;) lo~ '5 ~~ l I ~ I- I~ " t~ \1 ;:.~ TO: Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer . SUBJECT: Farmington 6-7 Middle School- Final Plat DATE: May 7, 1998 DISCUSSION /RECOMMENDATION The engineering division has reviewed the construction plans and the plat for the above referenced project. It is recommended that the final plat be approved at the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Council for approval contingent on the following: The Engineering Division's comments identified in the letter dated April 30, 1998 to the School District's Engineer need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. That the School District enter into a Development Contract with the City as stipulated at the time of preliminary plat approval. . Respectfully submitted, ~YJ1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file . CitlJ. of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street. Farmin9ton, MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fair (612) 463-2591 TO: . Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator FROM: Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat DATE: April 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION Independent School District 192 is seeking approval ofa preliminary platto locate a 163,747 square foot middle school building on 23.92 acres of land located to the east of 20Sth Street. DISCUSSION The entire plat consists of23.92 acres and is subdivided into two lots. Lot 1, Block 1 consists of8.19 acres and includes two ballfields and a soccer field and Lot I, Block 2 consists of 14.29 acres and includes the proposed middle school building. Right~of-way for 208th Street consists of 1.44 acres. The current zoning for the site is R-3 and has recently been approved for a conditional use permit to locate a school facility in an R-3 zone on February 10, 1998. The new school will serve grades 6 & 7 with the existing middle school housing grades 8 & 9 while the high school will serve grades 10 through 12. This rearrangement in classes will alleviate space requirement needs in both the existing middle school and high school. The School District proposes to house 1,050 students at its maximum capacity in Phase 1 of the proposed middle school. Upon future expansion of approximately 19,500 square feet, the school will house 1,350 students. Preliminary architectural plans show 24 typical classrooms, 6 science classrooms, 2 art classrooms, 2 home economic labs, 2 technical education labs, 3 music classrooms, 3 gymnasiums, a media center and a cafeteria along with administration offices. The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat on March 24th, contingent on engineering and planning comments. A summarization of the special meeting held on March 17th was presented to the Planning Commission and is addressed in the attached Planning Commission memo dated March 24, 1998. The following shows a brief summarization of the meeting comments: 1. The proposed 20Sth Street roadway will be constructed at 24 feet in width and will meet the 35-mph speed requirement. When the 56-foot wide roadway is constructed, the school will rebuild it to MSA standards with a 10-ton road limit and will be assessed 100% for the construction of the 56- foot wide roadway. 2. A pedestrian crosswalk will be marked on the pavement for pedestrian access to the ballfields. 3. The proposed right-of-way alignment for 208th Street shows curve data and a legal description, which corresponds, to data provided by the Bonestroo Engineers and has been shown on the plat. 4. The northerly entrance is required to be a one-way, right-in, left-in roadway and will be maintained privately. When the 56-foot wide roadway is constructed, the northerly entrance is required to connect with 20Sth Street at a 900 angle. 5. The Fire Marshall made a recommendation that the existing entrance to the existing middle school remain in order for fire vehicles to access the existing middle school efficiently and in a timely Citl) of FarminiJ.ton 3250aftStreet -Farmington, MN55024. (612) 463.7111.FaJr (612) 463.2591 8. manner. By removing the entrance, it does not violate the Fire Code, but, the School District assumes any liability for the inability for fIre vehicles to promptly arrive at the school site in case of a fIre. Sanitary and storm sewer locations will be further reviewed at the fInal plat stage. The School's engineers will work with Bonestroo engineers to meet the requirements in utilizing the. infIltration areas. The landscape buffer proposed to be located between the ball fields and Riverside Estates will provide adequate screening for the residences to the west. The ballfIelds have been located fIfty~ three feet from the Riverside Estates' property line allowing for a larger buffer than was previously proposed. The backstops are located near the residential area rather than towards the wetlands because of inherent grading problems associated with the site. A 6-foot high fence will be located along the railroad right-of-way to the east of the proposed school and will begin at the northeast comer of the property and terminate at the southeast comer of the school property, requiring 1,345 linear feet offencing. . 6. 7. 9. Any additional requirements presented by City staff in previous meetings are contingent on engineering and planning approval. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving the Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat contingent on Engineering and Planning comments. Respect).Y-lly sUY-lDitted, . ') ,"""/'1 b 0/ {o// ,,~ ;..t::. L (~) . i Lee 'Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator . . . . RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FARMINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL 2ND ADDITION 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 6th day of April, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, a public hearing to review Farmington Middle School 2nd Addition preliminary plat was held on the 24th of March, 1998, after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended favorable action by the Council with certain conditions after receiving and evaluating comments from various parties; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly served by municipal service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above preliminary plat be approved with the following stipulations: 1. The proposed 208th Street roadway will be constructed at 24 feet in width and will meet the 35- mph speed requirement. When the 56-foot wide roadway is constructed, the