Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.07.03 Council Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promisingfuture. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 7, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Acknowledge Retirement - Marilyn Speiker b) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) a) Mr. Paul Hardt 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (6/16/03 Regular) (6/23/03 Special) (7/3/03 Special - Supplemental) b) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation d) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation e) Approve Park Name for Tamarack Ridge - Parks and Recreation f) Capital Outlay - Fire Department g) Approve Deduct Change Order - Main Street Project - Engineering h) Approve DNR License - Main Street Project - Engineering i) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT Action Taken Pages 1-2 Pages 3-4 Pages 5-36 Pages 37-39 Pages 41-44 Pages 45-47 Page 48 Page 49 Pages 50-51 Pages 52-56 Page 57 o. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Approve Dahlco Vending Agreement - Parks and Recreation Pages 58-64 b) Approve Parks and Recreation Facilities Task Force Consultant - Parks and Recreation Pages 65-72 c) Adopt Resolution - Preliminary and Final Plat Lot I, Industrial Park 2nd Addition - Community Development d) Proposed Resolution in Support of Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act Demonstration Account - Community Development e ) Quarterly Building Report - Community Development f) Ordinance Amending Title 5, Chapter 5 Regarding the Sale, Possession, and Use of Consumer Fireworks and Resolution Amending Fee Schedule- Community Development g) Adopt Ordinance - Fire Code - Community Development h) Adopt Ordinance - Zoning Code Text Amendment - Camping; GarageN ard Sales; Setbacks Along Minor Arterials; and Zoning Officer Designation - Community Development 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEWBUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Pages 73-76 Pages 77-99 Pages 100-102 Pages 103-108 Pages 109-115 Pages 116-125 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mission Statement Through teamwork and cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 7, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Action Taken 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS a) Acknowledge Retirement - Marilyn Speiker b) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award R42-03 Accepted 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) a) Mr. Paul Hardt Information Received 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (6/16/03 Regular) (6/23/03 Special) (7/3/03 Special - Supplemental) b) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation d) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation e) Approve Park Name for Tamarack Ridge - Parks and Recreation f) Capital Outlay - Fire Department g) Approve Deduct Change Order - Main Street Project - Engineering h) Approve DNR License - Main Street Project - Engineering i) Approve Bills Approved Information Received Information Received Information Received Approved Information Received Approved Approved Approved 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT o. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Approve Dahlco Vending Agreement - Parks and Recreation b) Approve Parks and Recreation Facilities Task Force Consultant - Parks and Recreation Approved Approved c) Adopt Resolution - Preliminary and Final Plat Lot 1, Industrial Park 2nd Addition - Community Development d) Proposed Resolution in Support of Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act Demonstration Account - Community Development e) Quarterly Building Report - Community Development 1) Ordinance Amending Title 5, Chapter 5 Regarding the Sale, Possession, and Use of Consumer Fireworks and Resolution Amending Fee Schedule- Community Development g) Adopt Ordinance - Fire Code - Community Development h) Adopt Ordinance - Zoning Code Text Amendment - Camping; GarageNard Sales; Setbacks Along Minor Arterials; and Zoning Officer Designation - Community Development i) Council Discussion on Hiring Process for New City Administrator 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN R43-03 R44-03 Information Received Ord 003-491 R45-03 Ord 003-492 Ord 003-493 Ord 003-494 Ord 003-495 Ord 003-496 Discussed 50- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator ~ FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Acknowledge Retirement - Parks and Recreation DATE: July 7,2002 INTRODUCTION The City has received notification from Ms. Marilyn Speiker of her intention to retire from her position as Custodian. DISCUSSION The Human Resources office has received notification that Ms. Speiker will retire from her current position on August 17, 2003. Her last official working day will be July 3, 2003. She began her employment on January 1, 1976. She has been an excellent employee. The City has appreciated her commitment tot he 0 rganization and wishes her w ell in her future endeavors. Staff is reviewing options regarding this position. ACTION REQUESTED Acknowledge the resignation of Ms. Marilyn Speiker effective August 17,2003. Respectfully submitted, I!!~~ . Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: Personnel File RESOLUTION NO. R -03 ACCEPTING RESIGNATION - PARKS AND RECREATION 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 7th day of July 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City has received notification from Ms. Marilyn Speiker of her intention to retire from her position as Custodian; and, WHEREAS, she began her employment on January 1, 1976; and, WHEREAS, the City has appreciated her commitment to the organization and wishes her well in her future endeavors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Farmington acknowledges the resignation of Ms. Marilyn Speiker effective August 17,2003. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of July 2003. Mayor day of 2003. Attested to the City Administrator SEAL ~ 5~ Government Finance Officers Association 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601-1210 312.977.9700 fax: 312.977.4806 June 17,2003 Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr. City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mr. Shukle: I am pleased to notify you that City of Farmington, Minnesota has received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the current fiscal year from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). This award is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting and represents a significant achievement by your organization. When a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is granted to an entity, a Certificate of Recognition for Budget Presentation is also presented to the individual or department designated as being primarily responsible for its having achieved the award. This has been presented to: Edward Shukle, Jr., City Administrator We hope you will arrange for a formal public presentation of the award, and that appropriate publicity will be given to this notable achievement. A press release is enclosed for your use. We appreciate your participation in GFOA's Budget Awards Program. Through your example, we hope that other entities will be encouraged to achieve excellence in budgeting. Sincerely, k~4~~ Stephen 1. Gauthier, Director Technical Services Center www.gfoa.org c: o .- ..fool CO .- u o '" '" <{ '" ~ CO ~"'O ._ CO tt: c: oa ~"'O c: c: CO CO c: '" .- (]) L1....fooI ..fool CO c:..fooI (])V'\ E"'O c: (]) ~ :t= (]) c: 6=> ~ (]) (]):5 ..c ~ I- 0 .:a ..:: ..... ~ 5 ~ lo. IO:l.. ~ ~ ~ ;5 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ;J = = o ~ ~ ~ t: ~ 8 ~ ~ o ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ u .8 a- S co a- co .... .... U) ._ 0 r:: U) .- CI) E r:: "'C r:: c(~ ~.. ._ r:: o 0 .... C) r:: .- E a- co U. 'I- o ~ .- o .. ,.; .., .. CI) :i2 ::s .r:: tJ) "'C a- co ~ "'C W .... ... ~~~] ~ ".. ~II> ~.!:i~ Ii:~ ;,- ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~"li ~~ .. j:t 1::.1:: ~. .... .c'~ .. ~ -l::>.~....~ ;:t ~ .:1 ~ ~....... ~ ~ I:: ;:l ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~.... ~ ~ II> ;::,..~ ~~ .... ~ .....l?i<l;:t, ......s;: ~~-l::> I:: <::>~....... .~ ~ ;:t '"S ~ l:! ~ I:q .l:( ~ ~"=l~~ ,.., ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ ~~.....~ I:: .... 'S ;t ~ ;:t ~1.~1f ~ ;i! ... .::: ~ Ii: ~ ~~"li ~ <-a. '"S ~. ~ is I:: ~ t>() t: ~ .<::> I:: ~ ~ .t: 1::'" 1::_1O! ~.~ ~ ~ i:: 8 .~ ~ J; ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ .~ --r ~ . .... ~ I:: ""' ~ ~ ... a ~ ~:; ~~ E $.0 ~ ~.l:( I:: ~ ~ 1i:.::I ~~ ""-l ,"; ~ ;:t I:: .... '-' - I:: ~'t: Ii: .... .... ~ t.l::.... ~ ~ ~.!:i ~.~ ~ ~ ;:t ~ ~Q ~ t ~ M o o N r-: ...... ~ ~ ~ ~CL Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council: One of the best leadership mottos I ever heard was, "Praise in public, reprimand in private." As a person who has been volunteering for nearly 40 years for all kinds of community-building projects, I have had lots of opportunities to see some of the best professionals who support city governments. As a member of the New Brighton City Council, I learned the value of good staff. They are indispensable to people who are basically amateurs-volunteers who are trying to run a multi-million dollar operation, like a city. This is why I would like to take this opportunity to publicly compliment the staff of the City of Farmington, and Kevin Carroll in particular. As a member of your Housing and Redevelopment Authority, I have observed first hand Kevin's professionalism and creativity. We have had several thorny issues presented to us over the last few months, and Kevin has done an excellent job clearing the thorns, so we can see the fundamental issues. His presentations are clear, balanced, and help us do our jot fairly and efficiently. This is a real service to us, as I said, amateurs. I would also like to compliment our city attorney, Mr. Joel Jamnik and his colleague, Ms. Andrea Poehler, who have also been excellent in offering sound advice and clear thinking. It is a pleasure serving on the HRA with support like this. f-~~C /~c5 /-/4A /Y/~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: Dan Siebenaler, Interim City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: July 7,2003 It is requested that the July 7,2003 agenda be amended as follows: CONSENT AGENDA Approve Council Minutes (7/3/03 Special) Attached are the Council Meeting Minutes from July 3, 2003 for your approval. PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS ADD: 10 i) Council Discussion on Hiring Process for New City Administrator (verbal) Respectfully submitted, Dan Si benaler Interim City Administrator SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 3, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:00 p.m. Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg Absent: None Also Present: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Audience: Jeff Krueger, Jen Morical, Loren Schulz, Judy Teporten, Marilyn Speiker, Souheil, Melly and Zack Ailabouni, Madeline Bader, Charlie Seivert, Greg Eppich, David Pritzlaff, Jim McGrath, Jim and Mary Jo Bell, Tom Jensen, Ron Thelen, Barb and Scott Thompson, Don Salverda, Randy Oswald, Peggy Johnson, Lori Classon, Colleen Stewart, Michael Armbrust, Gerald Henricks, Tim Kiniwski, Bob Brownawell, Bev Orr, Tim Pietsch, Paul Hardt, Phil Traxler, Kevin Letton, Greg and Chintana Ohl, Julie McKnight, Debbie and Terry Donnelly, Craig Stibbe, Bob and Chris Heman, Michael Dow, Elayne Donnelly, Bob Donnelly Jr., Bruce Alexander, Michelle Wood, Anthony Pena, Mark and Amy Pellicci, Cheryl Retterath, George and Sharon Flynn, Pam and Vern Schoolmeester, Ed P., Bob Curtis, Mary Ann and John Devney, Karen Finstuen, Jackie Dooley, Heidi Schmidt, John Kapustka 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to approve the agenda including items 5a and 5b. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Termination of City Administrator's Contract by Accepting Resignation Mr. Jeff Krueger, 5324 186th Street, stated he would like to offer citizen comments for the rest of the people. He felt this does directly affect the citizens. Mayor Ristow asked Mr. Krueger to sit down and he will call on him. Mr. Krueger asked ifthere would be citizen comments. Mayor Ristow replied no, there is no citizen comments. There was a loud Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 2 outburst from the audience. Mr. Krueger continued, saying back in 1996 when Mayor Ristow ran for Mayor, he said "I will always listen to what the people have to say. I believe it is important that we not only inform people, but also really listen to what they have to say. Then and only then can all issues be evaluated before any decisions are made." Mayor Ristow stated Mr. Krueger is out of order and asked him to please sit down. Police Chief Siebenaler stopped Mr. Krueger, saying ladies and gentlemen please, under the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the city of Farmington, the Mayor has a right to direct and control this meeting. He has a right under the law to limit public input and to curtail outbursts. The audience asked, to limit it or to deny it completely? Chief Siebenaler replied limit it as he sees fit. The audience stated which means to deny it completely. Chief Siebenaler continued saying it is the Mayor's position to direct the meeting. He understood their frustration with this process. He respected their right to freedom of assembly and their freedom of speech. However, he is not permitted to allow those freedoms to interfere with the legal process. Expression of your individual rights may not infringe upon the rights of another. In this particular case, the Mayor's right to direct this meeting. He is acting in a legal fashion. Inside this meeting, the Mayor is in charge. As this meeting continues, please remember your frustration is not with my officers or myself, but we are responsible for keeping the peace. We will be doing that. It is our job. Please do not force us to take any action against you by escorting you out of this meeting, or worse. You may not like what is happening, but I am asking you to control your frustration. I am asking you not to put my officers or I in a position of having to detain or arrest residents of this city during this legal proceeding. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to accept public comment. Mayor Ristow stated he never said we would not have citizen comments, but some people would not give me a chance to start the meeting. There was another outburst from the audience. Voting for: Fogarty, Soderberg, Ristow. Voting against: Cordes, Fitch. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Ristow stated he is going to try to be fair. He hoped the audience would pick a spokesperson to talk. He would not take any public attacks and comments will be limited to 2 minutes. Citizens can say their piece, but regarding the item we are discussing, the City Administrator did resign. This is data privacy. Things cannot be said or answered by any of us. If you want to put on an attack that is fine, but he will not accept it. He will call upon the residents ifthey raise their hand. He asked the audience to please let him finish what he started. City Attorney Jamnik recommended the Separation Agreement be reviewed and allow comments after that. That could establish the framework for some ofthe discussion. Mayor Ristow replied that is Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 3 where he was going before he was so rudely interrupted. Attorney Jamnik continued stating at Mr. Shukle's request and with Mayor Ristow's consent, he has negotiated over the last several days with Mr. Shukle's attorney regarding a possible Separation Agreement. Attorney Jamnik apologized to Council and the public for not being able to distribute the document sooner. However, he is constrained by data practices, open meetings law, and public employment laws ofthe state which make it very difficult to distribute these documents before they are ready for formal review. He distributed a few unsigned copies of the agreement for the audience to review. The proposed Separation Agreement provides in paragraph 1 that Mr. Shukle would offer, and the city would accept, a resignation of his employment with the city effective July 3, 2003. Paragraph 2 provides consistent with his pre-existing professional services contract with the city that upon separation, Mr. Shukle would receive the equivalent of six months' salary which is $47,625. 35. That would be received in normal payments and is consistent with his existing professional services agreement. Paragraph 3 provides for the continuation of city contributions to health, life, dental and disability premiums at the current rate through June 30, 2004, or until such earlier date if Mr. Shukle secures re-employment by another jurisdiction and receives their coverage, then the city's obligation would cease. This is an addition beyond statute of six months coverage in this particular type of situation. Paragraph 4 would provide compensation for his unused vacation and sick leave. Regarding the difference between existing city policy regarding sick leave, this provides a little additional sick leave payment. He would not normally vest for full reimbursement of sick leave until he receives 5 years of service and he only has two. So we are advancing that partially. Paragraph 5 states the city agrees to pay $7,000 to compensate him for costs incurred to obtain employment. Paragraph 6 proposes to compensate Mr. Shukle for attorney expenses in the amount of$1500. Paragraph 7 provides for Exhibit A, a letter to be drafted by Mayor Ristow acceptable by Mr. Shukle for a letter of reference. That letter has been drafted, approved and signed. Copies will be made available and will be retained by the city and will be placed in the personnel record. This letter has been approved by Mr. Shukle and Mayor Ristow. Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 4 Paragraph 8 provides that the city would not oppose a claim for re- employment compensation filed by Mr. Shukle as a result oftermination of his employment. This is a standard provision in separation agreements dealing with the state statute where eligibility is dependent on voluntary quits vs terminations, layoffs, etc. This is not covered in his existing agreement but is standard for employment separation agreements. Paragraph 9 is also standard for employment separation agreements, but is very important. It is a non-disparagement provision which says the city and Mr. Shukle agree to end the employment in a respectful manner. The city and Mr. Shukle each agree that they would not make any disparaging remarks or statements regarding the other party. The parties agree that in the event that this paragraph is violated, damages could be awarded to the other party in the amount of up to $10,000 for each disparaging statement. Attorney Jamnik cautioned Council that these types of provisions are very important in the sense that what you deem to be disparaging or non- disparaging may not be interpreted the same way by the person you are making the comments about. He asked caution on the part of all the parties to refrain from statements that could be interpreted by the other side as disparaging or disrespectful. Paragraph 10 provides no admission of liability on the part of either party. Paragraph 11 agrees on indemnification of Mr. Shukle ifthere are any third party claims or lawsuits that are still pending or could be levied against him, that by severing the relationship, any decisions he made would still be protected by the city on any kind of development, personnel, or any other type of issue he took prior to this Separation Agreement. Mayor Ristow asked for how long? Attorney Jamnik replied any decision Mr. Shukle made up until today the city will stand behind it. If someone filed a criminal charge or civil charge, which is not anticipated, the city agrees they would cover him as ifhe were still an employee. This is a standard provision in the Separation Agreement. Paragraph 12, the data practices act indicates that pursuant to the statute that the Separation Agreement would become public data. Paragraph 13, is also a standard required provision that the parties be offered a IS-day rescission period. If either party is not comfortable with the Separation Agreement, they can rescind it. Paragraph 14 is also standard indicating the agreement is governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota. Paragraph 15 is also standard indicating this is the complete agreement with the attached reference letter and there are no secondary agreements. Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 5 Paragraph 16 is a full release by Mr. Shukle for any claims and is the consideration by him for the additional compensation over and above that provided in his pre-existing professional services agreement. Councilmember Fogarty asked if provisions 3, 4,5,6 and 7 are the only ones not standard, everything else is standard in a Separation Agreement? Attorney J amnik replied paragraph 2 is not necessarily standard, it is part of Mr. Shukle's existing professional services agreement so it would be consistent with the existing agreement. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the standard provisions. The letter of reference depends on the letter of reference. The rest of the document from paragraphs 8-16 is standard. The document has been reviewed, approved and signed by Mr. Shukle. Mayor Ristow stated we have a motion and a second to approve the Separation Agreement. Councilmember Fogarty stated it is her intention to abstain from this vote. When she first received news last night that this is what would happen today, her instant reaction was if Mr. Shukle agrees to it, then she is comfortable with it. But she was thinking with her heart. She thought with her head about what has unfolded this week. She received a lot of e-mails and phone calls, all of which the questions were, "What can we do to stop this?" and "Why did this happen in such short order?" There is a regularly scheduled Council Meeting on Monday and why an emergency meeting? What happened? She could not answer that question for people. She attempted to get those answers just for herself and she couldn't. A part of this provision makes it so that no one is ever going to have to answer that question. They can't. They won't be able to answer that question. It will have to stay a dead issue. There is a rule of 100 when it comes to politics. For every phone call you receive, you have to think 100 people out there are thinking the same thing and just haven't picked up the phone. With that on her mind, she has heard from thousands of residents and they are not happy about it. She can't in good conscience, knowing that she feels that this is the wrong thing to do, Mr. Shukle was good for the city, an asset to the city, and she saw no reason for him to be terminated. She cannot in good conscience vote for the separation because she fundamentally disagrees with it, and she thinks the residents fundamentally disagree with it. On the other side, it does release the city from liability, and she does have a fiscal responsibility to the city as well, so she cannot in good conscience vote no on it. She stated she will abstain from this vote. There was loud applause from the audience. Mayor Ristow asked Attorney Jamnik to explain that it was not an emergency meeting. Attorney J amnik stated the proper classification for this is a special meeting which requires three days posted notice and notice to the special requestors list rather than an emergency meeting which can be called in less than three days notice. Councilmember Fogarty stated Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 6 she will accept the clarification, but it was short notice. Mayor Ristow stated we do have a clause for emergency meetings. Councilmember Soderberg stated in trying to organize his own thoughts, he thinks this is wrong. He does not like it. He has never supported terminating Mr. Shukle. He does not now support his termination. The Separation Agreement does protect the city and it does help Mr. Shukle in future endeavors. Because it does those two things would be the only reason he would ever vote for it. The loss of Mr. Shukle as our City Administrator is a loss for the entire city. He does not think it is good for the city. Councilmember Soderberg thinks it will put the city back. He thinks it will do damage. Regrettably he will support the Separation Agreement, but it is with a heavy heart that he will support it, and only because it will help Mr. Shukle and it protects the city. Councilmember Cordes and Fitch, and Mayor Ristow did not have any comments. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Soderberg,. Abstain: Fogarty. MOTION CARRIED. b) Consider Appointment of Interim City Administrator Mayor Ristow distributed an agreement and stated he and Police Chief Siebenaler had a discussion and Chief Siebenaler will take the responsibility up to 11 months. He highly recommended Council appoint Chief Siebenaler as the Interim City Administrator. Police Chief Siebenaler stated the city needs to continue to move forward. This staff and those employees that could not be here tonight intend for this city to move forward. It is in all of our best interest for that to happen. As he has indicated in his agreement, he serves the interest of this city and he will accept this position in the best interest of this city. We as a staff will do our level best to work in a direction that benefits all of our residents. Weare committed to that cause and we look for your support in doing that. To the residents, we need your help and your support in doing that as well. No city can run, no entity can run, in opposition to itself or the constituents that it serves. We need your help. Councilmember Soderberg asked Chief Siebenaler ifhe drew up this agreement and ifhe is comfortable with it's provisions? Chief Siebenaler replied yes. Councilmember Fogarty thanked Chief Siebenaler for his professionalism. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to appoint Police Chief Siebenaler as Interim City Administrator. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Ristow then opened the meeting to public comments, reminding the audience no personal attacks and to limit the comments to two minutes. Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 7 Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, asked why did the Council just complete a retreat with the staff to determine goals for the coming year, and before the ink was dry on those goals, you want to dismiss the primary person who can guide the city to those goals? You paid an outside facilitator and incurred considerable expenses to conduct this retreat. Why? Retreat costs were $2,635. Don't you believe that this proposed action and the way you are trying to carry it out, affects the city staff in a very negative way? A staff that the public pays to do our work. How can they do their work under the atmosphere you create? Mr. Pritzlaff stated he does not agree with this at all. Some of the money the city will incur such as $20,000 to hire a consultant, would be another issue. Would Council be willing to take some of their own personal money to help pay for this? The taxpayers do not want to pay for this. Council has their agenda. There are three people on the Council that he can say with a little assurance, come 2004 they will not be there. His name will be on the ballot and there will be three less people on the Council that don't belong up there. Mr. Jeff Krueger, 5324 186th Street, stated regarding the agreement, $10,000 for the disparaging remarks, is that paid for by the city or the person who makes the disparaging remarks, if that occurs? Attorney Jamnik replied state statute requires that if the statement is made within the scope of the official duties of the official the city would have to indemnify the official. A lot would depend on the situation. Mr. Krueger stated basically, it would be the residents paying for it. Attorney Jamnik stated if one of the Councilmembers makes the disparaging remark, that is correct. If Mr. Shukle makes the disparaging remark, he would be obligated to pay for it. Mr. Krueger stated he has known Mr. Shukle for quite a while. He considers him a very good friend. You have a great staff, an excellent staff, and he hopes Council knows that. Every single one of them. But the city also had a great leader and all you did was just chop off the head. You have thrown everyone into a tailspin. Mayor Ristow interrupted saying you are not going to tell me what I did. You tell me what you want to say and that's it. Mr. Krueger stated I am telling you exactly what I am saying. Mayor Ristow stated he is not going to sit and listen to that. He gave Mr. Krueger an opportunity to say what he wanted. Mr. Krueger said he is not attacking him. Mayor Ristow said we signed a Separation Agreement. He asked Mr. Krueger ifhe had anything else to say, and if not to take his seat. Mayor Ristow stated he is not going to sit here and take a pounding from Mr. Krueger. Mr. Krueger stated this is a Separation Agreement. It is not a resignation. It is not voluntary. Mayor Ristow replied, yes it is voluntary. I did not take his hand and make him sign it. It was signed by Mr. Shukle. Mr. Krueger stated this is the equivalent of holding a gun to someone's head. Mayor Ristow told Mr. Krueger to take his seat, he is done. Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Jim Bell, 201 Maple Street, stated he hoped he would not offend anyone. He worked for the city for 26 years. We went through this 8 years ago, and he was wondering about the recruitment process. He understood Council would get a firm to recruit as was done in previous years. He hoped that the Council, in their recruitment for a replacement for Mr. Shukle, does not go out and find a guy and determine we will have a hit list like 8 years ago and pick on these staff members. You have a good staff. He knows two ofthe current Councilmembers were on the Council at that time and he does know there was a hit list. Mr. Bell looked at Councilmember Fitch and stated don't look like that. Mr. Bell overhead Councilmember Fitch at a Mountain Dew meeting talking about the hit list. Mr. Bell was on it. It is not fun. Mr. Bell survived it, but some of his colleagues did not. He hoped Council would not do that again. Mr. Tim Pietsch, 612 Centennial Drive, stated his comments center around the turnover that the city is incurring. As he looks around at surrounding communities, he sees the facilities they have. He looks at Farmington and we are sorely lacking. It discourages him greatly that we have a Council with personal agendas and we incur these costs. Ms. Kim Soderberg, 1312 Fairview Lane, had a question regarding the Separation Agreement and the clause where the agreement can be rescinded by either party in 15 days. She asked what happens if either party decides to that? Is Mr. Shukle fired, or do we have to go through all this again, or what is the course of action for that? Attorney Jamnik replied the provision is a statutory requirement that parties in Separation Agreements have a cooling off period or an evaluation period that allows them to rescind the agreement. If either party decides to change their mind and back out of the agreement, we would be back to where we were before the agreement is signed. We would have to cross that bridge when we come to it and start negotiations or deal with those issues as presented at that point. The agreement would be ripped up and we would go back in time to earlier today. Mayor Ristow stated the bottom line is, Mr. Shukle would not have signed the agreement ifhe was not willing. Attorney Jamnik stated it is not anticipated, and for the Council to rescind it, we would have to put it back on the agenda, and have a majority vote of the Council to rescind the agreement. Ms. Soderberg stated she felt a big injustice has been done to Mr. Shukle. Mayor Ristow replied you have a right to your opinion. Mr. Charlie Seivert, 19055 Enchanted Way, gave thanks and praise to Councilmembers Fogarty and Soderberg for representing the interests of the residents of Farmington. He did not know if this was going to be the end. He thinks the truth will be revealed. He had the opportunity to get to know Mr. Shukle and he was a quality individual. All that happened here, Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 9 is we have weakened a city, and unfortunately the taxpayers are going to have to pay for the expenses of this. Although Mr. Shukle probably did physically sign the paper, Mr. Seivert wanted to go on record that Mr. Shukle was forced out. Ms. Robin Hanson, 18880 Elgin Avenue, stated she believed Council complied with the legal requirements ofthe state statute this week. Given that there was no formal discipline filed, no review done, and no negative comments that the public and certain Councilmembers are aware of, what took place is just wrong. The residents do not have any recourse. State statute does not allow for the recall of city officials. She would hope that people interested in pursuing an amendment to the state statute to provide for that would let her know. Ms. Melly Ailabouni, 610 Heritage Way, stated the Council has cost the city about $100,000 when you add up the severance pay, and the insurance and the search for the new Administrator. The residents have not gotten a reason yet why the Council has spent over $100,000 tonight. The people of Farmington deserve to know why you are spending that money that way. Mayor Ristow asked Attorney Jamnik to explain the cost is not $100,000. Attorney Jamnik stated that is difficult to do. Mayor Ristow asked him to explain what the agreement comes to. Attorney Jamnik replied a lot depends. It is under $60,000 in total compensation. The existing employment contract provides for a 6-month severance, which would be $47,000. The difference is approximately $10,000. There would be an additional tenant liability depending on re-employment and those types of factors. On the other side, he has not compensated the fact that during the interim the city will be paying for the interim administrator position and the police chief in conjunction. The Council has not yet been presented with a plan for recruitment and hiring of the replacement. Mr. Michael Dow, 19402 Ellington Trail, stated he has been a resident for almost 9 years. What we have here tonight is a betrayal to the citizens. He thinks the cost of $1 00,000 will be accurate because we have to compensate Chief Siebenaler for the additional duties he will take on. There will be overtime cost for the officers that have to take on some of his duties. The fact that nobody is admitting to anything and nobody is giving an explanation to the citizens, means of the 17,000 plus that live in this town right now, four people really know the reason this whole thing has occurred. The other 17,000 have no idea. He feels the Council has betrayed the citizens, and is very disappointed in the Council. Mr. Zack Ailabouni, 610 Heritage Way, asked why this special meeting was called tonight instead of waiting until the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday? Attorney Jamnik replied the Mayor called the meeting because at this time we have a full Council. Monday night we will be Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 10 absent one Councilmember. It is appropriate to try to address this with a full Council. Mayor Ristow stated negotiations broke off. Addressing Attorney J amnik, he stated this was started last week and you said there were no more terms, so we called the meeting within the scope ofthe bylaws. Attorney J amnik stated that is correct, but Monday evening Councilmember Fitch will not be there. There was an outburst from the audience. Councilmember Fogarty stated this meeting was called because Councilmember Fitch is going to be on vacation, so I did not go on vacation tonight, because he is? Mayor Ristow stated that is not the reason. Attorney Jamnik stated he apologized, he did not know. There was another audience outburst. Mayor Ristow stated that is not the reason. He thinks all the residents are respectful enough of data privacy. Mr. Krueger interrupted asking why have a meeting? Mayor Ristow stated do you want to let me talk or do you want me to end the meeting? Mr. Krueger stated why don't you answer the right question? Mayor Ristow stated there were negotiations going on and this did not just happen last week. He asked Attorney Jamnik to tell him ifhe was getting out ofline and stepping into data privacy. This thing has been going on for over a year. There were negotiations before and they broke off. Mr. Krueger stated he thought there was a clean slate in March. Mayor Ristow replied let me finish. Am I talking to you? Are you a spokesperson for these people? Mr. Krueger stated you are looking right at me, so I am answering your question. Mayor Ristow continued saying it has been going on for quite some time. We did clean the slate in February, but we cannot sit here and tell you what goes on internally. There are a lot of things that could come out yet, as Attorney Jamnik has indicated, and we have to back it. Some of you are employers and have employees and when things are brought to your attention, you know what the data privacy act entails. Mr. Krueger asked can't you tell us what he did wrong? Mayor Ristow replied he is an at-will employee. Mr. Krueger stated Councilmembers Soderberg and Fogarty don't even know what Mr. Shukle did wrong. Why not share the information with the other Councilmembers? Mayor Ristow replied Councilmember Soderberg knows what Mr. Shukle has been up to, but he just has not said it. There was an audience outburst. Mr. Pritzlaff asked if Mayor Ristow was now calling Councilmember Soderberg a liar? Mayor Ristow replied he is not calling anyone a liar, but if Councilmember Soderberg can honestly sit here and say he has not known anything about this until tonight then you can say whatever you want to say. Councilmember Soderberg stated he has known about negotiations and conflicts, but he has asked repeatedly for a cause. He has stated repeatedly he will not support Mr. Shukle's termination without cause. He has asked Mayor Ristow personally for that. He and Councilmember Fitch met after he was appointed, and Councilmember Fitch assured him Special Council Meeting Minutes July 3, 2003 Page 11 he would not support termination without cause. Councilmember Soderberg has asked Councilmember Fitch for cause and again he has not offered any cause. In fact, Councilmember Fitch told him that the attorney has advised him not to talk to him about it. Councilmember Soderberg's next call was to the attorney. The attorney told him that was not the case. Councilmember Soderberg stated so now he has not only been lied to by Mayor Ristow, but by Councilmember Fitch. Councilmember Fitch stated his conversation with the attorney was that the attorney told him the way to approach this was as an at-will employee, and that he should not discuss any reasons for termination. He told Councilmember Fogarty he would talk to the attorney, which was the same night and that he would get back to her. The next day the attorney told him not to talk to any other Councilmembers. Councilmember Fogarty stated that is not true. Councilmember Fitch replied, he is sorry, but it is true. Councilmember Fogarty stated she called Monday night and asked why and Councilmember Fitch could not tell her why. Councilmember Fitch stated the attorney told him not to discuss it. Councilmember Fogarty stated she asked Councilmember Fitch if the attorney specifically asked him not to discuss it with other Councilmembers because we do have the right to data privacy. Councilmember Fitch replied he told her no, but he would talk to Attorney J amnik the next day. Mayor Ristow stopped them saying he was not going to let the Council beat each other up. Mayor Ristow then stated if Councilmember Soderberg can honestly sit here and tell everyone of these lies, and I will look everyone in the eyes, that he did not negotiate a contract a year ago from now, then he will call him a liar. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to adjourn at 5:41 p.m. There was an outburst from the audience, saying they should go outside to make their comments. It appears they cannot make their comments freely. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch. Voting against: Fogarty, Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ,,/ '7 ~ I , .., / );7'." t_~CL ;h -; ~-<-.J qynthia Muller Executive Assistant 1 a.... COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR June 16, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg None Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Nick and Robin Roberts, Jan, Allison, Jessica and Natalie Karrmann, Tim Lenway, Jeff Krueger, Carrie Smith, Brian Watson, Paul Hardt 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduce New Employee - Parks and Recreation (Solid Waste Operator) Mr. Wayne VanGuilder was introduced as the new Solid Waste Operator. b) Introduce New Employee - Community Development Ms. Georgia Larson was introduced as the new Administrative Support Technician in Community Development. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Ms. Kari Wilson-Smith and Ms. Carmen Fox Ms. Kari Smith, 19879 Emperor Court, thanked the Council and City Administrator for acting on her request for an ordinance regarding model homes. She has had faith in the Council at some points, and not at other times. It is nice to see it actually can work for a citizen. She is also pleased Brandl Anderson is aware of the residents' feelings. Councilmember Soderberg suggested Ms. Smith and Ms. Fox be kept aware ofthe progress ofthis issue. Commuity Development Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 2 Director Carroll stated there is a memo in the Council packet that chronicles some ofthe work that staff has done. There are some actions that staff has proposed to take and want to make sure Council is in agreement. Nearby communities also have ordinances dealing with model homes. Staffhas recommended to Council that they authorize staffto prepare a draft of an ordinance regulating model homes, using what staff feels are the best provisions from other cities. This draft ordinance will be presented to the Planning Commission and to developers and builders who are currently constructing homes in Farmington. It would then be brought back to Council for review and adoption. Councilmember Soderberg felt this was a good idea. Mayor Ristow stated he liked Lakeville's language. Would it also be presented to the developer's committee? Mr. Carroll stated we would want to give them some opportunity to know what is being proposed and have a chance to comment on it so they can adjust their plans accordingly. Ms. Jan Karrmann, 18614 Egret Way, commented about how important a daycare facility is to the community. She discovered a very underserved need for daycare in the city. She saw an opportunity to start Just Kidding Around Daycare. The population of Farmington has grown by 3,702 people since 2001. Since that time no other daycare facilities have been established. The city is trying to address growth issues. Just Kidding Around Daycare is ready to help with that growth problem. The economy is such that the majority of families are becoming 2-income families. With the rapid rate of growth how better can we serve the people of our community than providing the services they need. To be able to do it well and at a reasonable cost through a local business is a great solution. At some point a franchise of a large corporation will come in and accomplish these same goals, but at a much higher cost. Wouldn't you rather help a small business person from your own community who has ties and commitments and responsibilities to those that they serve? The issues that are at the forefront are whether the industrial park is a good location for a daycare. In relation to the covenants and ordinance, yes, it is obvious it is a good location. It is the only conditional use allowed. In her opinion, it is an excellent location. There are so many employees in the industrial park who would be able to take advantage of the convenience ofthe daycare. It is centrally located in the city with easy access from major routes. She cannot say enough good things about the daycare being an ancillary service in the industrial park. Ms. Karrmann distributed a letter to Council from an employee in the industrial park who supports the daycare and a letter of recommendation from her employer, Hubbard Broadcasting. She then showed a picture of the location for the proposed daycare. Another issue that appears to be a concern is the safety of the children. The children's safety is always number one. MN Chapter Rule 3 regulates the rules of running a daycare. She has also drafted a parent manual which provides other rules for parents to follow in addition to those. As far as the site, there would be a building and an extremely large fenced area for the children to play. Some people feel children would be running all over the industrial park, and that is just plain silly. Children are never left unattended. Children will walk from their cars to the building with their parents. There is no reason for them to be left unattended. She hoped at some point Council will agree with the comments she has made. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 3 Ms. Shelly Sheetz, 18618 Egret Way, stated they found a daycare they were happy with, but it had to close. They have had a hard time finding daycare in the community they were comfortable with and was affordable. They have moved their daycare outside of Farmington. She looks forward to having another option in Farmington. She is excited about the idea of having another daycare that is more affordable that is center based vs in the home. In the home you have concerns if the caregiver is ill, etc. She looks forward to having another option. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (6/2/03 Regular) (6/2/03 and 6/4/03 Special) b) Received Information Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approved CLG Grant for Study of Historic Rural Properties - Administration d) Adopted RESOLUTION R37-03 Approving Gambling Premises Permit American Legion - Administration e) Adopted RESOLUTION R3S-03 Approving Gambling Event Permit Senior Class Parents - Administration f) Adopted RESOLUTION R39-03 Approving Mutual Aid Fire Services Agreement - Fire Department g) Approved No Parking Zone - Charleswood - Engineering h) Adopted Revised Agreement Dakota County Fair Board - Finance i) Received Information 2003 Curbside Cleanup Summary - Parks and Recreation Councilmember Soderberg stated he likes the idea ofthe curbside cleanup. He noted an item regarding increasing the amount of police patrol in the areas of cleanup the day before and the day of collection. He received a comment from a citizen concerned about the amount of scavenging during that time. Not only of the curbside materials, but materials in his car and by his house. Councilmember Soderberg felt the increased patrol is a good idea. Mayor Ristow stated he received complaints that there were a lot of residents bringing materials to houses in large quantities. It costs the residents of Farmington whether you have friends living within the city or outside the city. The more we bring in, the more it costs. Weare trying to accommodate the residents, but it does cost everyone else more when we bring our friends in. Also, someone had dropped some material off in a city park. It is a savings for the residents so we do not have to go to a site that is patrolled. It is also a convenience for people that do not have trailers as they can leave materials at their home. Councilmember Soderberg agreed we do not need to have people bring items into the city. It is a service for city residents. Increased police patrol will be an excellent idea. j) Approved 2004 ALF Ambulance Budget - Administration Councilmember Soderberg wanted to make the Council aware, and to express appreciation to Administrator Shukle, to get more equity in the training. ALF does training for Apple Valley and Lakeville. Our fire department receives a Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 4 training beyond the scope of ALF Ambulance's ability. ALF reimburses to Farmington an additional $5400 to cover the training the firefighters receive to make the training compensation equitable between all the cities. There has also been additional technology. k) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - 19Sth Street Project Assessment - Engineering The 195th Street East Extension Project is complete. The final project cost was $1,068,000. There are three benefiting property owners participating in these costs, the city, Autumn Glen (Arcon), and Tax Free Exchanges (former Reisinger property). The other properties abutting the roadway have been previously assessed for CSAH 31. The cost allocations are based on property front footage. The city's share is $675,215, Arcon $280,585, and Tax Free Exchanges is $112,200. Arcon has already paid their portion. The amount for Tax Free Exchanges is deferred until it is developed without accruing interest. The city's share of $675,000 is to make up for CSAH 31. Councilmember Fitch asked because that is a future county road, will the city be given credit for what we have done on that road? Finance Director Roland replied as part of an agreement on Akin Road, the county gave the city $250,000 towards the cost of 195th Street East. We have seen the amount of money we will get from the county. The balance comes out ofthe city's road and bridge fund. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R40-03 adopting the assessment roll for the 195th Street East Extension Project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - Approved Building Materials Industrial Park - Community Development Ms. J an Karrmann has been working on opening a daycare facility in the industrial park. Community Development Director Carroll stated whenever staff speaks about a new business that is proposed, part of that is to implement some of the goals the city has adopted. One of goals is to promote and increase the city's industrial and commercial development and redevelopment. Staff looks for commercial and industrial development that meets two requirements. One is that it complies with local zoning regulations. Staff looks at whether or not it is a permitted or conditional use. If it is not, we tell them they should not pursue it. If it is, staffwill work with them. The other condition is whether it complies with other applicable city, county, state, or federal regulations. That is related to the issue Council has to decide. An example is does the proposal comply with the industrial park design standards. A few other things considered are a business that provides new employment opportunities, a business that provides products or services desired in Farmington, also businesses that operate in a clean and environmentally safe manner. Regarding local zoning regulations, there are Council Minutes (Regular) June 16,2003 Page 5 certain uses that are permitted and certain uses that are conditional in the industrial park. Permitted uses include light manufacturing, office showroom, office warehouse, research facilities, warehousing facilities. Conditional uses include child daycare facilities, manufacturing facilities, and public utility buildings. In the past when businesses expressed an interest in the industrial park and have been turned down, most of the reason was that they did not meet the list of conditional or permitted uses. Within the last year a couple businesses approached the city regarding a hotel and a mini-storage. The clear direction from the Council was that if it is not a conditional or permitted use, staff should not continue interaction with those businesses and we have not. The question before the Council is not a matter of expansion. No one is proposing that we add new language to the city code or new provisions to the city code or new exterior materials to the design standards. It is also not a matter of liberalization. This is a matter of interpretation or definition or application. We are looking at what concrete is. It is a term that is in the design standards now. There is some question as to what falls in that definition. When someone proposes a material that could fall within an existing standard it is the city's obligation to move that forward. There is a material that Ms. Karrmann has proposed that is Hardi-Plank. It has Portland cement in it and various other components. The claim is that this is concrete. The definition in the design standards is that concrete may be poured, tilt-up or precast and shall be finished in various ways and has a life expectancy of 10 years. Ms. Karrmann has said Hardi-Plank is concrete. There was a joint meeting between the Council, HRA, and Planning Commission on April 30, 2003. The question was, is Hardi-Plank concrete? A staff determination was made at that time that it did not meet that definition. Ms. Karrmann appealed that decision to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2003. The Commission ruled the material is concrete. Mr. Jeff Thelen appealed that decision saying Hardi-Plank is not concrete. The question before the Council is, is Hardi-Plank concrete? Ifnot, Council would sustain Mr. Thelen's appeal. If Council feels it is concrete, they would deny Mr. Thelen's appeal. Mr. Jeff Thelen, owner of Thelen Cabinets, stated by itself, he is not disputing that Hardi-Plank could have some concrete material in it, and could be classified as concrete. He has a concrete bird bath at home, but he is not proposing that for a building structure. The other thing is are we talking about the building itself, the structural material of the building being required to be concrete, or the coverings? In James Hardie's own literature they say their material is lap siding, shingle siding, vertical siding, trim, fascia, and soffit. No where does it say it is a structural component of a building. The intent of the ordinance and the covenants vs the way it is being interpreted is different than the way it was written 12 years ago in phase 1 of the industrial park. Because of staff, Council, HRA, Planning Commission turnover we do not have that history here for anyone to comment on it. Invite those people in and get some comment from the last HRA's member that invented the covenants. You might get a little different idea of what the Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 6 intentions were. It might be a poorly written covenant or zoning, but again what is the intent ofthe zoning and the covenants? We have something completely different than what we are talking about. Mayor Ristow opened it to the audience, asking not to have any personal attacks on anyone. He invited people to make their comments about the daycare. Ms. Jan Karrmann distributed a letter that was given to the Planning Commission on May 9 dealing with the definition of concrete. The definition of Hardi-Plank is the same as concrete. Concrete does meet the design standards ofthe industrial park. It was recommended by the Planning Commission and the HRA has also approved it as an acceptable material. Mr. Thelen's appeal is not based on any issue having to do with fact or procedural error, which are the qualifications for an appeal. His appeal is based on his opinions and how things were handled 10 or 15 years ago. Ms. Karrmann wondered if Mr. Thelen's appeal should have been brought to the City Council at all at this point. It seems that we are listening to a few people. Mayor Ristow stopped her saying Ms. Karrmann had her right for an appeal and Mr. Thelen has his right otherwise staff would not have moved it ahead. Ms. Karrmann stated she accepts that. She was just wondering if it should have been brought to this point. Mayor Ristow stated staff moved it ahead. If Mr. Thelen did not have probable cause, it would not have been moved ahead. Ms. Karrmann thanked Mayor Ristow for that clarification. Ms. Karrmann continued saying she has spoken to the Planning departments of Lakeville, Burnsville, and Apple Valley and they all accept the Hardie products in their industrial zoning products. Her builder and the representative from James Hardie was in attendance to give more details as to why they feel it is acceptable and why it should remain an acceptable use in the zoning district. Mr. Larry White, builder for Ms. Karrmann, stated the material is made by James Hardie Company. The Material Safety Data Sheet says the product is 50-60% Portland cement, 35-45% sand, and less than 10% wood fiber. The definition of concrete talks about the components being Portland cement, sand, water and other aggregates. Hardi-Plank is concrete. There has been no documentation from anyone that has appealed this. Mr. White also had a sample of the stucco texture, which the Planning Commission approved. Referring to a comment by Mr. Thelen, Hardi-Plank was not in this market at the time the covenants were established. It is understandable how they did not consider this product. It entered this area in the 1990's. No one can criticize the HRA for not considering this product. It was not here. Ifwe took that approach with every material, we would still be living in caves. Mr. White showed some photos of buildings with Hardi-Plank. Councilmember Fitch asked if the buildings are in an industrial setting or commercial? Mr. White replied the first photo is industrial. There are precast concrete buildings, textured concrete block building, a mini-storage built out of fab-con wall panels in the industrial park. Burnsville allows an applicant to upgrade to a higher level of standard and allow it in the industrial park. Hardi- Plank has a 50 year product warranty, so it exceeds the lO-year requirement. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 7 They are proposing 4x8 stucco sheets which the Planning Commission preferred. The lap siding is available in a factory finish product which carries a 15 year warranty on the finish itself. The panels are not factory finished and are installed on-site in a primed finish. They are then field painted. Councilmember Fitch asked what the exterior walls would be made of? Mr. White replied it would consist of wood load bearing studs, on the outside there would be sheathing and on the outside of that would be the Hardi product. The building code addresses the type of materials used. The ordinance does not get into structural materials. It talks about the exterior materials. What is exterior is the piece that is exposed to the air. Councilmember Fitch asked if you came to the city and said I want to build an exterior wall out of concrete masonry block, would you expect that to be approved? Mr. White stated you need to put that in narrower context. Councilmember Fitch stated as far as structure, would you expect that anyone of those things in the current code that says exterior wall, not the fa9ade, not the covering, because here it says brick is acceptable, but with brick you would need one or more of these components necessarily more which would be a concrete block wall behind the brick. Are you intending for your exterior walls to either be poured in place concrete, or block, or precast, or tipped up concrete panels behind the Hardi siding? Mr. White replied no. The reason is the ordinance does not address the structural issues, the ordinance addresses the exterior materials and the building code addresses structural materials and there are a variety of materials or methods depending on the occupancy of the building and the level of fire protection, there are a number of options in the building code that address that and it is due to the hazard level of the use of the building. We will meet all the building codes. Councilmember Fitch stated your exterior wall will be wood. It will not be poured in place concrete, tipped up, or concrete block, is that correct? Mr. White replied the structural component ofthe exterior wall will be load bearing wood. Councilmember Fitch stated where anyone of these other materials would by themselves be the structural component. Mr. White disagreed. If you look at state ofthe art construction, you will find other than some large institutional buildings, you will find brick installed primarily over wood stud or metal stud framing. You'll find the same with stone. Councilmember Fitch asked if there were any examples in our current industrial park, where the exterior walls are something other than these materials. Staff replied not that they are aware of. Councilmember Fitch asked about the structural component of the exterior walls. Staff replied not that they are aware of. Mayor Ristow asked if that was related to the design standards as specified in the comments on the history where it says concrete that is poured in place, tipped up, or precast? Community Development Director Carroll stated Mr. White has correctly identified the issue. It may be a legal interpretation as to what the industrial park design standards and covenants address. Staff has taken the position that since it says exterior wall of buildings shall exist of one or more of these materials, that the focus is on what you see when you look at the exterior of Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 8 the building. It was primarily an aesthetic issue and secondary a structural issue. We do not have a lot of background history in terms of written records as to what was in the mind when Council adopted this. Mr. White is correct that if someone was building a home and they wanted to have a wood or metal frame structure with this product on the outside, building inspections would approve it. Mayor Ristow stated he is going by Mr. Carroll's comments that both sets of design standards specify several broad categories of acceptable exterior wall materials including concrete that is poured in place, tipped up, or precast. Mr. Carroll stated if someone intended to have that as the only exterior wall material, that would be approved. Mayor Ristow asked that is not the design standards then that is in the covenants for the industrial park? Mr. Carroll replied the Planning Commission position on their decision was that this product when applied to the exterior of a building, is the exterior wall material and that it is concrete and therefore satisfies the requirements ofthe design standards. Mr. White stated in the industry if we were told that the exterior wall system had to be of a certain type and had to be load bearing, that would support what Councilmember Fitch was driving at. However the ordinance does not say system. System means all the components in the exterior wall as opposed to just the exterior materials. If we follow the ordinance, and just look at exterior materials, we meet the ordinance with this product. Councilmember Fitch stated there are covenants to deal with and covenants can be more restrictive than the ordinance. Mr. White replied we have addressed the covenants in other meetings with the HRA, which has the authority to address the covenants, and they voted to support this product that it met all their requirements. City Attorney Jamnik stated an earlier memo in the packet includes the ordinance provisions at issue. Weare not talking about restrictive covenants. Weare talking about the ordinance interpretation, how you interpret that code section. The memo indicates exterior wall. It does not specify structural members vs the exterior surface aspect, which Councilmember Fitch was trying to get at. It also addresses alternate exterior surface materials. It reinforces the initial staff interpretation that we are looking at aesthetics or surface materials rather than the structural components. It calls for interpretation, and the interpretation is what Council needs to determine and whether or not Hardi-Plank is concrete as defined in the ordinance. Mayor Ristow stated when you were asked by the Planning Commission to make your determination, you did not agree that it was a concrete material. Attorney Jamnik replied in April staff made the interpretation it was not based on the materials in Hardi-Plank. We were not provided the full MSDS at the time. That material was provided to the Planning Commission and partially provided the basis for the Commission to reverse the staff interpretation. Mr. White stated if you were to interpret the ordinance to control the structural members in the exterior wall, that would be a huge undertaking and a huge redundancy of a program you already have in place with your building staff and with the State of Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 9 MN building codes. He is not aware of other communities that attempt to regulate structural components by planning ordinance. There is a distinct line between those two. Weare asking you to interpret this as the exterior materials, which is the language in your ordinance. Mr. Garry Heron, of James Hardie, stated the product is 90% sand and cement. It is poured and formed and it cures and we autoclave it and it is cured cement in 34 hours. It is concrete. The fiber in it is a rebar to hold the product together while it is being cured and manufactured. It is popular because it performs like cement, but looks and sounds and works like a wood product. It has a 50 year warranty. Mayor Ristow stated that is up to the person purchasing it. Our requirement is 10 years. If you are around in 50 years, more power to you. He has seen other people with other materials that have steel siding that has been on 30 years and now they cannot find the people they bought it from. It is all in the trust. Councilmember Soderberg stated the company has been around for 100 years. The product was developed in 1980? Mr. Heron stated the asbestos was taken out in the late 70's. The product has been around since 1917. Councilmember Soderberg stated the product has been around for more than 50 years. You just took the hazardous material out. How has the product held up? Mr. Heron stated you could look at the old asbestos sidings. They were put on over 50-60 years ago and are still performing fine. This product is identical, except the asbestos is removed. Councilmember Soderberg stated it is a proven warranty and proven product. Mr. Nick Roberts, 5597 180th Street, commented as a citizen and member ofthe HRA. The reason he is on the HRA is to help small businesses come into the community. Obviously, Ms. Kamnann has done more than her fair share of work and effort on this project. She has to be commended on that. Everyday this goes longer it is more money out of her pocket and it could be more money in her pocket for putting up a business. It would be a great asset to the business park to have a childcare facility in the industrial park. It allows businesses to have their children close by, it has the advantage for an employee to come over for lunch with their children. It would also be a very large asset to bring more businesses into the city. The major concern of large businesses is childcare. Most businesses themselves want to open up childcare within their own company to address the concerns of employees. Having a daycare close by makes Farmington another asset for the community. Mr. Roberts questioned Mr. Thelen and Mr. Garvey's motivation for their appeals. Why is there such a concern for allowing this? The gentleman from James Hardie just stated that this is a poured concrete. It is tipped up as well. There is a lot being taken into consideration as to what the past HRA members have said. The current HRA is what is important. The current HRA has made the decision and it is their interpretation, 4-1, that this material meets the covenants for placing the childcare facility in the industrial park. He questioned the personal motivations of some members of Council for helping Mr. Thelen especially during certain meetings. In his opinion, Mr. Thelen has gotten Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 10 some extra assistance from certain members of Council where Ms. Karrmann has not gotten any help from the city it seems like for helping move this along. The city has done everything they can to help bring this business into the city. In his opinion, there are certain members of the community getting unfair assistance from the Councilmembers without mentioning any names. Mr. Roberts thinks it is a good and viable project, and it would be a terrible loss to the city not to bring this business into the industrial park. Mayor Ristow replied it was probably me because it was not televised and I was here, but maybe Ms. Karrmann can bring you up to speed back in April the telephone call she made to the Mayor to get where she is today if she wishes. If you are referring to me taking sides for one or the other, it is not true. Mr. Roberts stated he is not mentioning any names. Mayor Ristow stated you can take Ms. Karrmann back to April and ask her what position she was in then until she called me to get the thing moving. Mr. Roberts then asked Mayor Ristow what his motivation is for helping these citizens, coming to the HRA meeting, leaving after the decision was made and waiting in the parking lot for the gentleman to leave the meeting. Mayor Ristow stated that is his business. It does not mean we were talking about that. He stated his piece at the meeting just like Mr. Roberts is tonight. Mr. Roberts stated I value your opinion and please value mine. Mayor Ristow stated he would. Mr. Jeff Thelen, stated he can answer what his motivation is. Even though he is in phase 1 of the industrial park, he has a signed contract from the HRA at that time. Now maybe the current HRA does not think a written contract from their predecessors is worth anything. It certainly is. The same contract was signed with all of the building owners in phase 2 ofthe industrial park. The reason this is being proposed in the industrial park is because the Planning and HRA has done a poor job of allowing other zoning and developing other land in the city that would fit more appropriately. They claim we do not have any other land available so they are pushing it in where everyone along here has said this location is not their first or second choice, but it might be their third choice. Mayor Ristow stated the hearing tonight is whether this building material is concrete. Mr. Thelen replied that is what his first comments were about. The other parts keep coming up by other members. Mr. Paul Hardt, 1117 Bristol Lane, also a member of the HRA spoke to the appeal. He thinks Mr. White's picture of a building with Hardi-Plank says it all. He wished that picture had been provided at the HRA hearing, it probably would have swung the last vote over. Any city would be proud to have that type of building in their industrial park. We have heard about other cities in this area, that actually have buildings in their industrial park made ofthis type of material. As a member of the HRA, this kind of development meets many ofthe standards the city has set up in the past about the kind of businesses we want in this area, the fact that it offers employment, it is consistent with many other areas of development in the industrial park. As a member ofthe HRA, it will promote Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 11 business in the area, it will provide a valuable service to the city and to the citizens, and it certainly helps to carry out the intent ofthe industrial park, which is to bring business into Farmington. He left the picture up saying the picture says it all. Ms. Carrie Smith, 19987 Emperor Court, stated she is a science teacher. Let's look at this scientifically. Does it meet the requirements? Yes. If she went through the scientific method and have my problem, and we take our data, if the Council comes up with a different conclusion than what many of us are thinking, she does not know how they can. If you look at the data, don't think with your heart and who you like and who you don't. Mr. Thelen called it this thing. It is not a thing it is a daycare. Ms. Smith thinks Mr. Thelen is thinking with his passion and this is an industrial park and we want to stay industrial. You have to realize you are looking at whether or not it is concrete. Scientifically, she does not know how they cannot call it concrete. If you are listening to what everyone is saying, it is concrete. MOTON by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Fogarty asked Attorney Jamnik, when staffmade the determination that this was not concrete, they did not have the full MSDS? Attorney Jamnik stated we did not have the full MSDS with the breakup ofthe material. The city was informed by the applicant that it was a concrete type material. Councilmember Fogarty asked if staff now has a different opinion. Attorney J amnik stated we have not rendered a different opinion nor has the Planning Commission. Councilmember Cordes stated if we go by past decisions, staffis still under denial. Attorney Jamnik stated we haven't looked at staff interpretation formally. Mayor Ristow stated you based it on your professional opinion. Attorney Jamnik stated we did on April 30. Councilmember Soderberg stated based on the information we have now, do you care to render an opinion as to whether it is concrete? Attorney Jamnik stated it would not be appropriate at this point to do that because the process has flowed from the initial staff to the Planning Commission to the City Council. Regardless of what any of the testimonial providers tonight would say or what staff would say, the interpretation of the ordinance and whether the product is concrete or not, is the City Council's to make. Councilmember Soderberg stated based on that comment it is totally inappropriate for staff to change their position or render a different opinion. Attorney Jamnik stated it would not be appropriate at this point. Councilmember Soderberg stated in looking at the design standards and the covenants, brick and stone are also included. He cannot imagine putting up a concrete block wall and putting brick on the exterior of that. Some sort of frame behind it whether it is wood or steel, with the brick or stone on it makes sense. So the interpretation we are talking about is the actual exterior wall, rather than the structural materials. Given the composition we have received tonight, he cannot help but conclude it is concrete. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 12 Mayor Ristow asked what would you put up behind it? Councilmember Soderberg replied you would put up a wood frame or steel stud wall with some sort of sheeting and material to attach the brick to. The covenants and the city code allows brick or stone. It does not specify specifically it has to be a block wall. The state building code already addresses those issues. Councilmember Cordes stated she does not think the intent of the appeal is to state whether the exterior wall should be concrete or brick. The appeal is do we accept Hardi-Plank as an acceptable material or not? Councilmember Soderberg stated it has no bearing on the daycare. Is Hardi-Plank concrete? He thinks it is. Councilmember Fitch stated he is tom. It says may be poured in place, he does not see Hardi-Plank poured in place, tipped up, or precast. By our own definition of concrete, he does not see it as concrete. If it was under alternate materials, he could see it under there. Councilmember Soderberg stated if the design standards or covenants said that the concrete "shall be" poured in place, or "shall be" tipped up, or "shall be" precast, he would agree. But "may" gives you options. It does not say those are exclusive options. If you look at the rest of the standards, brick and stone are also allowed. While a tip up panel or poured in place, provides structural support and aesthetics, this allows for some other options. Councilmember Cordes felt there are two different interpretations oftipped up or pre-cast. Councilmember Soderberg stated no one has said this is tipped up or precast. Councilmember Cordes said the builder has and so has the manufacturer. Councilmember Soderberg replied the Planning Commission and the HRA said it is concrete. It says the exterior shall be concrete. Here are some options, it can be a tip up panel, poured in place, or precast. These are options recognized and available then, but this product was not anticipated at that time. Mayor Ristow stated if you look at the original design and all the buildings out there, what is the general consensus of what the buildings are? They are precast concrete pillars that have been stood into place, bolted down, whatever. Councilmember Soderberg stated there is a variety. Councilmember Fogarty stated this is new. This is called taking advancements and saying there are new types of concrete now. If we stood still and said nothing qualifies, then you are going to have the same thing over and over again, and never improve. Manufacturers will stop trying to make better products. Mayor Ristow stated new and improved is what the manufacturer said. Councilmember Fitch asked for building code purposes, what is our definition of an exterior wall? Is it the covering or is it the wall? Community Development Director Carroll stated he did not know if they have a definition. At one point staffwas asked to look into what other communities do. Lakeville in their industrial park uses the phrase exterior building finishes. Woodbury also does that, and also Burnsville. Those communities were looking at the aesthetic issues and how it looks from the outside as opposed to the structural issues. Someone asked what information staffhad available at the time the initial decision was Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 13 made that Hardi-Plank was not concrete. Much of the information you heard tonight, staff did not have at the time, or the Material Safety Data Sheet. As far as the definitions that Mr. White provided, staff had not looked into that yet either, and we did not have the benefit of the presentation from the representative from Hardi-Plank. So you have the benefit of more information than we had when we made the decision. Mayor Ristow stated he would expect staff, as professional people would take every opportunity you have, and you were under no pressure, to get all the information to give us that decision. That is what we pay you for. You were asked by the Planning Commission to give your opinion as a professional on what this material was, and you came back and said that it wasn't concrete. So to make excuses tonight is not acceptable in my opinion. Community Development Director Carroll replied I'm sorry you think we are making excuses. Weare not. Weare clarifying which information you have and which information we had. Mayor Ristow stated the information should have been readily available to you as it was to Mr. White. Community Development Director Carroll replied, like everyone else we make decisions based on the information available at the time. That is exactly what you are going to do tonight. That is what we did then. Councilmember Soderberg stated the HRA looked at this material in light of the covenants only, and determined it was a concrete product that was acceptable under the covenants as a use in the industrial park. The Planning Commission also looked at it and rendered a unanimous decision that it was an acceptable product. He supported the Planning Commission in their decision. Councilmember Cordes asked about 6% of the exterior wall surface. The 6% could be metal flashing on top or siding. Attorney J amnik stated it is pre- engineered metals. Councilmember Cordes asked if this material would be considered an alternate material? Attorney Jamnik replied no, because it would not be considered a pre-engineered metal. The ordinance leads to the conclusion that the primary focus is aesthetics or exterior surface finish. Councilmember Fitch noticed his name is signed on the most recent covenants. That was one of our main concerns, was aesthetics, and quality of the industrial park. We wanted a quality product and to make sure businesses were all playing by the same rules and building the same type of quality building. Aesthetics was part of it. The industrial park was built to look like an industrial park, not like a residential housing unit. There are different design standards for the industrial park. As far as the covenants, they are immaterial tonight, except that the covenants read the same as the building code. Councilmember Fogarty did not think this is an unaesthetic building. If Ms. Karrmann went with the stucco look instead of lap siding you would get an aesthetic look, without a house look. It is not a lower standard of product and would not devalue the other properties out there. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 14 Councilmember Fitch asked if we change this and say it is concrete, would that specifically be put into the code? Community Development Director Carroll replied not unless you ask us to. Attorney Jamnik stated your decision would not translate immediately into a code amendment. Your decision would be binding on this application, as well as serve as precedent for the future. Councilmember Soderberg asked if this building were proposed as 100% brick with a wood frame structure behind it, would there be a problem? Councilmember Cordes stated no, because brick is acceptable. She is looking at the finish. As long as they meet the building code, they can put whatever they want behind the wall. Mayor Ristow stated according to the Fire Marshal it is because the building is 5,000 sq. ft. or less. If it were more, a wood structure would not be acceptable. Councilmember Soderberg replied that is stated in the building code. Weare not here to determine what the building code says. Mayor Ristow stated it depends on what kind of material you can use. There are not many buildings out there with that amount of square footage and the intent at the time was to have a more industrial type building. Councilmember Fogarty stated now we are getting into what is going into the building instead of what will be on the outside. Mayor Ristow stated he is going by what the intent of the outside was. He did not think there were any buildings out there with a wood structure. Councilmember Soderberg stated that is to be determined by the code itself. As far as the size of the building, that is no where defined in the code or covenants. Councilmember Fitch asked if it was agreed we are strictly talking about the exterior material, not the wall itself. Is the wall the fayade or is the wall the structural part? Councilmember Fogarty immediately thought ofthe fayade. Councilmember Fitch stated he knows where Councilmembers Fogarty and Soderberg stand, and asked if Mayor Ristow and Councilmember Cordes agreed that this is talking about exterior surface? Mayor Ristow replied is it a concrete material? Councilmember Fitch stated at that point you can say there have been advances in materials. So then is that concrete according to an exterior wall by definition of a fayade, or an exterior wall by definition of a structural member? There is a distinct difference between the two. Councilmember Cordes thought up until tonight, that an exterior wall meant you saw a cement block on both sides. Now she looks at it as the fa<;ade. Mayor Ristow thought some buildings had brick and stone part way up. The question is, do we agree with the Planning Commission or the staffthat it is a concrete material. Staff at one time said it wasn't, and the Planning Commission says it is. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to deny the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission's decision that Hardi-Plank is concrete. Councilmember Fitch asked if we change this, would it be wise that we make some distinction in terminology between walls, facades, and exteriors to clarify this? If we reach a decision, we should start taking the ambiguity out of our Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 15 codes. If it hadn't been that some of us were on the HRA at that time, we wouldn't have a clue as to what those people were thinking. Councilmember Soderberg stated you are asking for a definition of what is a structural wall? Councilmember Fitch stated a wall has a definite meaning to all of us. There were two or three definitions between us. In our code, if we are going to call this concrete, he would not want to make his basement wall out of this concrete material. He does not determine this as a building material to build a foundation out of. We have to start clarifying what we mean by a wall. Attorney Jamnik stated most of those structural issues are fully addressed by the state building code. We would be pre-empted from modifying the structural aspects of the building that is administered by the building officials. Ifwe did do a clarification, it would be along the lines Community Development Director Carroll mentioned, to specify that this is an exterior wall finish, rather than a structural section. Mayor Ristow asked in your professional opinion, by accepting this as concrete and allowing this material, is it breaking any past covenants? Attorney Jamnik stated no, the covenants are HRA interpreted and by the terms of the covenants, with the exception of Lexington Standard, the HRA is the sole determinant of that, and that covenant interpretation is separate from the ordinance interpretation which was staff, Planning Commission and now City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Ristow stated he did not believe it is a concrete based material the way it has been interpreted in the past, but we will accept from the information we have tonight that it is a concrete material which we are making our decision on. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Soil Testing Results - 3rd and Spruce Street - Community Development Mr. Timothy Lenway, of Peer Environmental, presented results of the soil borings that were done on the 3rd and Spruce Street site. In May 2003,5 environmental borings were done. Four on parcels A and B and one on parcel F. Four were done on parcels A and B as previous investigations had been done on the other parcels during past clean-ups. Parcels C-F had already received a no action letter from the MPCA which stated everything was ok. The analytical testing was very minimal. One soil sample had a little DRO in it, and that was part of the asphalt component and not of any concern. There was one ground water sample with 110 micrograms/liter. Detection limits are at 100. With respect to the soil and ground water the report shows no more investigation is required. They also did a hazardous materials inventory for asbestos. During the initial walk through, no asbestos was identified without doing a destructive sampling. A hazardous materials inventory was also completed. A destructive sampling should be done prior to demolition. Regarding the small detection in the ground water, the only issue that might come up is depending on the building design, if you have to dewater an area or digging footings 8 or 10 feet down, you might have to dewater to get the concrete poured. With that low of a concentration, there is a 99% chance there will not be a problem, but it would be a good idea to collect a sample Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 16 of the discharge to verify none of the contaminants are getting into the storm sewer. With hazardous materials, it is a good idea to write into the purchase agreement that the owner of the property is aware he has to take everything out that is his. Such as the 55-gallon drums, the scrap yard, paint, and cleaning materials. City Administrator Shukle asked Council ifthey wanted to give direction to staff as to what they would like to do with the site. At one time, it was discussed if the site was environmentally clean we would continue to look at the City Hall being located there or the HRA is interested in purchasing the site for economic development reasons. Councilmember Soderberg stated the HRA has expressed an interest if it will not be used as a City Hall site. It would be more appealing to any developer to have the entire site. If the City Hall does not go there, the HRA would like to acquire the parcel. Councilmember Cordes stated at a recent workshop, it was discussed if or when a City Hall is built there, it would be a good idea to purchase the Blaha site. She would not be uncomfortable with the HRA looking into that. Councilmember Fitch stated the city owns a few parcels in the city. At this point we have been unable to move them. He has a problem that unless it is going to be determined right now that that will be a City Hall site, he hates to keep taking buildings off the tax roles. Ifwe have a definite plan and foresight for it he would agree. Councilmember Soderberg stated the HRA has expressed that falls more within the redevelopment aspect and that was their decision. The HRA was going to do an RFP for the parcel next to Gossips, but as the City Hall Task Force was just considering different sites, he asked the HRA to postpone putting out RFP's until we knew where the Council was going to go with the City Hall location. Ifwe do decide to build on the current site, we do have one business that would have to relocate and the McVicker site would be an excellent location. However, that would be up to that business owner. Mayor Ristow stated the understanding was that we would get back to Mr. Blaha in 45 days. Councilmember Fitch stated tonight was in the 45 days area. Councilmember Soderberg stated from the HRA's perspective the entire 1/2 block becomes much more appealing to a developer. Councilmember Fitch stated he would not have a problem with the HRA purchasing it, but with the idea that let's get some RFP's, see what can be put on that site, and see what people are interested. He does not want to landlock the City Hall so that in 20 years we are rebuilding a City Hall somewhere else where land is $150,000/acre. When you see housing lots going between $90,000 and $150,000, you can only imagine the cost of commercial property. He has a great fear of landlocking. If the HRA bought it, he would be in favor of them seeing what kind of development proposals they could get to make that our start to the Spruce Street Corridor. Mayor Ristow stated if we gave 45 days, when are we going to make this decision? Councilmember Soderberg asked ifhe was correct that the HRA has already directed staff to negotiate with Mr. Blaha and staffis waiting for Council to concur with that. Community Development Director Carroll stated we received direction to enter into a purchase option with him so Council Minutes (Regular) June 16,2003 Page 17 we would not have to commit ourselves to buying it, but to lock in a price. Mr. Blaha was not interested in that alternative. He just wants to sell it. He is looking for us to see if someone is interested in buying it and at what price. If Council's direction to staff is to talk with him, lock in a price and terms and take it to the HRA, we will do that. Our understanding would be if the Council later decides they want it for a City Hall, you will not have a fight with the HRA. If not for a City Hall, then the HRA has the property combined in the best way to market it. Councilmember Fitch stated ifthe HRA purchases the site now, there is a current tenant. Community Development Director Carroll stated if the HRA acquires the property and keeps the tenant, and then later had to get rid of the tenant to develop the site, the city would have to pay relocation expenses. If Mr. Blaha agrees to terminate the lease and then the property is vacant, the relocation expenses may not exist. Councilmember Soderberg asked once the property is vacant, can the city lease it until such time without having any relocation expenses incurred? Attorney Jamnik replied yes, it can be stipulated in the lease. Councilmember Soderberg stated, then it would be advisable for the HRA to purchase it as a vacant building and then have a new lease without any relocation exposure. Mayor Ristow stated it was mentioned at one time that the HRA would have to borrow money from the city to purchase it, or do they have the money? Finance Director Roland replied with the sale of the two lots in the industrial park to Vinge Tile, the results of the 2002 audit in combination with receipt of the cash for those two lots, there would be existing funding at the dollar amount that was discussed. She believes the HRA has the funding at this point to enter into that agreement. Mayor Ristow stated you can shift the money from that district to another district. Finance Director Roland replied it is not in a district. The industrial park phase 1 was purchased as part of the downtown TIF district using bonds that the TIF in the downtown area repays. Vinge Tile has not asked for TIF, nor will they be receiving TIF. The sale price on those lots would go back into the HRA as stipulated in previous agreements with the sale of those properties. The bonds are still being paid offby the downtown TIF district. That does not include those two properties. Mayor Ristow asked if it would be wise to do an RFP on what is available and include that lot, take the chance on getting the site, or take the chance on Mr. Blaha selling it? Councilmember Soderberg felt it was not a wise choice to put out an RFP until the city determines where, when and if we will build a City Hall. Mayor Ristow stated he was asking if the HRA were interested in buying the building. Councilmember Soderberg stated if the HRA were to put out an RFP, and we did have a viable project, we would have a viable project competing with City Hall. That is not a good position for the city to be in. Ifwe make a determination that that is not the location, then the HRA will proceed with RFP's for whatever land we have available, once the Council makes a decision on the City Hall. Mayor Ristow asked what do we tell Mr. Blaha in the meantime? Councilmember Soderberg stated he is advocating for Council to give staff the Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 18 direction to negotiate with Mr. Blaha so the HRA can purchase the property. Councilmember Fitch asked ifthe HRA has the finances, does that need Council approval? Attorney Jamnik replied not legally, we are asking whether Council would support that strategy. You are running a slight risk that once you accomplish the land assembly, and choose not to proceed with City Hall, and an RFP process does not generate sufficient response, you will own property that will be off the tax role. Councilmember Fitch stated not if we continue a lease with the current tenant. Councilmember Soderberg stated it would be offthe tax role, but it would provide revenue. Mayor Ristow stated you would want to vacate the tenant, so you would not have to pay relocation costs. Attorney J amnik stated it would be a new lease. From a legal perspective it is the least risk for the city, and the best economic move to acquire in advance of a prospective developer. At this point, the current owner does not have a prospective purchaser that would be competing with the city. Mayor Ristow asked what staff would recommend negotiating? Community Development Director Carroll stated staff had the property appraised. Mr. Blaha indicated he thought the property was worth more. He indicated a price he would want to sell it for, and after a period oftime, he indicated he thought it was worth more. There is not a wide range between what staff recommends and what he wants. Staff would like an opportunity to talk with Mr. Blaha to get that range narrowed. We would then go to the HRA with the best deal we can cut, whether the HRA would like to buy it for this amount and under these terms or not. The HRA would then decide. There is no point for the HRA to go down a path the majority of Council would oppose. This is why we are discussing this. If Council is in support ofthe HRA trying to acquire the site, and if Council authorizes staff to negotiate and get the best price and recommend it to the HRA, staff will keep Council informed as to when the HRA will be considering that, if Council would want to participate in the discussion. If we have control of all the parcels on that site, the outcome would be better for the city. Mayor Ristow stated it depends on what the Spruce Street Corridor is going to do. People might step up right now and buy the lot. There has been no definite price on the two lots. There have been offers in the past. A lot goes back to what we really want to do with the property. There was an offer at one time for $75,000 for the whole area. Before he gives direction he would like to know what will happen before he says to go ahead and purchase it. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff is not recommending that we buy it. Weare recommending that Council gives staff permission to explore that possibility. Mayor Ristow stated he does not want to send the wrong message to Mr. Blaha. Councilmember Soderberg asked Mayor Ristow if he opposed having staff enter into a discussion with Mr. Blaha to see if we can reach a mutual agreement on a purchase price. Mayor Ristow stated he would not oppose that. Just so the direction is clear that there is nothing definite. Councilmember Soderberg stated that decision is in the HRA's hands, to purchase the site. Mayor Ristow stated if the HRA thinks it would be a plus to them to negotiate, that would be up to them. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 19 Councilmember Cordes felt it would be wise to have the HRA negotiate. Councilmember Fogarty agreed, stating one big parcel would market well. Councilmember Fitch also agreed, as long as we do not vacate the tenant before we have to. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the HRA purchases the site, does the tenant physically have to vacate the building or can it be a termination oflease and a simultaneous re-lease? Attorney Jamnik stated it is best if there is an actual change in physical possession because there is an ambiguity created with the hold over. b) Vermillion River Presentation - Mr. Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water District - Engineering Mr. Brian Watson ofthe Dakota County Soil and Water District gave a presentation regarding the Vermillion River. Dakota County and Scott County have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to form a Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization. Mr. Watson's presentation outlined three things. He gave a tour of the watershed, some background on water quality data obtained over the last 4-5 years, and 4 or 5 parameters they use that show the health ofthe Vermillion watershed. The Vermillion watershed is the largest in the metropolitan area. c) May 2003 Financial Report - Finance Staff presented revenues and expenses to Council as of May 31,2003. d) Consider Reconvening of MUSA Review Committee - Community Development The city allocated MUSA in October of2001 and has not reconsidered the issue since then. At the time Council directed staff to not look at MUSA for at least a year. There has been some concern about growth, and that perhaps it has been too rapid. If additional MUSA is awarded, that may lead to additional growth. What staff is wondering is if Council would like staff to reconvene the MUSA Committee and look at the remaining MUSA that is available through 2005. This amounts to 212 acres. The Council has the right to allocate that now, wait until next year, or wait until 2005. There have been inquiries from property owners and from developers wondering in which direction the city wants to grow and at what rate. Mayor Ristow stated it was the intent to go from the downtown area to the north. Finance Director Roland indicated there are 1,000 platted lots yet to be built on. Mayor Ristow stated the recommendation from the Council was 275 permits. Finance Director Roland stated the 275 is an average that is covered in the city's comprehensive plan submitted to the Metropolitan Council in 2000. That is an average over a 20-year period. It has been used as a guide, but not an absolute figure. That will be balanced out once the land growth slows down. Councilmember Fitch wanted to be cautious looking at MUSA reconvening that it be carefully planned and brought in in a period of time we could handle it to keep Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 20 our growth regulated. As development slows down, the growth ofthe city budget will be less in our control than it is today. Finance Director Roland stated we will go as the city's growth goes. Councilmember Cordes felt the MUSA Committee did a good job of analyzing and telling developers that just because you apply, does not mean you will be building tomorrow. She does not think reconvening the committee is bad. Councilmember Fitch stated he is not against reconvening it, but would like the direction set now. (Councilmember Fogarty left the meeting at this point due to afamily emergency). Community Development Director Carroll stated the message sent at the end of the process last time, was 12 of the 14 applicants did not get MUSA. If staff receives authorization to reconvene the committee, there are many steps that need to be taken before the first meeting, which could take a year. Mayor Ristow felt it was good to reconvene the committee, but did not want the wrong message sent. Council authorized staff to reconvene the MUSA Review Committee. e) Adopt Resolution - Final Plat Meadow Creek 3rd Addition - Community Development Mr. Warren Israelson of Progress Land Company proposes to plat 80 single- family lots in the third phase of Meadow Creek. The proposed subdivision is located east of Prairie Creek and north of Autumn Glen. There are an additional 12 lots south ofthe Lake Julia waterway. Originally these were platted as one outlot. They were not previously platted because the design of the Lake Julia waterway had not been decided. The design is now clarified and these lots are ready. Mayor Ristow asked if the areas that backed up to this have been taken care of. City Engineer Mann stated the backyard drainage issues have been regraded. With this project, Lake Julia waterway will be completed. There are certain lots that will not be issued building permits until the waterway is completed. Mayor Ristow stated the second issue is the traffic and whether it would be diverted to 195th Street instead of impacting more on Embers and 18th Street. City Engineer Mann stated the alignment of the roadways do match the previous plan. The development is connected to 195th Street. MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R41-03 approving the Meadow Creek 3rd Addition Final Plat with contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 21 t) Adopt Resolution - Preliminary and Final Plat Lot 1, Industrial Park 2nd Addition - Community Development As there was a fire at the surveyor's office the plat was not available. This item was continued to the July 7, 2003 Council Meeting. g) Adopt Ordinance - Parkland and Trail Dedication Requirements - Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Director Distad brought a request to amend the current parkland dedication ordinance. During the public hearing at the Planning Commission, it was requested that input be received from developers. One letter was received from Mr. Steve Juetten, Newland Communities. It was agreed that the section in the proposed ordinance related to conditions to be met prior to deeding fell within the park development fee portion ofthe ordinance. This section was deleted. The significant new requirements include: Land required for parks, open space and trails is now determined by density rather than a flat percentage. A requirement that the developer entirely pay for trails to be constructed in the development when the trail has been identified on the city's Trail Plan. A requirement for the developer to pay half ofthe cost to develop the new park that is based on an average park development cost of $30,000 an acre. Councilmember Fitch asked if this becomes an impact fee to the developer and could this be challenged? Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied this is a partnership and providing an opportunity to develop the parks sooner rather than later. Attorney Jamnik stated we are still requiring a dedication of land. We are using the density to classify how much need there is for the land. The cost of the park is worked in such as storm sewers and sanitary sewers. Councilmember Cordes asked so asking a developer to help with development is not an impact fee? Attorney Jamnik replied it is an impact fee in the sense it is a development cost that is necessitated by the development. But the city is authorized to do that. Where we are not authorized is for offsite overall infrastructure costs proposed on a development for non-related developments away from there. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting ORDINANCE 003-490 approving the new Public Parks, Trails and Open Space dedication ordinance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. h) Schedule Joint City Council/Planning Commission/Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Meeting - Community Development A meeting was schedule for 6:00 p.m. on July 16, 2003. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fitch: Earlier this evening one of our HRA members seemed to indicate that there was a favoritism given to a particular resident. Councilmember Fitch wanted to be on record to say any resident in this city is equal and has the same access to Council Minutes (Regular) June 16, 2003 Page 22 anyone at this table or the management table. If you find that not to be true, please contact us. To stand up here and say that people are favoring one side or another is blatantly false. We each have our own ideas and convictions on any particular project, but it certainly does not mean we have closed off access to anybody in the process. To say so otherwise is dishonest. Councilmember Cordes: Reminded everyone it is Dew Days this weekend and there are a wide variety of events taking place. City Engineer Mann: Reminded Council there is a joint meeting with Council and Castle Rock Township to discuss the Ash Street project on June 23, 2003. We are approaching the county's CIP deadline of August. Between that meeting and one final meeting decisions regarding that project need to be discussed. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Labor Negotiations Council adjourned into Executive Session at 10:57 p.m. 15. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 11 :24 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, y-~~ /??~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant JOINT CITY COUNCIL/CASTLE ROCK TOWN BOARD MEETING ASH STREET PROJECT MINUTES June 23, 2003 Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order for the Council at 8:00 p.m. Present: Ristow, Fogarty, Soderberg Absent: Cordes, Fitch Also Present: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Lee Mann, City Engineer; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Becker called the meeting to order for the Castle Rock Town Board at 8:07 p.m. Present: Becker, Neal, Wiedder, Lamb, Rother Also Present: Mike Foertsch, Township Engineer Audience: Commissioner Joe Harris, Vern Johnson, Colin Garvey, Aaron Tinklenberg The city recently had a meeting with the county regarding the CIP process. They discussed projects the city would like on the CIP. They also discussed timing, funding, etc. for the Ash Street project. Due to funding consideration and budget considerations the County suggested putting this on the 2005 CIP. The timing works better for 2005, as it would give the City lead time for designing. Ideally, if the project would be done in 2004, the city should have already started design. The costs for moving the project to 2005 have been factored in for the numbers presented at the meeting. Councilmember Soderberg asked if2005 fits well with other projects scheduled for the city? City Engineer Mann replied the second phase of Main Street is scheduled for 2004. This could be the major project for 2005. It depends on when the 195th Street project goes. One year farther away does not hurt the city from a financial standpoint. Councilmember Fogarty asked what the chances are ofthis getting pushed back again? City Engineer Mann replied that is up to the people here tonight. Mayor Ristow stated at the last meeting there were some things to be worked out between the Engineers. City Engineer Mann replied they have reviewed the items and agreed on the allocations and what the cost will be. The issue is how does it get funded? City Engineer Mann then asked ifthere were any issues with the timing? Mr. Neal replied he would bet the project would go by 2006 with the county, but it has to be organized and ready to go. City Engineer Mann stated the County wants to see a resolution by August 1 about projects that jurisdictions want in the County CIP. This has to be either a joint resolution or two separate resolutions. Mayor Ristow stated Commissioner Joe Harris is here and has been very helpful and proactive to try to move this project forward. He asked Commissioner Harris if we are on track. Commissioner Harris stated you can never guarantee anything. But if these two governmental units can get together and come to an agreement, the county will be there to help them get the project done. We all know it has been on the Joint City Council/Castle Rock Town Board Meeting June 23, 2003 Page 2 drawing board for 20 years. It is not the county that has been holding up the show. He would agree with county staff and with City Engineer Mann that anything before 2005 at this late a time just is not going to happen. The drawings, plans, and specifications will not be done. Otherwise you will drag construction over the winter. The project should start in the spring of2005 and complete the first coat of blacktop by the time winter hits in 2005. Commissioner Harris stated that there is no way that starting today we can have that project done in 2004. Councilmember Fogarty asked if we are in a stronger position if we came up with a resolution the sooner the better? Commissioner Harris replied yes. Mayor Ristow asked where MnDOT sits? City Engineer Mann replied the city has approached MnDOT several times in the past. In the past they agreed to help fund some of this. The last time MnDOT agreed to participate and the proj ect did not go forward, they asked to not go through this again until we have a project. The next time the City goes back to MnDOT, there should be a resolution in hand and hopefully a CIP document from the County that shows the project scheduled. Mayor Ristow stated even without MnDOT, if the three organizations agree, MnDOT still has to agree because a certain portion is their property. City Engineer Mann replied they would be hard pressed to say they were not responsible for their portion. MnDOT will be subject to their own issues as far as the budget is concerned. MnDOT's Ash Street cost allocation should not be a major ticket item for MnDOT. Mayor Ristow asked ifMnDOT could hold the project up if they were short? City Engineer Mann replied depending on how much money they are looking at contributing, it might not be worth holding up the project. Maybe they could refund the City at a later date if funding is an issue for MnDOT. If we have a resolution before August 1, 2003, we can get this going right away. Councilmember Soderberg asked if 2005 was a realistic time frame to get this all done? City Engineer Mann replied the city can definitely get this done in 2005. City Engineer Mann stated the majority of the work that has occurred since the last meeting has been concerning pond 8 which is located in Castle Rock. A document outlining the costs was presented. The costs have been estimated to include 2005 costs. The only other change is in regards to pond 8 regarding the storm sewer. The cost splits between the township and the city for pond 8 have been fine tuned. Engineer Foertsch asked ifthere were any questions on the scope ofthe improvements, what the streets will look like, where the water main is going, sanitary sewer? Mayor Ristow asked easement costs are $135,000? The Engineers replied that is the estimated cost. Mayor Ristow stated then the next cost is $678,000? City Engineer Mann stated the total improvement cost for pond 8 is $1,230,400 plus the $135,000. The Castle Rock allocation and the City allocation add up to those two together. Chair Becker asked if the easement cost is for the pond itself and the piping? Engineer Foertsch stated correct. Mayor Ristow asked how many acres are in pond 8? Engineer Foertsch stated it is approximately 10-11 acres. Mayor Ristow asked if that was for the runoff just for the Ash Street project, or other areas? Engineer Foertsch stated the pond sizing for 8 is based on the Ash Street west drainage area which goes from the intersection ofHwy 3 and 50 to the west, area 3 which includes part of Highland Circle and that area in Farmington, area 4 which drains into area 5, and area 5 drains into pond 8 and area 8. It assumes a developed condition in area Joint City Council/Castle Rock Town Board Meeting June 23, 2003 Page 3 8 based on the township zoning. There was some discussion at the township level as far as whether it should be sized according to developed conditions or existing conditions. Mayor Ristow asked where in the vicinity of pond 8 is the Castle Rock Bank? Engineer Foertsch stated the pond can take on any shape to accommodate whatever it needs to accommodate as long as it has the volume of storage. Mayor Ristow stated from an engineer's perspective, you are confident that that pond is sizable so any of the buildings to the south are not going to get flooded out? Engineer Foertsch replied correct. Commissioner Harris stated the proposed pond 8 is the base project, so pond 5, 6, 7 and 55 are not in this project. Those ponding areas will be done as development occurs in those areas. Engineer Foertsch replied correct. Commissioner Harris stated that helps to reduce the cost ofthe project. Engineer Foertsch replied it defers the cost until sometime in the future when development happens. Pond 5 does drain to pond 8. In the past, area 55 was included in the pond 5 area, but that is being rerouted to pond 6 and 6 goes directly out to the Hwy 50 crossing, where pond 6 was also part of pond 8. By spreading the drainage out and creating more ponds, we have reduced the size of pond 8 by half from 3 or 4 years ago. Mayor Ristow asked the only pond that will be a joint venture will be pond 8? Engineer Foertsch replied correct. Mayor Ristow stated the rest will be in Castle Rock. Engineer Foertsch stated pond 5 is in the city and the rest are all separate from what we are considering this evening. Councilmember Soderberg stated pond 8 has a 30" pipe flowing into the prairie waterway. The other ponds in the township, 55, 6, and 7 are constricted so we don't overload the waterway to the north? Engineer Ferch stated he believed the restriction across 50 is 18 CFS. All of these areas contribute a total of 18 CFS. Councilmember Fogarty asked ifpond 2 is gone? Engineer Mann stated at this point, the Fairgrounds have indicated they will take their water somewhere to the south. A letter was received from the Fair Board indicating they are not able to participate in the project and will route their drainage a different way. At this point pond 2 will not be built. The portion of pond 8 that would be required if some day pond 2 does get routed that way, will not be built either. In the future, if the Fairgrounds needs to connect to the system, then pond 8 will need to be expanded by the Fairgrounds, because they are opting out of the project at this time. Councilmember Soderberg noted the letter from the Fair Board also states they feel curb and gutter is not necessary along the street. Will curb and gutter be installed anyway? City Engineer Mann replied the curb and gutter aspect is being funded by the County because they are fronting the township and the County picks up 100% of that. Councilmember Soderberg asked if curb and gutter will restrict water running to the Fairgrounds from the street? Mayor Ristow stated the problem is the houses from the Fairgrounds to the east. The water ran back and then came into Sunnyside. Some of it used to pond where the parking was. Will that be eliminated? Engineer Mann replied the City will have to work with the fairgrounds in making sure water is not going back and forth like it used to. Staffhas discussed that with the Fairgrounds and they are fine with that. They seem willing to be an entity unto themselves as far as storm water is Joint City Council/Castle Rock Town Board Meeting June 23, 2003 Page 4 concerned. Engineer Foertsch stated before there is any provisions in the sizing of pond 8 taken out, we need to make sure that the fairgrounds is complying with what they say they are going to do. Mr. Colin Garvey asked if construction of the ponds will start in the spring? Engineer Mann stated some of this construction lends itselfto winter work. Ifthey receive approval to move forward, the City may plan to get some ofthe ponding work done in the winter of 2004-2005. It makes things easier to have the pond done when running the storm sewer that way to get the project done by fall 2005. Mr. Garvey asked if the calculations have dewatering figured in? Engineer Foertsch stated there is a good contingency. We did not itemize the dewatering, but we are confident it should be close. It is our best estimate. Mr. Garvey noted from pond 5 to pond 8 previously the pipe was 12", now it is 18". Engineer Foertsch will check on that. There is a rate that will identify run off from pond 5 into pond 8. Whatever pipe will accommodate that rate is what it will be. Engineer Mann stated the pipe in question is not part ofthis project, but we can verify that. City Engineer Mann stated the costs for the various jurisdictions are: County Township $1,911,000 $693,000 - There are two components: $687,000 for pond 8 and $6,271 has to do with the Extension Office which is a very small portion of land along the fairgrounds that does drain to the street. $3,472,000 non-assessable City Mayor Ristow stated we are still ending this at the railroad tracks. He then asked about the Extension Office, does the cost go to the County? Engineer Foertsch stated that is what has been proposed to them. There have been discussions with their facility manager and he is aware of those costs. He is waiting to see what the jurisdictions are going to do with the project, so he can plan for it in his budget. Mayor Ristow stated so the understanding is they are not saying they are not participating. Engineer Foertsch replied, not at this point. City Engineer Mann asked how the jurisdictions feel about the numbers, or should he distribute a draft Joint Powers Agreement which talks about how we will agree to do this project. Mayor Ristow stated the figures have not changed significantly since the last meeting. Chair Becker stated the Town Board's position is that they do not have the funds to fund a project like this. So they will not financially be able to move forward with it, but they would be willing to work with the City to do whatever they can on the acquisition of easements. The township is willing to work with the City on right-of- ways, etc., but financially the township cannot be liable for any costs at this time. Mayor Ristow stated so what you are saying is you want us to buy pond 8, build it and maintain it. Chair Becker stated yes. Right now they are getting by with what they have out there, and it would not be a benefit to the township. Mayor Ristow stated that is fine, we discussed that before and with the understanding that everything on the west side ofHwy 3 within a year would have to annex and come in and on the east side the businesses Joint City Council/Castle Rock Town Board Meeting June 23, 2003 Page 5 would be charged for runoff. Engineer Foertsch stated what the township is saying is there would be zero contribution into this project at this point financially. Mayor Ristow stated he understood, but how would we charge, there must be water coming from those businesses along 50, how will that be collected? Engineer Foertsch stated it is a city obligation at this point to pick up that cost whatever it is. Mayor Ristow asked the same with sewer and water, they would be stubbed? City Engineer Mann recommended if the city is putting sewer and water through there, it would be wise to stub services at this time. Chair Becker stated the township sees that as being best for the city and are willing to work with them. City Engineer Mann stated the city would put the services in and when or if any property decides they needed those services we would work that out. Mr. Neal stated they could annex parcel by parcel. Councilmember Soderberg asked about the assessment costs and that they would be deferred until they come into the city. Is there a time limit on how long they can be deferred? Attorney Jamnik stated you cannot defer longer than the life ofthe bond. Ifit is a 30-year bond, you would like to start collecting 15-20 years out, otherwise the project would close when the financing is done. Mayor Ristow stated the assessment fees would be for the sewer and water lines. They would not go away. Engineer Mann asked if a connection charge could be adopted? Attorney Jamnik stated you could run the connection charge in lieu of the assessment, and that would be reimbursed eventually. But when you are carrying that project cost out that long with accrued interest that is gain on the debt. The connection charge cannot get close to 100% when you get out 15 years. Five or 10 years there is not a problem recovering interest. Mayor Ristow stated that is the chance you take by stubbing it. Engineer Foertsch stated the cost of putting the stub in during construction vs having to come back is a very small amount. It is a benefit to the property owner to stub it in. Mayor Ristow asked if Castle Rock is agreeable to stubbing it in? Mr. Neal replied it is the City's decision. Some may want to come in quicker than we think. Mayor Ristow stated it is easier to do it now. Mr. Neal agreed it should be stubbed in. Councilmember Soderberg asked ifthe pond itself will be in the city limits? Mayor Ristow stated we would have to have some easements to maintain the pond and the sewer line. City Engineer Mann stated we would have to have easements for the sewer and water and it sounds like the township is proposing we have an easement over the pond rather than the city actually owning the land. Mayor Ristow asked who will pay for it? If you are going to pay for it you have to own it don't you? Engineer Foertsch stated you can buy an easement for the pond. He does not know how the city treats their ponding areas, if they own them or have easements. Mayor Ristow stated most are allotted back to the City as outlots. City Engineer Mann replied some of the older ones have easements. It is mostly a control issue. If it is behind single family lots, we want to own it to have more control. If it is in the middle oftownhomes, it is run by an association, so we do not mind having an easement. That is something the City may need to consider. Councilmember Soderberg stated it may be more beneficial to own the pond because you have a couple single family homes and it is zoned commercial, you still run into the same issues with encroachment. Mayor Ristow asked ifthere was a problem with the city Joint City Council/Castle Rock Town Board Meeting June 23, 2003 Page 6 owning it? Chair Becker stated the township has not discussed that. Mayor Ristow stated we would have to purchase the property with the project. Is this Colin Garvey's property? City Engineer Mann stated it is partially Garvey property and partially Nicolai property. Councilmember Soderberg asked ifthe numbers assumed purchase of the property? City Engineer Mann stated based on an appraisal. Engineer Foertsch asked about the cost difference between a purchase or an easement. Attorney J amnik stated the difference is minimal because the pond is so invasive it is almost a total take in contrast to a trail easement. Mayor Ristow asked ifthe easement would be deeded? Attorney Jamnik stated the easement would be permanent, but the idea when you put a pond on it, it eliminates the property owner's use of the land, so they want the full value. Councilmember Soderberg asked ifthe easement has any impact on the taxable value? Attorney J amnik stated the land is still taxed for whatever it is classified as. Mayor Ristow asked if this is the only pond in the project? Engineer Foertsch replied yes. Councilmember Fogarty stated so it is just the commercial properties to the east that will be draining directly into pond 8? Engineer Foertsch replied yes. Mayor Ristow stated it will be from the Hwy 3 intersection to the golf course. Councilmember Fogarty asked as area 8 develops, we do not know if that will stay in the township or come into the city? Chair Becker stated as area 8 develops it would be up to the land owner and he would have to provide development ponding. Engineer Foertsch stated it is the property owners choice ifthey request annexation or stay within the township. Councilmember Fogarty asked whether it will continue to drain into pond 8. Engineer Foertsch replied yes. Councilmember Soderberg asked if any of the property owners in area 8 request to be annexed into the city there would be no objection from the town board? Chair Becker stated that is their feeling. Councilmember Soderberg stated so it would be an orderly annexation agreement. Mr. Neal stated no forced annexation. That is their prerogative. Chair Becker stated that is if this project goes through. But if this project does not go through then we would not like annexation. Councilmember Soderberg asked how would we service those properties ifthe project does not go through? Chair Becker stated our stance is that if someone comes tomorrow and wants to be annexed we would not allow it until we knew this project is going ahead, so that the City does not annex the corner and not do the project. If anything is going to be annexed the project should be already started. Mayor Ristow stated he thought that had been the agreement from way back. There would be no benefit to anyone to develop without the services. Engineer Mann handed out a draft Joint Powers Agreement. Mr. Neal asked if we stay on this condition do we need