school will rebuild it to MSA standards with a lO-ton road limit and will be assessed 100% for the construction of the 56-foot wide roadway. A pedestrian crosswalk will be marked on the pavement for pedestrian access to the ballfields. The proposed right-of-way alignment for 208lh Street shows curve data and a legal description, which corresponds, to data provided by the Bonestroo Engineers and has been shown on the plat. The northerly entrance is required to be a one-way, right-in, left-in roadway and will be maintained privately. When the 56-foot wide roadway is constructed, the northerly entrance is required to connect with 208th Street at a 900 angle. Sanitary and storm sewer locations will be further reviewed at the final plat stage. The School's engineers will work with Bonestroo's engineers to meet the requirements in utilizing the infiltration areas. The landscape buffer proposed to be located between the ballfields and Riverside Estates will provide adequate screening for the residences to the west. The ballfields have been located fifty- three feet from the Riverside Estates' property line allowing for a larger buffer than was previously proposed. The backstops have to be located near the residential area rather than towards the wetlands because of inherent grading problems associated with the site. A 6-foot high fence will be located along the railroad right-of-way to the east of the proposed school and will begin at the northeast corner of the property and terminate at the southeast comer of the school property, requiring 1,345 linear feet offencing. Any additional requirements presented by City staff in previous meetings are contingent on engineering and planning approval. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 6th day of April, 1998. . Mayor Attested to the _ day of April, 1998. City Administrator . . TO: City Planning Commission Michael Schultz I1r f] Associate Planner? FROM: DATE: May 12, 1998 RE: Genstar Grading CUP INTRODUCTION Genstar Land Company is seeking a conditional use permit for grading on the proposed first phase of their Charleswood development. Planning Department Review Applicant: Genstar Land Company 11000 West 78th Street, Suite 201 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Referral Comments: 1. Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Section 3-22: Excavation Grading and Mineral Extraction 2. Conditional Use Permit Application 3. Grading Application 4. Location Map 5. Proposed First Phase Site Plan South of 195th Street W., south of the Troyhill and Fairhills developments. Location of Property: Size of Grading Area: Approximately 49.6 acres Existing Zoning: R-3 PUD Grading Area Bounded By: Single-family residential across 19Sth St. W., Agriculture Comprehensive Plan: Single-family residential Current Land Use: Agriculture and Natural Open Space f CitlJ of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington, MN 550211 · (612) 1163.7111 · Fax (612) 463.2591 Backflround Information: The Charleswood PUD was approved at the Planning Commission on October 14, 1997 and at the City Council on November 3rd 1997. The first phase preliminary plat was approved at the Planning Commission on February 10, 1998 and at the City Council on February 17, 1998. . Additional Comments: Genstar Land Company is seeking the conditional use permit to begin grading the first phase of the single-family portion of their Charleswood development, though the first phase final plat has not yet been approved. Genstar is scheduling for either the May 26th or June 9th Planning Commission for final plat approval, City Council approval would occur at the earliest date following the meeting. The EA W that was required for this development received a negative declaration at the May 4th City Council meeting. The negative declaration by the regulating governing unit (RGU) assumes that there will be no significant environmental impacts due to the proposed development. Though this process is has not been typical in the platting of residential development, City Staff feels that with properly established agreements and/or sureties, the City will be able to effectively protect the overall completion of the development. Requested Action: Planning Staff recommends approval of the grading permit to be forwarded to the City Council contingent upon the signing of a development contract and the following Director of Public Works/City Engineer's conditions: . 1. The issues identified in the grading review letter need to be addressed before a permit can be issued. 2. All of the information required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction Info Sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. 3. The permit shall not be valid until th~ required surety is posted and the appropriate fees are paid. 4. It is understood the Developer grades this project according to the submitted grading plan at his own risk. Future review of utility construction plans could result in revisions to the grading design. . TO: Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Charleswood Conditional Use Permit - Grading. DATE: May 7, 1998 DISCUSSION /RECOMMENDATION The engineering division has reviewed the proposed grading plan submitted by Genstar Land Company for the first phase of Charles wood. There are several minor issues identified in the review letter to the Developers Engineer. It is recommended from an engineering standpoint that the Conditional Use Permit be approved with the following conditions: 1. The issues identified in the grading review letter need to be addressed before a permit can be issued. 2. All of the information required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction Info Sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. 3. The permit shall not be valid until the required surety is posted and the appropriate fees are paid. 4. It is understood that the Developer grades this project according to the submitted grading plan at his own risk. Future review of utility construction plans could result in revisions to the grading design. Respectfully submitted, ~}Yl~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file . City 0 (Farmin9ton 325 OakS,,.et . Farm;."", MN 55024 · (612 J 463- 7111 · FtfX (612 J 463- 2591 . May 7, 1998 Mr. Dwight Jelle Westwood Professional Services 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Grading Plan Review, Charleswood Dear Mr. Jelle: The Engineering division has reviewed the grading plan for the above referenced project for the purposes of making a recommendation for a grading permit. The grading permit will be conditioned on the following comments being addressed: . 1. A flat landing area with a maximum grade of2% extending 50-feet to the west of the curb line on Everest Path should be incorporated at the intersection of Eider Street and Everest Path. 2. Incorporate a low point with catch basins where Egyptian Path and Everest Path intersect County Road 64 to prevent runoff from the site from discharging onto the County Road. 3. The erosion control plan will be further reviewed in the field and additional items may be required by the City Engineer based on field conditions. 4. A plan outlining the re-vegetation of the site will need to be submitted before the permit can be valid. 5. Storm sewer plan and profile sheets with the required calculations were not submitted. The grading of the site based on this plan will be at the Developers risk. Future review of utility plans may necessitate revisions to the grading. . CitlJ of FarminfJton 325 Oak Street · FarminfJton, MN 550211 · (612) 463-7111 · Fax (612) 1163.2591 . . . Charles wood Grading Plan Review May 7, 1998 Page 2 of2 If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at 463-1601. Sincerely, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: Dave Olson, Community Development Director Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator Steve Juetten, Genstar Land Company 3-22-1 . 'SECTION: 3-22- 1: 3-22- 2: 3-22- 3: 3-22- 4: 3-22- 5: 3-22- 6: 3-22- 7: 3-22- 8: 3-22- 9: 3-22-10: 3-22-11 : 3-22-12: 3-22-13: 3-22-14: 3-22-15: . 3-22-16: 3-22-2 CHAPTER 22 EXCAVATIONS AND MINING Purpose and Intent Definitions Permit Required Exemptions From Permit Requirements Applications for Permits; Procedures. Contents of Applications Council Review and Approval of Overall Plan; Function of Renewable Annual Permits Termination of Permit Annual Permits; Renewal; Conditions Issuance of Permit Imposes No Liability on City and Relieves the Permittee of No Responsibilities, etc. Fees Performance Bond or Irrevocable Letter of Credit Standards - Extraction Site Location Fencing Appearance and Screening at the Extraction Site Operations; Noise; Hours; Explosives; Dust; Water Pollution; Topsoil Preservation Rehabilitation Standards 3-22-1: PURPOSES AND INTENT: The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community and to establish reasonable uniform limitations, standards. safeguards and controls for excavation and mining within the City. 3-22-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words. terms and phrases shall have the following meanings respectively ascribed to them: A. Any excavation made by the removal of the natural surface of the earth, whether sod. dirt, soil, sand, gravel, stone, or other matter, creating a depression or depressions. MINE or EXCAVATION: These provisions previously supplemented 772:480:883:584:686;789:891 . 1092 City 0" Farmington 3.22-4 3-22-5 is integral to construction or maintenance of roads. highways or utilities. . (D) Curb cuts, utility hookups or street openings tor which another permit has been issued by the City. (E) Excavation of less than one thousand (1.000) cubic yards In a calendar year. (F) Excavation of less than one hundred (100) square teet of surface area in a calendar year. (G) Excavation or grading tor agricultural purposes. (H) Excavation or grading in accordance with development contract approved under the City's Subdivision Ordinance. If the development contract requires that a letter of credit or other security be posted. the letter of credit or other security must be posted before any excavation takes place. (Ord. 092-278, 8-3-1992) 3-22-5: APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS; PROCEDURES, CON. TENTS OF APPLICATIONS: (A) An application for a mine or excavation permit shall be processed in accordance with the same procedures and requirements specified in the City Code relating to conditional use permits. However, the hearing shall be held by the City Council following a review and recommendation from the Planning Commission. All applications dealing with land in flood plains shall also comply with requirements listed in Title 10, Chapter 10, of this Code. (Ord. 096-375, 7-1-1996) . (B) An application for a mine or excavation permit shall contain: 1. The name and address of the operator and owner of the land. 2. The correct legal description of the property where the activity is proposed to occur. 3. A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners owning property within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the boundary of the property described above. 4. Specifications of the following, usmg appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: 597 City 0; Farm,ngton . 3-22-5 . . . 3-22-5 (f) The criteria and standards to be used to achieve final rehabilitation as well as intermittent stabilization. 11. A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure compliance with the permit conditions. method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a result of complaints. 294 City of Farmington 3-22-6 3-22-8 3-22-6: COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OVERALL PLAN; FUNCTION OF RENEWABLE ANNUAL PERMITS: . (A) A public hearing shall be held before the Council on each permit application. Notice of the hearing shall be published by the Clerk at least ten (10) days before the hearing. The City Council shall review the permit application and shall approve the permit if it is in compliance with this Chapter, the City's Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. The Council may attach conditions to the permit approval to promote safety and prevent nuisance conditions. The rehabilitation plan shall only be approved if it is consistent with the uses allowed in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (B) Implementation of the overall plan shall be by means of renewable annual permit. The purpose of the renewable permit is to assure compliance with the longer range overall plan and to retain the ability to modify existing or to attach new conditions in accordance with changing characteristics of the site or its surroundings. The City Administrator, after consultation with appropriate City staff, may issue renewal licenses upon satisfactory proof of compliance with this Chapter. If the City Administrator denies a renewal license, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal wi,th the City Clerk within ten (10) days after the City Administrator denies the permit. 