a Joint Powers Agreement? Engineer Mann stated he felt there needs to be an agreement. Mr. Neal stated then it will be in black and white. Councilmember Fogarty stated she would feel more comfortable ifthe pond were city property. Attorney J amnik stated the city would have to get a permanent easement or a fee purchase to put the pond in. Because it is a pond and with the size, the township may want to give it in fee rather than just an easement for a vestige of liability. It would still be on the title of the property. Mayor Ristow stated what if it goes with the property owner and he says I don't want to give an easement I want to sell it. Then what happens? Attorney Jamnik stated then you would negotiate to buy it. That can be part ofthe Joint City Council/Castle Rock Town Board Meeting June 23, 2003 Page 7 agreement. Engineer Foertsch asked if the city can own property in the township? Attorney J amnik stated it is done all the time. Mayor Ristow stated that is a point to share with the constituents when they ask what are you doing with this large amount of money? It is for a project, we would not want to buy land that is not contiguous to the city. Attorney Jamnik stated there are situations where cities will locate an industrial park in a township. It is not uncommon. The main concern for the township, is once we own it, the city has more authority to annex it. Mayor Ristow stated the biggest objection before was the maintenance of the pond. Engineer Mann stated the easement will allow us to do that. Mayor Ristow asked ifthe agreement also addressed fire hydrants for protection for the commercial buildings? Engineer Mann replied that will be looked at in the plan design and will be taken into consideration for the easement. Mr. Garvey asked if pond 8 can be owned by the city and the rest of the development stay in Castle Rock? Attorney Jamnik replied yes. Mr. Garvey then asked if a person can split off a parcel of his property, keep the rest in Castle Rock and sell the rest or donate a portion to the city? Attorney Jamnik replied yes, it is a matter of fashioning the proper legal descriptions. Chair Becker stated they are willing to work with the city on the Joint Powers Agreement. Mayor Ristow asked if the township had to take the agreement back to their meeting to endorse it? Chair Becker stated they have looked at it, but it has to be rewritten. Attorney J amnik stated this is a cost share agreement that was discussed tonight. Mr. Neal agreed this is a cost share agreement where the other would be the City's responsibility and our share would be allowing the City to get easements within the township. Mayor Ristow asked ifthere was anything in the agreement that would be a problem. Engineer Mann stated there is a lot of cost sharing items in the current agreement. Engineer Mann summarized the discussion. Castle Rock does not have the funds to participate at this time, but they would like to see the project happen and would be willing to help in non-financial ways if the City wants to go ahead with the project. The City needs to decide whether they are willing to go ahead with the project based on the idea of picking up the Township costs. Mayor Ristow stated instead of three entities, there would be two, the City and the County. Engineer Mann replied correct, two would be picking up the cost and possibly the state would have some costs. If the City wants to do the project under those terms, the next step would be for the town board and the City to pass the resolutions. Either a joint resolution or two separate ones that say we are going forward with the project. Very soon thereafter would be the Joint Powers Agreement. Mayor Ristow stated it is on our back to get this done by August so we can get this in the CIP. The township has told us what they want to do and we have to decide whether to agree. Mr. Neal stated then just one entity is making the final decision. Councilmember Soderberg stated we still need a resolution from the town board. He asked if the town board would want separate resolutions or a joint resolution. The town board was unsure. Joint City Council/Castle Rock Town Board Meeting June 23, 2003 Page 8 Engineer Mann asked Commissioner Harris if one was better than the other. Commissioner Harris stated he did not know why the City would want a joint resolution. Wouldn't you want the township to act first, telling the City they will not participate in a dollar amount, but would be willing to cooperate with the City? Anything west ofHwy 3 is coming into the City excluding the fairgrounds. That should be in the township's resolution and the City's resolution is one that will be picking up the cost and that is the one the County is interested in. Engineer Mann felt the County needed to see both resolutions. Mayor Ristow stated the costs for the west side would stay the same, the County would pick up their road costs, the property owners would pay for their sewer and water assessment, Highland Circle is still a bare road without curb and gutter. Engineer Mann stated Highland Circle will be done, but will be put back the way it is. Chair Becker asked ifthe City needed a resolution tonight or make it at the next board meeting and deliver it to the City? Attorney Jamnik stated the proper protocol would be to revise the Joint Powers Agreement so that the entities have an understanding as to how the project will be undertaken, and then fashion a short 1 or 2 page orderly annexation agreement that says after completion of the project or as the project is being constructed the city and township agree these parcels will convert to city jurisdiction. When those two agreements are drafted to the satisfaction ofthe city and the township, then the resolutions, indicating that we are going forward pursuant to these other two agreements, would be in order. This has to be completed by August 1. Attorney J amnik will draw up the agreements. The township has a meeting July 8. The Orderly Annexation Agreement will state ifthe project is constructed consistent with the Joint Powers Agreement, then an annexation will be allowed. Engineer Foertsch stated the town board resolution will reference both agreements. Councilmember Soderberg stated he would like to hear Finance Director Roland's input on the finances and how it will affect the city. He has no objection with Attorney Jamnik moving forward with the agreements. Picking up the Township cost is an 11 % increase in cost for the city. Engineer Mann stated Finance Director Roland has reviewed the figures and is confident this will work. The Orderly Annexation Agreement, the Joint Powers Agreement, and the resolution needs to be done by July 8 for the town board meeting. The Council will discuss the city's side. Attorney Jamnik will e-mail the agreements to the Town Clerk and the township attorney. Mr. Garvey asked about digging the pond in the winter and whether de-watering had been figured in. He could not find it on the printout. If de-watering is not done, what is saved? Engineer Foertsch stated it is an estimate. De-watering is part of the excavation. A 10% contingency has been added in to cover some ofthose things. Joint City Council/Castle Rock Town Board Meeting June 23, 2003 Page 9 Mr. Neal asked about the wells that are close, whose liability is that? Engineer Foertsch stated that will be dealt with in the construction design. Engineer Mann stated they usually coordinate with the owner to shut the well off and supply water. This will be placed on the July 7 and July 21 Council agendas. MOTION by Neal, second by Lamb to adjourn at 9: 17 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to adjourn at 9: 17 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, //} ~-;?- // '-:7-' ~ ~~--&.J e)rnthia Muller Executive Assistant 7b' DRAFT Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on June 11, 2003 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Paula Higgins and Debby Ruth Members Absent: Mike Buringa and Dawn Johnson Other's Present: Charlie Weber, Rambling River Center Advisory Board member; Chris Commons, Rambling River Center Advisory Board member; Don Hayes, Parks Maintenance Supervisor; Missie Kohlbeck, Senior Coordinator; Patti Norman, Recreation Supervisor; Amanda Wolkenhauer and Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director. I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Oswald requested to add the following items: swim bus discussion, brochure concerns, update on Park Dedication Ordinance, hiring consultant to assist the Recreational Facility Task Force, discussion on using credit cards for payment for program registrations and discussion on weed control policy. Motion by Ruth, seconded by Higgins to approve the meeting agenda as amended. APIF III. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Ruth, seconded by Oswald to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2003 meeting. Oswald and Ruth voted in favor. Higgins voted to abstain. IV. Presentations A. Winter Park Season Don Hayes, Parks Maintenance Supervisor, reviewed this past winter season's outdoor activities in parks maintenance. Mr. Hayes stated that his staff performed the following duties in winter: . remove snow from sidewalks downtown . remove snow from trails around the City . flood several hockey rinks and several pleasure skating rinks . remove snow from the hockey rinks and pleasure rinks. . repair and paint picnic tables and park signs He said because of the increasing number of trails, it is becoming more and more difficult to not only keep all the trails open, but also to be able to repair and paint picnic tables and park signs and to flood rinks and remove snow from the rinks. He stated that when it snows, the first priority is cleaning off the sidewalks downtown and then plowing trails that lead to the schools. Mr Hayes requested that he would like to have two Commission members work with him on a subcommittee to develop a snow removal policy for trails and ice rinks that would rank them in order of importance for snow removal. Motion by Oswald, seconded by Higgins to appoint Ruth and Johnson to a subcommittee with Don Hayes to develop a draft policy on snow removal on trails and rinks. APIF B. Rambling River Center Missie Kohlbeck, Senior Coordinator, spoke about a remodeling plan that the Rambling River Center Advisory Board has been working on. Kohlbeck updated Commission members on the current conditions of the Center. Charlie Weber, Rambling River Center Advisory Board member reviewed the remodeling plans with Commission members. He indicated that the remodeling would be done in phases as money becomes available to complete the work. Weber explained that the first priority in phasing in the improvements would be to build new office space for staff as future phases of remodeling depend on staff being located to new office space in the Rambling River Center. After this has occurred, then the computer lab would be moved to the old staff office space which would free up the old computer lab space for expansion for a fitness room. The Rambling River Center Advisory Board and staff felt that the senior population was changing from being a more sedentary population to a more active population. Currently there is not a fitness component and that by adding a fitness component to the Rambling River Center, it would increase memberships. Oswald asked what would happen to the gift shop. Kohlbeck commented that the person who has been in charge of the gift shop has a serious medical condition and it is doubtful that she will retum to run the gift shop. The Center would still offer an opportunity for members to sell crafts, but it would be under a different venue. Kohlbeck stated that she has seen other Centers that have a display case that is used to sell crafts from. In this venue, the crafts remain visible for sale during the time that the Center is open. In the gift shop, there were a limited number of hours that it was open and thus limited when people could buy and sell crafts. Kohlbeck said that under the remodeling plan that the existing gift shop space would be used for playing card games. Oswald asked where the funds would come from to pay for the remodeling costs. Kohlbeck replied that the Rambling River Center has $4,200.00 that it has raised through various fundraising events that could be used to pay for the remodeling costs. Weber indicated that he has also recruited volunteers to assist with the labor part of the remodeling project. Motion by Oswald, seconded by Ruth to approve the remodeling plans and recommend to the City Council that the remodeling plans be approved. v. Old Business A. Park Dedication Ordinance Director Distad updated Commission members on the status of the amended Ordinance. He informed the Commission members that the Planning Commission approved the amended Ordinance and forwarded it to the City Council for approval at its June 16th meeting. B. Swim Bus Discussion Oswald brought forward a question from Commission member Johnson about the location ofthe stops for the swim bus. Johnson asked why one of the swim bus stops couldn't be at Akin Road Elementary school. Since Kohlbeck was still in the meeting, she commented that when the swim bus stops were identified, the intent was to keep youth from having to cross either Akin Road or Pilot Knob Road due to the traffic. Since Akin Road Elementary is between these two roads, it was not considered. Kohlbeck stated that this is the first year of offering the swim bus and that she will be soliciting feedback on the bus route and bus stops. Once she has the feedback from the public, she will then take this information into consideration for determining next year's route and stops in 2004. c. Brochure Discussion Oswald brought forward a concem from Commission member Johnson about why there seemed to be more programs being held at North Trail Elementary School than at other elementary schools in Farmington. Kohlbeck responded that there are very few programs being held at North Trail Elementary School and that she thought that the programs were well spread out at other school district facilities VI. New Business A. Adopt-A-Park and Adopt-A-Trail Program Director Distad presented information about starting an Adopt-A-Park and Adopt-A-Trail program. He said that there are many communities who have initiated these programs. He further stated that the River Church from Farmington has expressed an interest in adopting the Prairie Waterway and have set a date in late June to pick up the trash that has accumulated in the waterway. His request of Commission members was to have them approve his request to initiate this program. Motion by Higgins, seconded by Ruth to approve the initiation of the Adopt-A-Park and Adopt-A-Trail programs by the Parks and Recreation Department. APIFd B. Friends of Parks and Recreation Program Director Distad presented information about starting a Friends of Parks and Recreation program that would more formally solicit and recognize donors to the Parks and Recreation Department. Motion by Oswald, seconded by Higgins directing staff to implement the Friends of Parks and Recreation program. APIF C. Naming of the Park in Tamarack Ridge Development Director Distad informed Commission members that the park area in Tamarack Ridge has not been named. Amanda Wolkenhauer, 959 Catalina Way, who also works for the Farmington Family Townhome's Management Company was in attendance and was asked what she thought should be the name for the park area. She suggested that either Tamarack Park or Tamarack Ridge Park be considered by the Commission. She also brought the Commission up to date on the development of the park and the fact that it has been delayed for two years due to street construction issues that have taken two years to resolve. She indicated to Commission members that the residents of the townhomes would like to see the park developed this year. Director Distad stated that before the park is developed that he would like to meet with residents and get some feedback on what improvements that they would like to see constructed in the park and develop a park master plan that would be followed. Commission members by consensus agreed that the park should be named Tamarack Park. Motion by Oswald and seconded by Higgins to have staff meet with residents and develop a park master plan for Tamarack Park. APIF D. Hiring Consultant to Assist the Recreational Facility Task Force Director Distad presented information about a proposal received from Ingraham and Associates to work with the Recreational Facilities Task Force. Director Distad said that the fee is very reasonable compared with what other firms would have charged for this service. Director Distad stated that the funds would come from the Park Improvement Fund budget to pay for this cost. Motion by Oswald and seconded by Ruth to recommend to the City Council that Ingraham and Associates by hired to assist the Recreational Facility Task Force. APIF E. Discussion on Using Credit Cards for Payment for Program Registration Oswald brought forth a comment from Johnson that the City should utilize credit cards as a form of payment for program registration. Director Distad stated that this is something that the City is looking at doing but will take time and money to figure out how to incorporate this into workloads of staff. Commission members said that they would like to go on record to support the use of credit cards as a method of payment for program registrations. VII. Staff Report Director Distad updated Commission members on the status of the vending contract. He informed Commission members that Dahlco Music and Vending who currently provides vending machines for the City is interested in submitting a proposal for a vending contract with the City, but staff members have not seen it yet. VIII. July Meeting Agenda Topics Following items were suggested for the July 2003 meeting agenda . Update on Park Dedication Ordinance . Discussion on draft policy for snow removal on trails and outdoor ice rinks . Update on Spruce Street Corridor Master Plan . Update on the hiring of a consultant to work with Recreational Facility Task Force . Update on Giles Addition IX. Adjourment Motion made by Ruth and seconded by Higgins to adjourn the meeting. APIF. Meeting was adjoumed at 7:49 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary 7c.. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: f\ Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Schools and Conference Parks and Recreation Department DATE: July 7,2003 INTRODUCTION The National Recreation and Park Association is the national organization for Parks and Recreation professionals. Its annual conference is rotated to different locations around the country. In 2003 it is being held.in St. Louis, Missouri in late October. DISCUSSION The national conference is an annual training opportunity in which session topics are presented by nationally known and recognized presenters in the field of parks and recreation as well as in other professional fields. Breakout sessions include such areas as: recreation programming, parks maintenance, management, natural resources, outdoor recreation, facility management, citizen advisory boards and aquatics. It is the premier training opportunity for parks and recreation professionals. Information received by the Parks and Recreation Director at the conference will be brought back and shared with Department staff. The information provided at the national conference sessions is generally very detailed, advanced and specific to situations related to parks and recreation. The opportunity to network with other professionals from around the country is of tremendous value. BUDGET IMPACT The 2003 Parks and Recreation Budget included funds for attending a national conference. ACTION REQUESTED Approve this request. ~... ectfully su~~~e. d~" /J . ~A.~ l)~ Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director You asked for it and NRPA delivers . o U Ions The I N DEMAN D Highlights are: Solutions for Management .. Advance your programs with less shared revenue and resources. .. Implement successful marketing techniques in survival times. .. Explore crisis management, NIMBY-ism, fundraising, trail design and greenways. .. Survive the budget wars! .. Generate non-shared revenue. .. Excel with a new generation workforce. SEE PAGE 18 Solutions for Recreation Programming .. Address Generation "0" and obesity issues. .. Learn about skating parks, dealing with dogs, birding, back to nature and more. .. Enhance your indoor and outdoor programs and develop new ones. .. Position programs to focus on health and wellness and fostering youth. .. Look into commissioning public artwork, after-school programs, triathlons, and play with a purpose. SEE PAGE 20 I:: \\'S S oa'lS.1 I"OC.Useu On 10ut Needs MaKe 'lour p\ans {lOw for october '2.1-'2.5 and the ~RPJ\ con%ress &. EXPO~ Solutions for Reaching Citizens .. Increase and enhance citizen support and participation. .. Maximize use of your boards and elected officials. .. Discover hidden funding opportunities in park and recreation legislation. .. Find out about safety and security issues. .. Examine grass roots advocacy, how to work as a team, and how to make messages count. SEE PAGES 7 & 17 2 NRPA Focused on YOUR Future! Premier Speakers & learnini Events More than 70% of our speakers are recreation professionals. They'll tell what works and what doesn't, and share best practices in 300 CEU Authorized Sessions, in 12 key topic areas: .. A~in~ .. Aquatics .. Citizen Focus .. Mana~ement .. Natural Resource & Outdoor Recreation .. Park Maintenance & Facility Mana~ement .. Professional Development .. Recreation Pro~rammin~ .. Sports .. Student Professional .. Therapeutic Recreations .. Diversity SEE PAGES 16-21 . Cutting Edge Products & Services Totally focused on understanding your goals and challenges, top suppliers come to the EXPO to launch and display products and services covering a broad spectrum of needs from: .. Aquatics to Skate Ramps .. Grounds Maintenance to Sports Equipment .. Flooring/Athletic Surfaces to Play~round Equipment .. Buildin~s & Shelters to Park Products & Services SEE PAGE 2.. Innovative Solutions-sl. Louis Style Fifteen off-site institutes focus on local excellence. You'll see and study St. Louis solutions from the Local Host Committee and the Missouri Park & Recreation Association, including: .. Unitin~ Recreation and Education .. Riverlands Project .. Forest Park Master Plan .. Victorian Park and Botanical Garden Tour SEE PAGES 11-15 NRPA~ CONGRESS &EXPO October 21-25 :/)~C(J.(,IeIl, ik Sphii The premier education, training opportunity and expo for the park and recreation industry Valuable New Contacts. Resources & Fun! Networking is at its best at our four interactive knowledge centers. They're fun, friendly and filled with resources that will help you and your agency: NRPA's Pavilion For NRPA resources, services and membershi~ information. SEE PAGE 6 Career Center The #1 parks and recreation/recru it- ment opportunity. SEE PAGE 7 Sports Zone Meet our national partners focused on sports, youth and health. SEE PAGE 6 Citizen Advocacy & Resource Center For resources, technical assistance and trainin~. SEE PAGE 7 If you are responsible for doing more with fewer resources, then NRPA's solution-driven event is your show! 3 7e1 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator)" ~ FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director " SUBJECT: Schools and Conference Parks and Recreation Department DATE: July 7,2003 INTRODUCTION The National Institute on Recreation Inclusion (NIRI) Conference is coming to Bloomington, Minnesota from September 4-7, 2003. DISCUSSION It is rare for a national parks and recreation conference to come to Minnesota. The Parks and Recreation Department would like to take advantage of this opportunity by sending tlrree full- time Recreation Program staff members and offer this opportunity to Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Commission) member to attend the national conference in Bloomington. The full-time staff members who are interested in attending include: Missie Kohlbeck, Kellee Omlid and Patti Norman. This is a rare opportunity for staff and Commission members to network with professionals from other areas of the country. Conference topics include such things as: focusing on creating programs that are inclusive for everyone regardless of their ability or disability, ways to collaborate to create inclusive programs, and strategies for behavior management in programs. BUDGET IMPACT The registration cost to attend the national conference is $240.00 per person. In the past the City has also extended an offer to Commission members to attend the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association's annual conference when it is held in the metro area and have paid $200.00 towards the registration cost. Staff members may be able to reduce the C0St to attend the conference by volunteering their time to help with various conference activities. They are currently researching the volunteer opportunities available to them to reduce their cost. There is sufficient money in the 2003 budget to cover these costs. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the registration of the full-time Recreation Program staff and pay $200.00 towards the registration fee for Commission members interested in attending the NIRI conference. ~t;f1~~~ ~tad, Parks and Recreation Director CONFERENCE SCHEDULE AT A GLANCE Thursday, September 4 :OOa.m. - 10:00a.m. Registration :OOa.m. - 4:00p.m. Pre- Institute Workshop 1 8:30a.m. - 4:00p.m. Pre-Institute Workshop 2 2:00p.m. - 9:00p.m. Registration Friday, September 5 8:00a.m. - 5:30p.m. 9:00a.m. - 10:30a.m. 10:45a.m. - 12:15p.m. 12:30p.m. - 1:45p.m. 1 :30p.m. 2:00p.m. - 3:30 p.m. 3:45p.m. - 5: 15p.m. 5:00p.m. - 7:00p.m. 7:00p.m. - 8:00p.m. Registration Breakout 5essions 1 Breakout Sessions 2 Lunch - Speaker Exhibit Hall Opens Breakout Sessions 3 Breakout Sessions 4 Exhibit Hall Reception .. Another View" Saturday, September 6 8:00a.m. - 5:30p.m. Registration 9:00a.m. - 10:30a.m. Breakout Sessions 5 1 0:45a.m. - 12: 15p.m. Breakout Sessions 6 12:30p.m. - 1:45p.m. Lunch - Speaker 2:00p.m. - 3:30p.m. Breakout Sessions 7 3:45p.m. - 5: 15p.m. Breakout 5essions 8 5:30p.m. Dinner & Comedy Show at Knuckle Heads (Mall of America) Sunday, September 7 8:00a.m. - 1 :OOp.m. 8:30a.m. - 9:45a.m. 1 0:00a.m. - 11 :30a.m. 11:45a.m. -12:15p.m. Registration Breakout Sessions 9 Breakout Sessions 10 Evaluations and Prizes NRPA/NIRI 2003 PRE-INSTITUTES OUTDOOR PROGRAM DEVELOMENT FOR PEOPLE OF ALL ABILITIES #1 Speakers Mike Passo. Associate Program Director. Wilderness Inquiry, Minneapolis, MN Leo McAvoy, Professor, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN Time 9:00 am - 4:00 pm A key ingredient to successful integrated programming is the process of seeking the right "fit" between participant needs and quality experiences. This process has been described in the universal program participation model developed by Wilderness Inquiry. This session will involve a morning discussion. followed by a lunch and hands-on experience at Round Lake in Eden Prairie. MN. AN ACCESS OVERVIEW #2 Speakers Peggy H. Greenwell, Training Coordinator, U.S. Access Board. Washington. DC Bill Botten, Accessibility Special ist. R.S. Access Board, Washington, DC Time 8:30 am - 4:00 pm The goal of this session is two-fold. The morning session will consist of represen- tatives from the U.S. Access Board providing an in-depth overview of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Recreation Facilities, published in September 2002. A designer from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area with si ... ant experience in the accessible design of parks and recreation facilities v , be presented in this session. The afternoon will include a tour of the Maple Grove Community Center to view first hand how these guidelines were incorporated into the design of this facility. Accessibility elements will be identified within the following areas of the commu- nity center: swimming pool, locker rooms, teen center, meeting rooms, multi-pur- pose room, gymnasium and play gym. GENERAL SESSIONS Please go to www.nrpa.org for a complete description of each session. ACCESS means knowledge about parks and facilities planning, accessibility standards and guidelines, legal definitions, interpretations and ADA information. " PROCESS means basic knowledge about the nature of the recreation inclusion process. PROGRAMMING means in-depth knowledge about developing and implementing inclusiVE recreation programs. MANAGEMENT means knowledge about managing and supervising the recreation inclu- sion process, and developing policies and procedures. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5 9:00 A.M. - 10:30 A.M. ACCESS BOARD OVERVIEW OF NEW ADA ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR RECREATION FACILITIES Access Speakers: Peggy H. Greenwell, Recreation Facilities, Minn. RETROPSECTIVE: FAMILIES REFLECT ON IMPACT OF EARLY INCLUSION PART I Process Speakers: Linda Heyne. Ph. D., CTRS, Associate Professor, Ithaca College, N.Y. Brad Gilbertson. CTRS. Director of Special Needs Jewish Community Center of the Greater St. Paul Area, St. Paul Pat Tommet, Parent, St. Paul, Minn. Kevin Tommet, Participant, Staff @ Kowalski's Market Kristi Klukas. Parent, S1. Paul, Minn. Jim Gerlich, Parent. S1. Mpls., Minn. RECREATION INCLUSION: SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY AGENCY Programming Speaker: Amy Schilling, CTRS, YMCA Inclusion Director, Black Hawk County, Iowa GRASS ROOTS ORGANIZING - CHANGING THE COMMUNITY LANDSCAPE PART 1 Management Speakers: Barb Lemke. CTRS, Community Inclusion Advocate, Arc Hennepin-Carver, Minneapolis, Minn. Gene Martinez, Public Policy Advocate. Arc Hennepin-Carver, Minneapolis, Minn. Mark Olson, Adult & Self Advocacy Services Advocate, Arc Hennepin-Carver. Minneapolis. Minn. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5 10:45 A.M;-12:15 P.M. Programming Speakers: , . ~ ;'1- J.ag~ent il:Jr"to Part Ifor .. '1 7e City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: M C .1m b C. Adm;. ~r.... ayor, ounCl em ers, Ity Imstrator FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Approving Tamarack Park as the Name for the Park in the Tamarack Ridge Development DATE: July 7,2003 INTRODUCTION The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission is responsible for choosing and recommending to the City Council a name for each City park. DISCUSSION Tamarack Ridge Development has a park area that has not yet been named. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission discussed a name for the park at its June 11, 2003 meeting and selected Tamarack Park as the name for the park that they would like to recommend to the City Council for approval. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact with naming this park other than needing to have a sign made for Tamarack Park. Payment for the sign will come out of the Park Improvement Fund. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the recommendation from the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission to name the park in the Tamarack Ridge Development, Tamarack Park. ~~ Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7f TO: t'( Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator I. . FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Capital Outlay: Replace Roof Membrane on Fire Station DATE: July 7,2003 INTRODUCTION The Fire Station has had reoccurring problems associated with a leaky roof over the past several years. DISCUSSION It appears that the existing rubber membrane has deteriorated over the past several years and needs to be replaced. The roof is currently leaking because the existing rubber membrane is breaking down. Quotes were solicited and received from two roofing companies that specialize in rubber membrane roofs. Both companies specified identical products. The product is a 40 mil White Duro-Last membrane system. The seams are heat welded. The installation is supervised by the manufacturer because the rubber membrane is warranted by the manufacturer. There should not be any disruption to either the Fire Department or ambulance service during the installation process. BUDGET IMPACT Funds for this project were approved in the 2003 Capital Outlay budget. ACTION REQUESTED No action is requested. This is for informational purposes only. ~>>:;;;p Randy DIstad, Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 75 ~~. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Main Street Area Reconstruction - Change Order #1 (Deduct) DATE: July 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION Forwarded herewith for Council's review and consideration is change order #1 for the Main Street Reconstruction Project. DISCUSSION The attached change order addresses the recently received MCES requirements for connecting to their sanitary sewer interceptor. This change order also deletes the electrical and flow metering equipment for the metering structures and adds two additional conduit sleeves through the metering structures. The costs for the metering items deleted were unreasonable as bid and quotes will be obtained for these items at a later date. BUDGET IMPACT This change order will result in a $76,882.00 credit to the City. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion, change order #1 for the Main Street Reconstruction Project that will result in a $76,882.00 credit to the City. Respectfully Submitted, ~~~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer attachment cc: file j II j Bonestroo ~ Owner City of Fanninl!ton, 325 Oak St, P. O. Box 367, Fanninl!ton, MN 55024 -=- Rosene ~ Anderlik & Contractor: Barbarossa & Sons Inc., 11000 93rd Ave. N., P. O. Box 367, Osseo, MN 55369 1 \J 1 Associates gineers & Architects Bond Company: Date June 20, 2003 Bond No: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 MAIN STREET AREA RECONSTRUCTION - PHASE 1 BRA FILE NO. 141-98-080 A Description of Work The Owner has elected to order this Change Order to respond to the following issues: 1. Address MCES requirements for connection to their interceptor manhole. 2. Delete all electrical and flow metering requirements for the metering structures and add two (2) conduit sleeves through exterior of precast metering structures. The substantial and final completion dates will not be revised under this Change Order. Proiect Manual - section adjustments as follows: Section 16903 - Control Panel - delete this entire section from the Project Manual. Section 11300 - Wastewater Metering Part 2.02 - Flow Meter - delete this entire part from the Project Manual. Part 2.06 - Precast Structures - add G. Provide two I-inch PVC-80 conduit sleeves through the exterior of the precast manhole. Locate the sleeves 2 feet below grade. Sleeves shall be located on the south side, as shown on the drawings. Locate the sleeves on the shop drawing so their location may be confirmed. Cap sleeves on both ends for connection of future conduit. Section 01100 - Summary Part 1.05C - Other work on Site - add 3. The installation of flow meter, control panel, SCADA connection and necessary conduit for the Palmer-Bowlus Metering Structure. Drawinl!s - delete all electrical work shown on the drawings. Contract Unit Total No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount I 2 Part 1 - Sanitary Sewer Price Adjustment PALMER-BOWLUS METERING STRUCTURE PARSHALL FLUME METERING STRUCTURE Total Part 2 - Sanitary Sewer Price Adjustment LS LS -$78,000.00 $0.00 ($78,000.00) $0.00 ($78,000.00) 7 Part 2 - Sanitary Sewer Add 21" PS 115 PVC SANITARY SEWER, 15 ' - 20' DEEP Total Part 2 - Sanitary Sewer Add LF 13 $86.00 $1,118.00 $1,118.00 Total Part I - Sanitary Sewer Price Adjustment Total Part 2 - Sanitary Sewer Price Add TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO.1 ($78,000.00) $1,118.00 ($76,882.00) 14198080ACHO _Nol_draft2 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator 1. \ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: License for Utility to Cross Protected Waters DATE: July 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION As part of the Main Street Reconstruction Project, a trunk sanitary sewer pipe will need to be replaced crossing the Vermillion River. The Vermillion River is classified as a protected water by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) and a license to cross must be obtained by the City before utilities crossing this waterway can be constructed. DISCUSSION Attached to this memo is a copy of the license for execution by the City of Farmington. The term of the license is for a 50 year period commencing on June 15t\ 2003. The license costs $210.00 for the lifetime of the license at which time the license must be renewed. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of the MNDNR license to cross a protected waterway is $210.00 and will be funded in the project budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve by motion the attached License for Utility to Cross Protected Waters. ResRectfully Submitted, ~ /11-}11~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file June 12,2003 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources&>,- //., _-_",.,'_.~':"'.s .._, ,..'. .":,/ "~~(..., ~.j"'>.. 500 Lafayette Road i, // ..." ~ .....~'" 51. Paul, Minnesota 55 I 55-40!i5 < v G(.' l~/ '".:, "'"', / "'.,", 6' ~ ", ,--/.....,,.., "'. 'vt(J' '\,. "",- "'-.~ , 'V City of Farmington Attn. Lee Mann 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024-1374 RE: License #144-065-5687 NW1/4 NE1I4 in Section 31, Township 114 North, Range 19 West Dakota County Dear Licensee: Enclosed are three copies of the above license for execution by City of Farmington. The applications are not included in this mailing but will be made a part of the license when completed. The license is for a 50 year period commencing June 15,2003, at an advance rental of$210.00 which is payable upon return of this license. Note that the DNR requires that you comply with certain construction procedures. Please refer to any special provisions that may have been added to the license. Please have the license forms signed on the back of page one by the proper officials of the company. Return all the license forms to this office for execution by the State. Within one to two weeks, one license form complete with application and attachments will be sent to you for your files. When you return the completed forms, please enclose payment of $210.00 made payable to the Department of Natural Resources. Payment is for the term of the If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 297-3869. Sincerely, (. . IJ \ J an Zoch, icen . stant ivision of Lands & Minerals. cc: US Corps of Engineers DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TIY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity o Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LICENSE NUMBER #144-065-5687 APPLY NUMBER 72877 TRN 525 LS 09 COMPANY PROJECT NO: 141-98-080 LICENSE FOR UTILITY TO CROSS PROTECTED WATERS This license is issued by the commissioner of natural resources under authority and subject to the limitations in Minnesota Statutes, section 84.415, and Minnesota Rules Chapter 6135 and other applicable law to the Licensee as named and for the fee and term as specified below. Name and Address of Licensee: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024-1374 License Fee: Two Hundred Ten Dollars and no/lOO.......................... ...($210.00) Term (years): 50 Effective Date: June 15,2003 Termination Date: June 14,2053 Purpose of License: Construction, maintenance and operation of an under water pipeline solids under the covenants and agreements of the Licensee to use the following described waters: That part ofthe NWl/4 NEl/4 in Section 31, Township 114 North, Range 19 West in Dakota County as shown on the attached application and map, all of which are made a part hereof by reference. This license is granted subject to the following provisions: 1. At the end of the license period if both parties wish to renew, the renewal fee and time period will be determined by such methods as are developed by the commissioner of natural resources. 2. This license shall be cancelable upon reasonable notice by the commissioner for violation of any of its terms, or if at any time its continuance will conflict with a public use of water over or upon which it is granted, or for any other reason. Licensee shall ensure that Licensee's employees, agents and contractors have received and thoroughly understand all conditions of this license. 3. Unless otherwise authorized by the commissioner, upon the surrender, termination or cancellation of this license, the Licensee shall remove from the above described waters all the utility lines and related structures owned by it. If Licensee does not remove such lines or related structures, all such lines or structures remaining shall become the property of the State, to be used or disposed of as the commissioner elects. The Licensee agrees to pay the State for the costs of removing and disposing of such lines or structures. 4. The Licensee shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations, including municipal ordinances, affecting said waters, and shall remove all refuse and debris that may accumulate therein. The project hereunder shall at all times during and after constructi,on be subject to inspection by the commissioner and for that purpose the Licensee shall grant access to the premises at all reasonable times. 5. The use of these waters by the Licensee in constructing or maintaining the lines for which this license is granted shall be subject to the use, sale, or leasing for mineral or other legal purposes. 6. This license is subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 84.415 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 6135. All standards of Chapter 6135 are incorporated as terms and conditions of this license, except such variations as are identified and approved by the commissioner in the license applications, plans and specifications which are attached and made part of the terms and conditions of this license. The Licensee is bound by the crossing location and installation method as detailed in the application and approved by the commissioner. The Licensee shall not deviate from the terms and conditions of this license or the application as approved by the commissioner unless it has first obtained written permission from the Regional Operations Supervisor. 7. This license is permissive only. No liability shall be imposed upon or incurred by the State of Minnesota or any of its officers, agents, or employees, officially or personally, on account of the granting hereof or on account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the Licensee or any of its agents, employees, or contractors relating to any matter hereunder. This license shall not be construed as estopping or limiting any legal claims or right of action of any person against the Licensee, its agents, employees, or contractors for any damage or injury resulting from any such act or omission, or as estopping or limiting any legal claim or right of action of the State against the Licensee,. its agents, employees, or contractors, for violation of or failure to comply with the provisions of this license or applicable provisions oflaw. The Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless the State from all claims arising out of the Licensee's use of the above described waters whether such claims are asserted by civil action or otherwise. 8. The Licensee shall not without the commissioner's prior written consent: a) assign, conveyor otherwise transfer this license or any interest under it; b) sublet the license. corridor or any part thereof; or c) permit the use or occlipancy of the license corridor or any part thereof by anyone other than the Licensee. This license shall extend to, and bind the successors, heirs, legal representatives and assigns of the Licensee, if any. The commissioner may require a party who has requested to sublet, use or occupy the license corridor to obtain a separate license from the State prior to occupying or using the license corridor. 9. No delay by the State in enforcing any of the conditions of this license shall operate as a waiver of any of its rights. 10. Placement and Marking of Lines: A. In over crossings of public waters, lines shall have a minimum clearance of 25 feet above extreme high water, unless otherwise approved by the Regional Operations Supervisor. B. As directed by the Regional Operations Supervisor, marker spheres shall be placed on overhead utility lines directly above the protected water. C. Any cable or conduit located at a shoreline shall be sufficiently buried at the shoreline so as to prevent its becoming exposed during droughts or winter drawdowns. D. As directed by the Regional Operations Supervisor, underwater crossings shall be marked by permanent signs on the banks at points where the line enters and leaves the protected water. 11. Unless otherwise authorized by the Regional Operations Supervisor, shut-off valves shall be installed within a pipeline on each side of the water crossing to provide an effective means of halting the release of product or effluent from the line into the surface waters in the event of a line rupture. 12. To protect fish spawning activities, the commissioner may prohibit work in the stream or work within a specified distance of the protected water during the spawning season. 13. Licensee must minimize disturbance to natural streambed and shoreline vegetation, including trees and shrubs. Allowable clearing of banks, shorelines and land adjacent to them is restricted to the minimum necessary for equipment to complete the installation; banks, shorelines and land adjacent to them should not be cleared to the full right-of-way width. 14. The beds of the waters described above shall, upon completion of construction or maintenance operations therein, be restored as nearly as practicable to their original cross-section. Extreme care shall be exercised to assure that the contours and elevations of the streambed are not changed by this installation in any manner that would alter the runout elevation of any public waters basins located upstream of the crossing. 15. Erosion: A. Erosion control measures shall be employed to stabilize the banks. Where necessary to prevent erosion, streambeds shall be permanently riprapped with natural rock having an average diameter of 12 inches. B. Erosion control measures shall be adequately designed for site characteristics. They may include staked hay bales, sediment fences or contouring and shaping. They shall be installed prior to commencement and maintained throughout the project. All erosion control fences next to a water body shall run parallel to the contours. C. Under low flow conditions, the work, as approved by the commissioner, shall be done to minimize erosion and siltation caused by construction. D. If downstream bank erosion commences, immediate erosion control measures. shall be taken and the Regional Operations Supervisor notified immediately. E. Any work below water level shall be encircled by a flotation sediment curtain or other suitable sediment containment device to prevent sediment from being transported beyond the excavation area. F. All disturbed areas shall be stabilized as soon as possible following construction. Topsoil shall be used to re-dress disturbed soil areas, and indigenous plant species should be used, whenever possible, to revegetate disturbed areas. This revegetation should occur as early in the season as possible to permit adequate regrowth. G. Excavated materials shall not be deposited or stored alongside a protected water in a manner where the materials can be redeposited into the protected water by reasonably expected high water or storm run-off. 16. Unless otherwise authorized by the Regional Operations Supervisor, the Licensee shall not apply herbicides or pesticides to the water in the course of construction or maintenance of the utility line. 17. Emergency repairs and replacements may be made without prior notification to the Regional Operations Supervisor by the Licensee according to conditions and standards prescribed by Minnesota Ru1es, Chapter 6135 and the method of installation identified in this license. The Licensee shall notify the Regional Operations Supervisor of this activity as soon as practicable. 18. The Licensee shall contact the Regional Operations Supervisor 10 days prior to installation and within 10 days following completion of licensed work for compliance inspection. 19. This license is subject to the SPECIAL PROVISIONS attached hereto (if none, state none). None. 20. The Regional Operations Supervisor is Paul Purman at (651) 772-7942. Any questions about this license shall be directed to the Regional Operations Supervisor. ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATE OF MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF NATURAL RESOURCES CITY OF FARMINGTON Licensee( s) GENE MERRIAM Commissioner of Natural Resources By By Title Title By Title Form approved by the Office of the Attorney General 01/02 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us IDa- TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator e; ..