3-22-7: TERMINATION OF PERMIT: . (A) The material excavation permit may be terminated for violation of this Chapter or any conditions of the permit. No permit may be terminated until the City Council has held a public hearing to determine whether the permit shall be terminated, at which time the operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the termination. The City Council may establish certain conditions, which if not complied with, will result in immediate suspension of operations until the public hearing to consider termination of the permit can be held. (B) It shall be unlawful to conduct mineral extraction or excavation after a permit has been terminated. 3-22-8: ANNUAL PERMITS; RENEWAL; CONDITIONS: (A) Application for renewal of an annual permit shall be made sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date. If application for renewal is not City of Farmington . 1092 3-22-11 3-22-14 . property or easements, if any, to the City and to comply with such conditions as may have been established by the City Council. Such agreement shall be accompanied by bond with surety or condition acceptable to the City Administrator in the amount of the established costs of complying with the agreement. The aforesaid agreement, bond or letter of credit shall be provided for guaranteeing completion and compliance with the conditions set forth in the permit within the time to be approved by the City Council. The adequacy I conditions and acceptability or any bond or letter of credit hereunder shall be determined by the City Administrator. The adequacy of the bond or letter of credit shall be reviewed annually by the City. The City may direct the amount of the bond or letter of credit be increased to reflect inflation or changed conditions. 3-22-12: STANDARDS - EXTRACTION SITE LOCATION: Operations permitted under this Chapter shall not be conducted within: (A) Fifty feet (50') of an existing street or highway; (6) Thirty feet (30') of the right of way of an existing public utility; (C) Fifty feet (50') of the boundary of any zone where such operations are not permitted; or (D) Thirty feet (30') of the boundary of an adjoining property not in mining use; or as directed by the City Council. . 3-22-13: FENCING: During operations which have received a permit under this Chapter I any area where collections of water are one and one-half feet (1 '/2') in depth or more, or where excavation .slopes are steeper than one foot vertical to one and one-half feet horizontal (1 :11/2), and any other areas where obvious danger to the public exists, shall be fenced when such a situation has existed or will exist for a period of five (5) working days or longer. The City Engineer shall review such fencing to assure its adequacy. He may waive this requirement or require additional measures based on his judgment and the characteristics of the particular instances. As an alternative, the City Engineer may require perimeter fencing of the entire extraction site. 3-22-14: APPEARANCE AND SCREENING AT THE EXTRACTION SITE: The following standards are required at the extraction site of any operation permitted under this Chapter: . 1092 City of Farmmgton 3-22-15 3-22-16 D) waste products or process residue shall be deposited in any lake, stream or natural drainage system. All waste water shall pass through a sed~ment basin before drainage into a stream. . (E) All topsoil shall be retained at the site until complete rehabilitation of the site has taken place according to the rehabilitation plan. (F) Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke and fumes caused by the operations. 3-22-16: REHABILITATION STANDARDS: The following rehabilitation standards shall apply to the site of any operation permitted under this Chapter. (A) Rehabilitation shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after the extraction operation has moved sufficiently into another part of the extrac m site. (B) All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the rehabili- tation plan submitted with the permit application. (C) Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate topsoil to secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it is self-sustained. (D) All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon rehabilitation of the site. In unique instances where the City Council has reviewed proposals for water bodies at the time of approval of the overall plan and has determined that such would be appropriate as an open space or recreational amenity in subsequent reuse of the site, water bodies may be permitted. . (E) No part of the rehabilitation area which is planned for uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for connection to a sanitary or storm sewer. (Ord. 092-278, 8-3.92) 1092 City o( FarmIngton . .( M I UWt:.:sT ; 4-22-98; ll:l~; Ut:NSIAK M lUWt:.:sT.... bIZ ~b~ l591;# 2/ 2 t. (- . 'i. .'......... " '~ '':3! City of Farmington Variance/Conditional Use Permit 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 6t:z..s63-1ttl FAX 6t2~63-1!91 for olJiCI use NUMBER APPLICA nON FOR: 0 Variance ~ Conditional Use* (please check) erequlres an abstractors certificate of ownCI1 withln 350 ft. (avc:rasc CO$I- $250-350) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: (lot, block. plat name, sectioD. township, range) Le9al deae~ip~inn nf p~nperty ~a" b9 'fOUA~ ea tke fiftal plat submitted on 04/21/98. FEE OWNER'S NAME James M Seed 411PDRESS: 11000 West 78th street, Eden Prairie. Street SIIll. PRESENT LAND USE: Low Denisty/Medium Density SPECIFY NATURE OF REQUEST AND GROUNDS: To 111 low g~llifin9 nft anhjDot prOPQrty to avoid missing the 1998 construction season. FOLLOWING ATIACHED: (please cheek.) ~r~tofOwn~~ liil Boundary Survey already' sub- gApjSm:a68"aftJ ent UJ Copies of Site Plan ml tted . 0 Abstract already Bub- O Torrens (Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title Rcquired)mi tted AppUcant's Signature ~~L ~4f"ll.) Applicant's SignatU1'C Date q..~ Dato ZONING DISTRICT R-3 PHONE 947_?A.44 MN 55344 Zip Code P.U.D lor office us. only REQUEST SUBMl"tlED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ACTION: DPubUc Hearing set for: o Denied Reason: . FINAL ACTION: 0 Approved o Denied Comments: Reason: ONING ADMINISTRATOR: DATE: signature SENT BY:GENSTAR MIDWEST 5- 8-38 12:32 GENSTAR M I DWEST~ 612 463 1611;# 2/ 2 CITY OF FARMINGTON . EXCAVA110N GRADING AND MINERAL EXTRAcrION APPLICATION Date Ml\)f 6. 1998 Type C.U.P. To Grade Residential Proper\)' No. Name of Applicant Genstal' Land CoqJ~Y Midwest Addreu 1 \QOO West 18th Street. Suite ~I. Eden Prairi,~ Minnesota 55344 Location of Operation S. of 195th Street. E. of Co. Rd. 31 and Il the Everest Path Extension. Name and Address of Land OWner The Astra Genstar Partner~ip_ L.L.P. Dimensions of area in which work wnl take place At-proximately 1.800 feet by1.200 feet Maximum depth of excavation Approx. 1 S fQCt Maximum height of fill Approx. 10 feet.. Change In aite elevations S~ submitted 2fadinr ~Ian. Grades chlorine to ,ccomdate future residential develo.pment. Estimated quantity to be moved: No material i. pt'QPOSed to b~ brourht to the ~ite or removed fr9m the site. ~pproxi~ly 14S.600 yards of commun ~xcavation and ~,OOO yards of ,ubrrade excavation is expected. Date operation wUlltart Early Jun~ 2. 1998 Date operation wUl end Expected roulh eradin, is eXD~ to be ~rnplete by October 31. 1998. . Normal Days of operation PrimprUy Mond~y throurh Friday ~itJJ Rome Saturd,.ys Houn Monday lhroup FrldJY - 7:00 a.mr to 7:00 p.m. If Samrday 8:00 to ~:OO p.m. Does appUunt plaD to: J. Fence the operation? Erosion mntrol fence will be used )\'here required. 2. Post warning sips! No 112M are antlclpaled. 3. Ammge tor proper drainage? Yes 4. Arrange lor noise suppression? No tlOlse sQPpresslon Is antidpated 5. Observe a buffer from bouPdary DDtS? Becau,., 'his Is a residential prqJed. ~adin, Is I!,JIUted QP to the boundary Unes. ~ ,. Repair streets damace from operation? With all work QIl site, no dalllJ_ is expected. 7. Furnish hetore and Arter topos? Before tope and proposed "Rei' tope bas b~ suhmltted. As each indlvidpal house Is Qtmpleted. an 8S~uilt surv~ will be provided by the huilder mnfirmlq ft.-a. to.pos. 8. Furnish . bond to the City? If a bond or letter car tredU is required one will he provided. 9. F'umlsh a Certificate or Insurance? The mntrador will pro....de a Certificate or In."Iurance Fee: Based Oft achedule of fees under RMolutlon R through .~. : . Valid from s- - ~.. .98 Date ~~ Signature of pJicant . Application (approved, denied) by the City CouRdI thill _ day of City Cler~ Date Charleswood Grading CUP ___________J I II r' II I ______-Ll__J f...---------....L . ... r '1=~1 I~I -- - ~ =- ~I L---il il______________ ___ --'------r----I [:7- ~ --------r--i - I l_~( [J II L_ I [11 ' I I I, I I 911 I I I 'I I ----.l--Jl/.LJ1~ [ - -.l ]-----------1 - , I - I I I II ______J --~ II I I! 'I I 11 .--------il--L-~=-=III----------- -1----------- I i -------~ ! I ' I -~-----_7 I / l ! 1 \>~ r ----- In~______j I / ~\ I -----1.. .. --ilc~ -I ! 1- I I '~!..<:J r" . i . L \~\ ,(fI8 I' l I I I ilL n ] 1_. /l 'c-hillu l_nJ.J I I I : r IC--l, I t- _, - .1_ - -~l~--J I --1 ==:J J FT---=j t= I--~; 1 ~ I I -I/-t.--jfn-jl I I II I, i-I[ I~ ~-ll ,l--l __ --- -____~~Jl_._ __ ______Jl__ .- __ -=-cc==J O~:[J~-j--08~l----~- --~__-=~'ru~=:; Tu--TTll--~-1r--I._~ - -'-H--_ . fir. I I ,II, I en .__..-J L ..__ ,^J City BOImdary ,'-\,' MUSA Boundary 0.5 , Scale N W*E o 0.5 I Miles , S -- z av, 'I NE Cor. of the, I I, I SE 1/4, Sec. 2.3, \ Twp. 114, Rge. 20' I I fakota Co. C./.M.) \ ~ - _ --l' ESSE): ~~/E. - - . o T - - II to ~ 60, r~ ci I ;C c:\ w, ~( /reast line of the SE 1/4. Sec. 23 I I N 00018'38- E .. . ~ / .... ~ IV) C\j <.i ~ ~ -..; ~ lc) -.. <II -- -.... :S S': I:~ C) ..... iJ:: 0 ~- <II ~ ..c: .... ~ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..................... .............. ....... ....... .......--::::........ ..................... ~ ~.......~ ~ .......J;;;;....... J .......r .............. ....... ....... .............. ....... " .............. i'i/ .......~....... r-r- .............. -_ / eXlstl ....... - / loc 'l]g '-= - ~ Ot{Jd --_...c~--_ ' ........................... .................. - ................~ ci C:\ "'C 1"'\ ~~ .... . I~/ .~'t. ...-f" Edge of /~'J,/ / Wetland . / / / ~~ / -t-v l~& / v~ o'j~ '0 ~/:..l>. ~\br? brb..q ."'t.- o Ov \' -/ '0" .. _,;--./"' o~1 00 ......- ~br~ \J~' ,~6~ ~---;~ OJ~ 1 '" ~br? \\.'0 -Z- ..::::- _ _~...,' R": ~- o ~ Ll -.... -... ':;::. -... iJ:: ;c L,_ '" NW Cor. of the ,./'" SE 1/4. Sec. 23, Twp. 114, Rge. 20 N 00007'43- W \ \ \ '- west line of the SE 1/4. Sec. 23 TO: City Planning Commission David L. Olson flP Community Development Director FROM: DATE: May 12, 1998 RE: Amend SSMC Conditional Use PermitJ Relocate Sidewalk ApplicantJ Address: South Suburban Medical Center (SSMC) 3410 2 13th Street West Legal: See attached Zoning: R-l Single-family residential Request: SSMC is seeking an amendment to the conditional use permit that was approved in May of 1997 for the Clinic Expansion. This amendment proposes to relocate the sidewalk from the North to the South Side of the Elm Street Staff Review Several Board members of SSMC addressed the City Council at their April 20th meeting and expressed concerns regarding the originally approved location of the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street. The reasons for their concerns are addressed in the attached memo dated April 20, 1998 from John Erar, City Administrator and are as follows: . Mr. Nicolai, as the property owner, would be responsible for snow removal on the sidewalk; . Storage of snow on the boulevard would be problematic; . Ambulances entering and existing SSMC parking areas would pose a hazard to pedestrians; . Their belief that the cost of running the sidewalk on the north side would be higher than placing it on the south side of Elm Street. Citlj of Farmington 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 550211 · (612) 1163.7111 · F~ (612) 463-2591 City staff s recommendation is that the sidewalk should remain on the north side of Elm . Street for the reasons stated in Mr. Erar's April20tb memo to the City Council and also for the reasons stated by Lee Mann, City Engineer in his comments to the City Council. These comments are included in the April 20th City Council minutes which are as follows: . Placing the sidewalk on the south side would introduce at least two to three additional pedestrian crossings along Elm Street. This includes forcing pedestrians to cross the frontage road and/or having to cross Elm Street at other undesignated crossings either on the curve of the street or at other points to access hospital property. . Placing the sidewalk on the north side of the property, on the other hand, would provide for a continuous pedestrian link between the East Farmington subdivision and the downtown area. It would also eliminate the need for any pedestrians to cross Elm Street at any point along the curve to access hospital property or to the downtown area. . Curb already installed along the north side of Elm Street is already designed for handicapped persons in wheel chairs. Without a sidewalk on the north side, disabled persons would have to cross Elm Street mid-block along the curve, that as a collector will be heavily traveled, exposing handicapped persons to additional safety risks. . When additional facilities are constructed on SSMC property in the future, the . lack of a sidewalk on the north side would force both employees and patients to walk on the street along the north side or to cross over to the sidewalk on the south side and then back over to the north side. . In terms of ambulances entering and exiting the private driveways, it is a far safer scenario to have pedestrians stay on the northerly sidewalk to walk across SSMC private driveway entrances. This, in turn, would avoid forcing pedestrians to cross Elm Street from the south side to the north side with ambulances driving back and forth on Elm Street. . All private property owners are required to shovel snow along public sidewalks. It was discussed with SSMC that they may wish to offer the property owner some type of arrangement to assist him in keeping the sidewalk clear. Further, as the sidewalk will be on public right-of-way, private property owners have no exposure with respect to someone tripping or falling on the sidewalk. . Snow storage on the boulevard would be no less or greater a problem than if the sidewalk were on the south side. . Placing the sidewalk on the south side would necessitate having to redesign the project plans adding additional cost and delay to project completion which is scheduled to be completed within the next two weeks. . . . . After discussion at the City Council, it was the consensus to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission which is the body that approved the original Conditional Use Permit. The majority of the Council did indicate that they were in favor the relocating the sidewalk to the south side of the street. Staff Recommendation While staff recognizes and respects the opinions of SSMC and also acknowledge the position of the City Council on this matter, it is still the position of staff that sidewalk should remain on the north side of Elm Street for the reasons stated and thus we would recommend against the amending the Conditional Use Permit for SSMC. cc: Lee Johnson, CEO, SSMC Western 400 feet, commencing at a point 700 feet North and 200 feet East, from the Southwest corner of the Northwest X. of Section 32, Township 114, Range 19; thence running North 180 feet, thence running East 1120 feet, hence running South 180 feet, thence West 1120 feet to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof, the same being in the Middle 1/3 of the Southwest ~ of the Northwest ~ of said Section 32. . . . U4/~J/~a 14:a1 "C"tI 1 ~ '& ti a ltlll C 1n: t'J\1<AUNuTUN Ie;] uuu~/o007 . City of Farmington Variance/Conditional Use Permit 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 612-163.;111 F.U 612-.&63-259J APPLICATION FOR: 0 Variance ~ditional Use. (please check) ~Tequites an abstnl.Ct.ors certificate of ov;ners within 350 ft. (average C:Ost - 5250.350) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: (lo~ block, plat name. section, to\.\onship, range) for office use NUl\fBER ZONING DISTRICT II FEE OWNER.'S NAME South Suburban Medical Center PHONE 460-1138 tAUDDFUESS: 3410 - 213th Street West, Farmington, MN 55024 A Street SIDle Zip Code WkESENT LAND USE: Rl - Hps.pi tal " SPECIFY NATURE OF REQUEST M'D GROUNDS: Move sidewalk to the South side of Elm Street. FOLLOWTNG A IT ACHED: (please check) 0 Proof of Ownership 0 Boundary Survey ~plication Fee~~4;!!it-lD Copies of Site Plan o Abstract o Torrens (Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title Required) X Applicant's Signature ~1Z c~ Date . J../-:2-3 - 'f '1 Applicant's Signature Date for office IUe only REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING CO:;\1NIISSION ON ACTION: OPllblic Hearing set for: o Denied Reason: . FINAL ACTION: 0 Approved o Denied COJDments: Reason: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: DATE: sig12arure m r ~ . en --f D . / ~ ~ - Vl i Ii f---j, r i I en j5; ~ ~ g ~. 15 mm ><r -13: m(j) 2-1 en - o z o ~rJ> i~ 0(1'.) as::: f"'Ior;:r ~~ ~, -'0 e Q.. ~ _. ~~ . - c(") U'l _ o S. ." -. o (") a ..... f"'Io . 0e .. TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Bmr, City Administrator SUBJECT: South Suburban Medical Center - Sidewalk Installation DAm: April 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION The SSMC Board has raised concerns over the installation of a sidewalk on the northerly side of the Elm Street Extension. Staff has reviewed their respective project concerns, and met with Mr. Lee Larson, SSMC Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Ralph Nordeen, SSMC Chair IUld Mr. M.rk Nicolai, a resident abutting the SSMC property to discuss these issues. . DISCU~SION On Wednesday, April IS, 1998 and Thursday, April 16, 1998, staff met with SSMC offioials to discwIs iSSUO$ of conoern rellltive to the installlltion of the si~ o~ the north side of the Elm Street. Extension. SSMC officials and Mr. Mark Nicolai brought forward several .is$ues and concerns. SSMC Sidewalk Placement Issues Regarding their position that the sidewalk should be installed on the south side versus the north side of Elm Street, the following points were presented to City staff. > Mr. Nicolai, as the property owner, would be responsible for snow removal ()n the sidewalk; > Storage of snow on the boulevard would be problematic; > Ambulances entering and exiting SSMC parking areas would pose a hazard to pedestrians; > Their belief that cost of running a sidewalk on the north side would be higher than placing it on the south side of Elm Street Project Process Background It should be noted that a Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planping Commission on May 13, 1997, with the SSMC Executive Director agreeing to the plan requirements. Plans andSpecification were approved by Council on June 16, 1997, with construction begitlning on October 7, 1997. Pursuant to the City Code, a sidewalk is required to be installed along one side of a collector street. . CitlJ of Farmington 325041' Street · Farmin,t"", MN 55024 · (612) 463.7J JJ · Fill (6J2J 463.2591 Mayor and Council Members SSMC - Sidewalk Installation Page 2 of3 In this case, a thorough review of the project by the Development Committee in April 1997 . suggested that a sidewalk should be installed on the north side of BIm Street to facilitate a _ number of concerns associated with site plan design, pedestrian safety and future facilities planning. SSMC Director Johnson was contacted by staff on numerous occasions regarding project requirements, specifically the requirements for a sidewalk on the north side of HIm Street which arc clearly marked on project plans. City engineering staff also offered to contact affected residents regarding project requirements, but were told that SSMC would facilitate discussions with abutting property owners. Response to SSMC Concerns In review of recently stated SSMC conCOl'DS, the conditional use permit and construction plans for the Elm Street Bxtension project have been reviewed again by staff from the Bngineeringanci Planniag Divisions and Police Chief Siebenaler. It was the consensus of depathuenta1 staff that the placement .of the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street was of significant importance for the reasons stated below. In addition, these same points were discussed with SSMC officials and Mr. Mark Nicolai on Thursday, April 16, 1998 on the site. The supporting rationale for placing a sidewalk on the. north side as opposed to the south side of Blm Street is as follows: )0 Placing the sidewalk on the south side would in1roduce at least two to three additional pedestrian crossings along Elm Street This includes forcing pedestrians to cross the frontage road and/or having to cross HIm Street at other undesig1'(tted crossings either on the curve of the street or at other points to access hospital property. )0 Placing the sidewalk: on the north side of the property, on the other hand, would provide for a continuous pedestrian link between the East Farmington subdivision and the downtown area. It would also eliminate the need for any pedestrians to cross Blm Street at any point along the ~urve to access hospital property or to the downtown area. )0 Curb already installed along the north side of Elm Street is already designed for handicapped persons in wheel chairs. Without a side walk on the north side, disabled persons would have to cross Elm Street mid-block along the curve, that as a collector will be heavily traveled, exposing handicapped pedestrians to additional safety risks. )0 When additional facilities are constructed on SSMC property in the future, the lack of a sidewalk on the north side would force both employees and patients to walk on the street along the north side curb or to cross over to the sidewalk on the south side and then back over to the north side. )0 In terms of ambulances entering and exiting the private driveways, it is a far safer scenario to have pedestrians stay on the northerly sidewalk to walk across SSMC private driveway entrances. This, in turn, would avoid forcing pedestrians to cross Elm Street from the south side to the north side with ambulances driving back and forth on Elm Street . . . . . Mayor and Council Members SSMC - Sidewalk Installation Page 3 of3 > All private property owners are required to shovel mow along public sidewalks. It was discussed with SSMC that they may wi~ to offer the property owner some type of arrangement to assist him in keeping the sidewalk clear. Further, as the sidewalk will be on public right-of-way, private property owners have no exposure with respect to someone tripping or falling on the sidewalk. >> Snow storage on the boulevard would be no less or greater a problem than if the sidewalk were on the south side. > Placing the sidewalk on the south side would necessitate having to redesign the project plans adding additional cost and delay to project completion which is scheduled to be completed within the next two weeks. Conclusion to Project Issues Raised by SSMC While staff is genuinely appreciative and respectful of concerns expressed by SSMC, it is the consensus ofstaff that placement of the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street is a logical and well-reasoned design standard. Further, there are concerns that eliminfJting the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street .could expose the City to potential legal liability for failing to take appropriate public safety issues into consideration. As the Conditional Use Permit was approved by the PI&JlQi"g Commission, it is the City Attorney's opinion that the Conditional Use Permit would have to be brought back to the Planning Commission fOr modi tying action. In addition, the contractor would need to stop any additional work in the right-of-way until any alternate design is approved delaying potentially any further project work. It should be noted that the Planning Commission could still deny SSMC's request altogether based on the origuw pllblic safety considerations. BUDGET IMPACT As this public improvement was petitioned for by SSMC, any costs associated with this project will be 100 percent assessed against SSMC. ACTION REOUESTEQ Council review and discussion of SSMC issues relative to the installation of sidewalk on the northerly side of Elm Street. If the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit are to be modified then the action would be to return the Conditional Use Permit to the Planning Commission for action. lY.~ :j! hnF. Erar City Administrator Council Minutes (Regular) April 20, 1998 Page 2 . 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. MOTION by Cordes, second by Gamer to proclaim that the City of F 'll designate April 22, 1998 as Earth Day. APIF, MOTION C D. Proclamation Declaring Earth Day Dennis Walter, 18235 E id Avenue, questioned ho e right-of-way proceeds for Hill Dee Park property would be 'lized relative to th SAH 31 project. City Administrator Erar indicated staff would prep written re nse to Mr. Walter within two weeks. c) Res' nt Comments - Rudy Garcia (Lime Rock Ri ouncil acknowledged. - Seal Coat Project . a) Resident Comments - Judy Council acknowledged. b) Resident Comm s - James Gunderson - Council ac edged. Resident Comments - David Gerardy (501 Oak St.) - Seal Coa Council acknowledged. e) South Suburban Medical Center Lee Larson, CEO of South Suburban Medical Center (hereinafter "SSMC"), was in the audience (as well as four SSMC Board Members) and pleaded his case to Council for the sidewalk in question to be installed on the south side versus the north side of Elm Street. He noted that the Hospital Board opposed the installation ef sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street. John Curry, SSMC Board Member - Added that their main concern is the area at Highway 50 and Highway 3, since it is the major traffic route to the hospital. Dan Nicolai, SSMC Board Member - Studied the site and feels the proposed sidewalk on the north side would "look like a stretch of sidewalk going nowhere" and would be rarely used. It would also be a great expense to the hospital to maintain. . Council Minutes (Regular) April 20, 1998 Page 3 . . City Engineer Lee Mann presented staffs position and reasoning for installing the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street as follows: > Placing the sidewalk on the south side would introduce at least two to three additional pedestrian crossings along Elm Street. This includes forcing pedestrians to cross the frontage road and/or having to cross Elm Street at other undesignated crossings either on the curve of the street or at other points to access hospital property. > Placing the sidewalk on the north side of the property, on the other hand, would provide for a continuous pedestrian link between the East Farmington subdivision and the downtown area. It would also eliminate the need for any pedestrians to cross Elm Street at any point along the curve to access hospital property or to the downtown area. > Curb already installed along the north side of Elm Street is already designed for handicapped persons in wheel chairs. Without a sidewalk on the north side, disabled persons would have to cross Elm Street mid-block along the curve, that as a collector will be heavily traveled, exposing handicapped pedestrians to additional safety risks. > When additional facilities are constructed on SSMC property in the future, the lack of a sidewalk on the north side would force both employees and patients to walk on the street along the north side curb or to cross over to the sidewalk on the south side and then back over to the north side. > In terms of ambulances entering and exiting the private driveways, it is a far safer scenario to have pedestrians stay on the northerly sidewalk to walk across SSMC private driveway entrances. This, in turn, would avoid forcing pedestrians to cross Elm Street from the south side to the north side with ambulances driving back and forth on Elm Street. > All private property owners are required to shovel snow along public sidewalks. It was discussed with SSMC that they may wish to offer the property owner some type of arrangement to assist him in keeping the sidewalk clear. Further, as the sidewalk will be on public right-of- way, private property owners have no exposure with respect to someone tripping or falling on the sidewalk. > Snow storage on the boulevard would be no less or greater a problem than if the sidewalk were on the south side. > Placing the sidewalk on the south side would necessitate having to redesign the project plans adding additional cost and delay to project completion that is scheduled to be completed within the next two weeks. . Council Minutes (Regular) April 20, 1998 Page 4 . Mr. Mann further stated that since the road was put in, he has observed pedestrians walking on the street almost daily. It is also his understanding that hospital employees walk to work. It should be noted that a Conditional Use Pennit was approved by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1997, with the fonner SSMC Executive Director, as well as the Hospital Board, agreeing to the plan requirements placing the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street. Council approved the plans and specifications on June 16, 1997. It was further noted that the installation of the sidewalk on one side of Elm Street would be consistent with the City's Sidewalk Policy. Mayor Ristow asked Council for their opinion as to whether the sidewalk should be on the north side or the south side of Elm Street. The responses were as follows: Councilmember Cordes - north side; Councilmember Gamer - south side; Councilmember Fitch - agreed to send back to Planning Commission and look at changing sidewalk to the south side; Councilmember Strachan - south side; Mayor Ristow - agreed to send back to Planning Commission and look at changing sidewalk to the south side. Mayor Ristow indicated the main reason for . agreeing to recommend installing the sidewalk on the south side is that the sidewalk would connect with an existing sidewalk on the south side of Oak Street to 9th Street. Councilmember Fitch requested that a letter be sent to the hospital confirming their request to change the location of the sidewalk. The letter should specifically state that in the event there are delays or additional construction costs, the hospital will be responsible for 100% of the costs as per the original Development Agreement. After lengthy discussion, it was decided by Council to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation to change the location of the sidewalk frOOl the north side to the south side of Elm Street. This item will be on the agenda at the next Planning Commission Meeting on May 12, 1998. Community Development Director David Olson indicated that regardless of whether or not the Planning Commission approves SSMC's amendment, the determination will end there, since the Planning Commission is the body that approves Conditional Use Permits. If rejected by the Planning Commission, SSMC would have to appeal directly to Council to overturn the Planning Commission's decision. . Council Minutes (Regular) April 20, 1998 Page 5 . City Administrator Erar indicated that the contractor must be notified immediately regarding the potential change and delay in construction. Citizen Marv Wier, 808 3rd Street, claimed Highway 50 has only one approved crosswalk between the stop light at Highway 3 and Akin Road. One crosswalk approved by the County is at 3rd Street. Pedestrians from the south side of Elm Street will cross Highway 50 and County approval will be needed to put in a crosswalk at that location. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Strachan, second by Gamer to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) b) c) d) . e) t) g) h) i) j) k) I) m) Approved Council Minutes 4/6/98 (Regular) Approved Agreements - Clean-up Day Approved Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation Department Adopted RESOLUTION R41-98 Approving Reimbursement of Expenditures - CSAH 31 Approved Agreement for Professional Service - Comprehensive Planning Consultant Acknowledged Release of Right-of-Way Proceeds - D & 0 Properties Approved School and Conference Request - Administration Department Approved School and Conference Request - Parks & Recreation Department Approved School and Conference Request - Fire Department Approved Compensation Adjustment - Administration Department Approved Appointment Recommendation - Community Development Department Approved Municipal Liquor Operations - Downtown Store Remodeling Project Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT -None .