<' FROM: RandyDistad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Beverage Vending Agreement with Dahlco Music and Vending DATE: July 7,2003 . INTRODUCTION The City currently does not have a beverage vending contract. DISCUSSION The City's beverage vending machines in the past have been serviced by Dahlco Music and Vending (Dahlco). The Parks and Recreation Director requested proposals from Coke and Pepsi for an exclusive beverage vending contract. After receiving proposals from Coke and Pepsi, Dahlco requested that they also be allowed to submit a proposal to the City for an exclusive beverage vending contract. As you can see in Exhibit A, which is attached, there are several items in each company's proposal that are significantly different. A summary ofthese differences are as follows: . Dahlco is proposing a beverage contract for five years, whereas Pepsi and Coke have proposed seven year contracts. . Pepsi and Coke are proposing a higher commission rate than Dahlco . Coke has proposed more money in the first year ofthe agreement than Pepsi and Dahlco . Dahlco over the life of their proposal has the highest guaranteed annual amount of money ($3,900.00) . Dahlco, because it is an independent beverage vendor, can supply both Coke and Pepsi products in its beverage vending machines . Pepsi is not providing any guaranteed money but is willing to pay a rebate of 50 cents per case sold. In reviewing the proposals, it appears that Dahlco is offering the City the best annual guaranteed amount of money. The other positive aspect ofDahlco's proposal is that it can provide both Pepsi and Coke beverage products which provides the best opportunity for potentially higher sales meaning a higher commission return as well. Dahlco's proposal also is for a shorter time period than Coke and Pepsi. This means that in five years should the City build or acquire more facilities, the City will be able to negotiate a new vending contract sooner than if it were to select Coke or Pepsi. BUDGET IMPACT City staff requested proposals for exclusive beverage vending with the idea that the guaranteed money could be used for the purchase of a new scoreboard and its installation in the ice arena. The current scoreboard at the ice arena is the original scoreboard that was purchased and installed when the ice arena was built. It is an antiquated scoreboard that is requiring more time to maintain and repair. The cost of a new scoreboard and installation, based on two quotes received, will be about $10,000.00. Dahlco is offering over a five year period, $17,500.00, which would cover the cost ofthe new scoreboard and its installation. Staff proposes to purchase the scoreboard and have it installed and then pay these costs from the proceeds that are identified in the Agreement with Dahlco. Once the scoreboard has been paid off, the remaining proceeds from Dahlco would then be put into the Park Improvement Fund to be used for other projects. ACTION REOUESTED The City Council is being asked to take the following actions: . Approve the five-year exclusive beverage vending agreement with Dahlco. . Approve the purchase and installation of a new scoreboard at the ice arena and pay these costs from the proceeds received from Dahlco. . Approve the remaining proceeds, after the scoreboard has been paid off, be directed to the Park Improvement Fund. ~ec7Jl1J;;) ~tad, Parks and Recreation Director C o .ii Q) .- ... E CIS ED:: o (J 'is :s CIS C.Q C Q) ceD:: ... Q) C D. · 0 Q) C .- :s 0 en - z.1 ~ ... E - = E .19>0 o (J ~ f/) li f/) o Co e D. - u l! - c o o g) c .- "C C CD . II- o C o f/) .C ca Co E o o <C to- m - ::c >< w . C o C z .2 CD en :s .1 'i E > E - 0 S(J ~ t) e .; eog"g! ~CCIS- >- CIS .c >CIS ';;" ~ co CD Q) ~ >- .... o'Ots i f I! .QClS1: ~ ~ 0 z.....u >- Q) 1ft C C ~ 0 o CIS.- E CD en >..!! og Q E 1.5 E ...c~ c.- V I! ~ C CIS . 0 :s I;. C C) ... ~ f C c;O::'O oogc- E Q) 0 = L...... Q) Z .- =c......E C CIS e I! Q) E ~CIS>-(JO p~ Q C .;; :e CD > ~ >- C CIS a. E o (J l/) -~ - e co ..: e"O o 0) ~ .5 0"0 M e Q) > CD ~ o o l/) -~ - e co .- .... e"O 00) ~ .5 0"0 Me Q) > Q) e o Z 00 C'! ~ ..- " N ~ o o o a) ..- ~ Q) e o Z ~ ~ ~ >- " >- 1: CO Q) >- o ~ ..- ~ ~ cD ~ III( c: .2 ... 8- Q) e o Z l/) -~ (ij .5 .... Q) e-o.2~ o Cl~ 5 ~ .5 ~ co O"ONC) M~ > l/) Q) - l/) ~fj~ 0Q)l/) 1l)Q. o o g o ('t) ~ o o q ..- N ~ Q) e o Z o o Il) ~ ~ >- " >- 1: CO ~ o ~ N ~ o o Il) N ~ CD c: .0 .c 8- l/) ~ = e co .- .... e"O o 0) ~ .5 0"0 N e Q) > Q) e o Z o o o o Il) ~ o o g 0) ('t) ~ o ~ ('t) ~ 8 Il) a) ..- ~ Q) e o Z .... .g .... l/) >-.... .... co 8.~ Oil) o ~ o o Il) ~ Q) e o Z l/) .... >- " ~ >- Il) Q) e o Z >- 1: CO ~ o o Il) ('t) ~ Q) e o Z o o Il) ('t) ~ .w Co CD D. o ,g .c ca C AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this _ day of July, 2003, by and between Dahlco Music and Vending ("Vendor") and the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") (collectively referred to as the "Parties"). WHEREAS, the City owns and operates facilities in the City of Farmington; and, WHEREAS, the Vendor desires to exclusively offer beverages at specific City sites; and, WHEREAS, the City believes that continuity of product, service and supply is beneficial to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows: A. Vendor Responsibilitv and Obligations. Vendor hereby agrees to the following: 1. To pay to the City $17,500.00 of additional funds in excess ofthe beverage sales commissions. Payment will be monthly and in the following format: fifty nine (59) monthly payments of$291.66 and one (1) payment of $292.06. Payment shall be made monthly on the 1 st day of the month beginning on August 1, 2003 and ending on July 31, 2008. 2. Vendor shall purchase $400.00 of advertising in the Farmington Civic Arena each year of the Agreement. Annual payment for advertising shall occur on or before September 1 st of each year of the Agreement. 3. Vendor shall provide state of the art vending equipment at all times to the City during the terms of this agreement. 4. Vendor shall use its best efforts to provide the highest quality service at no cost to the City, which includes, but is not limited to the following: a. Annual meetings between the Parties. b. Twenty-four (24) hour service to ensure around the clock repairs. c. Repairs and service at no charge d. Regular service audits on every piece of Vendor's equipment 5. Glass bottles are allowed to be dispensed from vending machines only in City Hall and the Maintenance Facility. In all other locations, beverages in plastic bottles or containers shall be required to be dispensed from the vending machines. B. Pricing. 1. The price for all product contained in twenty (20) ounce bottles shall be $1.25 per bottle, except for City Hall and the Maintenance Facility where the price initially shall be $1.00 per twenty (20) ounce bottle. After October 31,2003, the price for a twenty (20) ounce bottle at City Hall and the Maintenance Facility shall increase to $1.25. 2. The price for other vending beverages shall be mutually agreed upon prior to the Agreement taking effect. 3. Future price increases for vending beverages shall be determined by future product cost increases to the Vendor. The City shall be notified in writing by the Vendor, 30 days prior to any future price increase going into effect. C. Location. Vendor agrees to place equipment at locations approved by the City at the following eight (8) locations: a. Civic Arena b. Outdoor Pool c. Rambling River Center d. City Hall e. Rambling River Park Shelter f. Skate Park g. Warming House at Outdoor Hockey Rinks h. Maintenance Facility D. Commission Pavments Due From Vendor to the City. 1. The City shall receive commission on all cash collected from sale of product by the Vendor through full service vending machines at the eight (8) locations identified above. Commission shall be based on sales after Minnesota State Sales Tax is deducted. 2. Vendor agrees to pay to the City twenty percent (20%) commission on all beverage vending sales. The City's commission will not decrease nor will the price increase without the City's consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 3. Payment and accounting by the Vendor to the City of the commission payable hereunder shall be made monthly. The Vendor will supply a monthly statement with the monthly commission payment that shows beverage sales in the eight (8) locations identified above. Commission payment shall be paid on or before the 15th day of the following month for the previous month's sales. E. Exclusivity. So long as the Vendor fulfills all of its requirements herein, the City shall not allow any other vending company the opportunity to sell beverages from vending machines in the eight (8) locations identified previously in this Agreement during the term of this Agreement. a. "Beverage" shall mean the following: all carbonated and non- carbonated non alcoholic soft drinks, mixers, flavored or unflavored packaged waters, fruit juice or flavored drinks, fruit punches, isotonic energy and fluid replacement drinks (sometimes referred to as "sports drinks"), tea drinks, and all drink or beverage basis, whether in the form of syrups, powders, crystals, concentrates or otherwise, from which such drinks and beverages are made. Slush type products are excluded and shall not be considered beverages. F. Term. This Agreement shall start for a period of sixty (60) months on August 1,2003 and shall end 12:00 Midnight on July 31,2008. G. Termination by Vendor. If the City materially breaches any of the promises set forth in this Agreement, then as its sole remedy, the Vendor may terminate this Agreement with a 30 day notice and upon written notice to the City that the Vendor has terminated this Agreement because of the City's material breach. H. Termination bv the City. If Vendor materially breaches any of the promises set forth in this Agreement, then as its sole remedy, the City may terminate this agreement with a 30 day notice and upon written notice to the Vendor that the City has terminated this Agreement because of the Vendor's material breach, the City shall retain all fees the Vendor has previously paid to the City and all in-kind support previously provided to the City as set forth in Paragraph A. I. Other Termination. NOTWITHSTANDING any other provision, if any local law, rule, regulation, or order prohibits the activities in this Agreement and prohibits the sale of Products at the facilities during the term of this Agreement, then this Agreement shall be immediately terminated with both Parties owing no further compensation to each other other than the commission owed from sales up until the termination of this Agreement. J. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the Parties and no terms may be altered in any way except by the written consent of both Parties. This Agreement may not be assigned or other conveyed without each Party's written consent. Dahlco Music and Vending, a Minnesota corporation CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Dan Knack Its: General Manager By: Jerry Ristow Its: Mayor By: Daniel Dahlin Its: Owner By: Ed Shukle Its: City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us jOb TO: Mayor, COWlcilmembers aod City Adniinistrator 'f?; FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Approve the Hiring of Ingraham and Associates to Work with the Recreational Facilities Task Force. DATE: July 7,2003 INTRODUCTION City Council previously approved the request to assemble a Recreational Facilities Task Force (Task Force). When the request was made, City Council was informed that it should consider hiring a consultant to facilitate task force meetings, complete an analysis of the existing inventory of public recreational facilities and submit a final report to the City Council. Staffhad indicated at that time that it would bring back a recommendation on which consultant the City Council should consider hiring. DISCUSSION Staff researched consulting firms to see what the costs would be to hire a consultant to facilitate the Task Force meetings and conduct the research on the existing inventory of public recreational facilities. In talking with a number of consulting firms, it became apparent that the cost could be anywhere from $10,000.00 to $25,000.00. Staff felt that ifit were possible, the cost should be kept under $10,000.00. Staffmet separately with Ingraham and Associates (IA) and Sanders, Wacker, Bergly, Inc., (SWB) two consulting firms that came highly recommended from other parks and recreation professionals. During the separate meetings with the two consulting firms, it became evident that both had good experience in working with Task Forces. Both firms were asked to submit proposals to the City for consulting services to the Task Force. SWB's proposal was substantially higher (just over $25,000.00) than lA's proposal ($8,650.00). In lA's proposal there were some additional incidental costs identified. In talking with lA, the incidental costs would not exceed $500.00. In reviewing both proposals it was clear that both firms understood the scope of service that the City was requesting. It appears that IA has the most desirable proposal. Not only was lA's proposal less costly but it also seemed to have a shorter time span for creating the final report. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and the Recreational Facilities Task Force have been provided with the information contained in lA's proposal and both support the City hiring them to work with the Task Force. BUDGET IMPACT The 2003 Park Improvement Fund budget has funds available to be used for the costs related to hiring a consultant to work with the Task Force. This is an acceptable use of these funds. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the hiring of Ingraham and Associates to work with the Recreational Facilities Task Force. ~e ectfully Slb~. itted . fl~ Randy Di tad, Parks and Recreation Director INGRAHAM ASSOCIATES City Plonning June 10, 2003 landscape Architecture Randy Distad Director of Parks and Recreation City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Park Plonning & Design lond Use Plonning Re: Community Recreation Facility Needs Analysis and Recommendations Consulting Services Proposal and Agreement Dear Randy: Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about Farmington's recreation facilities, the city growth and the need for professional analysis and recommendations. On behalf of Ingraham & Associates Inc., I am pleased to submit this proposal and agreement to prepare a needs assessment and recommendations. It contains: · A scope of services for the needs evaluation. . Proposed process outline. . Estimated time frame. . Consulting services fees. · A listing of cities, school districts and recreation organizations, which we have worked with to prepare similar needs analysis and recommendations. Please review this proposal and contact me if you have any questions or to have us begin work. We look forward to working with you on this exciting project. Sincerely, G~'NCP President 1510 Como Avenue S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)377-2500 telephone (612)377-1010 facsimile www.ingrohom-ossociotes.com FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA- COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS Proposal and Agreement Understanding of the Project: The City of Farmington is growing rapidly and is experiencing issues relating to the supply and demand for park and recreation facilities. The City desires the services of a qualified consulting firm to prepare a community recreation needs assessment and recommendations. This needs assessment will identify existing and future recreation facility needs (indoor and outdoor) based on local input and benchmark comparisons using local and national service standards. The assessment should be conducted with the assistance of city staff and guided by input from an advisory task force. The end products should be an updated facility inventory, a needs assessment showing existing and future facility needs and a summary report containing recommendations and strategies. Scope of Services: General: Evaluate existing recreation facilities in the City of Farmington, identify existing and future needs and make recommendation for additions and improvements. Work with the advisory task force to help guide the assessment process. Specific: . Conduct a facility tour and preliminary assessment with city staff. . Update the recreation facility inventory. · Gather input on facility needs from the advisory task force, recreation associations, other recreation providers and city staff. . Evaluate community demographics and forecast growth. . Present information about national and local recreation and demographic trends. . Look at current facility supply, strengthens, weaknesses, and opportunities. . Compare facility supply to local and nationally accepted level of service standards. . Identify facility needs compared to recreation service standards. . Make recommendations for existing and year 2020 recreation facility needs. . Prepare recommendations for facility additions and improvements. Ingraham & Associates Inc. June 10, 2003 1 FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA - COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS . Prepare a summary report and present the findings and recommendations. · Facilitate input during three advisory task force meetings and present the findings and recommendations at a joint Park Commission and City Council meeting. Timing and Schedule: The facility evaluation and recommendations are likely to take approximately four-five months to complete. We are available to start work in late June and would anticipate completion of the evaluation and recommendations in October 2003. Consulting Services Fees: Assessment of the community recreation facility needs and preparation of recommendations based on the scope of services listed above will cost $8,650.00 plus direct expenses (printing and mileage). This includes data gathering, a facility tour and evaluation, review and update of the facility inventory information provided by the city, facilitation of advisory task force meetings, preparation of the needs assessment report, presentation of the findings and recommendations, staff meetings, research, and report writing. This assumes three advisory task force meetings, and a presentation meeting to the Council/Commission. Mileage, printing and materials will be charged at cost. We will provide you with a camera-ready paper original of the supporting materials and the report and a digital version of the report and recommendations plus a large size color presentation summary of the recommendations for display purposes. Similar Experience: We prepared recreation facility needs assessments, strategic recreation plans and recommendations for the cities of Bloomington, Mounds View, New Brighton, Shoreview, Arden Hills, White Bear Lake, North Oaks, and Plainview, Minnesota, Mounds View School District, White Bear School District, White Bear Township, and Bismarck Recreation District - Bismarck, North Dakota. We have also prepared comprehensive park and trail system plans for Rosemount, Shakopee, New Brighton, Arden Hills and park plans for Eagan, Eden Prairie, Lakeville and other communities. Firm and Project Staff Ingraham & Associates Inc. is a consulting firm specializing in providing park and recreation services to cities, counties and recreation districts. Greg Ingraham, President Stephen Wensman, Landscape Architect Ian Severson, Associate Planner Role Project Manager Park Planner Recreation Researcher Hourly Rate $85.00 $75.00 $40.00 Ingraham & Associates Inc. June 10, 2003 2 FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA- COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS Greg Ingraham would be the principal staff person conducting the assessment, facilitating the meetings, preparing the recommendations and making the presentations. Mr. Wensman and Mr. Severson would assist Greg with research and facility evaluation. Mr. Ingraham has over 20 years of park and recreation planning experience and was the former Manager of Bloomington Parks and Recreation. Proposed Process Outline - 1. Data Gatherine: - a. Staff meeting, gather initial background data. IdentifY stakeholders. Collect facility inventory, demographic, and growth data. b. Conduct facility tour and preliminary facility evaluation with city staff. . c. Review and update the city recreation facility inventory. d. Prepare a recreation facility needs questionnaire. 2. Trend Analvsis - a. Prepare a summary of local and national recreation trends and local demographic trends. 3. Advisory Task Force Meetine:s - a. Review needs assessment process. Provide a recreation system overview and review of preliminary findings from system tour. Review and explain recreation and facility service standards. Discuss the facility inventory and initial needs. Distribute needs questionnaire. b. Review recreation trends. Present demographic and growth forecasts and discuss implications. Collect and review needs questionnaires. Discuss Task Force recommendations. Discuss special facility needs (pools, skate parks, etc.). Review preliminary comparison of city facilities to service standards by facility type. c. Present and review draft needs assessment. Gather Task Force recommendations and revisions/additions. Review draft facility recommendations and discuss with Task Force. Discuss implementation and funding options and strategies. Review next steps. 4. Facility Needs Assessment - a. Review and update recreation facility inventory. Conduct system tour with city staff. Discuss facility needs. Prepare an updated facility inventory. Prepare initial needs memo based on facility tour and staff discussion. Review Task Force and planning process with city staff. Ingraham & Associates Inc. June 10, 2003 3 FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA - COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS b. Review city growth forecasts and facility supply and compare to facility service standards. Prepare a spreadsheet comparing existing supply, existing needs, growth and forecast needs by facility type (i.e. basketball courts, soccer fields, baseball fields, gym courts etc.). Analyze unique facilities such as swimming pools, skate parks, water spray grounds, etc. c. Facilitate three Task Force meetings (see #3 above) and incorporate Task Force recommendations and input into the findings and report. d. Prepare a summary report that includes an overview of the process, key findings, need assessment worksheet, facility service standards, facility recommendations and strategies. Review findings, alternatives and preliminary recommendations with staff. e. Present the summary and findings to a joint Council/Commission and Task Force meeting. f. Prepare the final report and transmit digital and paper copies to the city. Duties of the Consultant Ingraham & Associates Inc. will prepare the needs assessment and recommendations in accordance with the Scope of Services, Schedule and Process Outline listed above for a not to exceed consulting services fee of $8,650.00 plus direct expenses at cost (printing mileage and delivery). This includes data gathering, research, three task force meetings, staff meetings, analysis, report preparation and a presentation meeting to the Council/Commission/Task Force. I & A will provide the city with a camera ready original of the report and supporting materials, a digital version of the report and recommendations plus a large size color presentation summary of the recommendations for presentation purposes. Greg Ingraham will be the consultant's project manager and will be the primary staff person for the project. Due to the somewhat unpredictable nature of task force work, facilitation of any additional task force meetings beyond the scope of services will be done for $350.00 per meeting. Any additional meetings or services outside of the scope of services and at the written direction of the city will be billed at an hourly rates listed above. Duties of the City The City will provide a facility inventory and other appropriate back ground information, organize a park system tour, organize and administer the Task Force meetings (selection, agendas, mailings, etc.), conduct the initial organizational meeting with the Task Force and copy mailings and report copies as needed for distribution to review groups. City staff will provide process and professional input in consultation meetings with the Ingraham & Associates. The City will designate a project manager for the evaluation and to be the prime contact with the consultant. The City will be billed montWy for work Ingraham & Associates Inc. June 10, 2003 4 FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA- COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS performed by Ingraham & Associates during that period. Payment shall be made within 30 days of the invoice date. Proiect Approval and Authorization: by: on: City of Farmington, Minnesota by: on: 61 H \03> Ingraham & Associates Inc. June 10, 2003 5 I tfi., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Me~bers, IMv City Administrator'z.. t FROM: Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary and Final Plat - Replat of Industrial Park Phase II - Lot 2 Block 1 DATE: July 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City of Farmington is proposing to replat Lot 2 Block 1 of the Farmington Industrial Park Phase II to create three (3) lots. The existing parcel consists of9.37 acres and is owned by the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). PLANNING DIVISION REVIEW Area Bounded By: Wetland to the north, 208th Street to the south, Bernard-Dalsin to the west, and agricultural uses to the east. Existing Zoning: IP (Industrial Park) District Existing Conditions: Agricultural uses are currently present Topography: The site is relatively flat DISCUSSION The existing parcel is located in the Farmington Industrial Park Phase II and is the last property owned by the HRA in the Industrial Park. The property has remained unsold in part due to development constraints on the site. A gas line easement traverses the site which limits the buildable area of the property. There has been considerable interest expressed recently by various companies to locate in the Industrial Park if smaller lots were available. Replatting the existing property would create smaller lots and minimize the impact of the gas line easement, possibly attracting additional companies to the Industrial Park. As shown on the plat, two (2) lots would be created south of the gas pipeline and one (1) lot would be located north ofthe pipeline. Parcel 3 would have access from 20Sth Street to the south and will have access to the east via a future road that would be located to the east of Parcel 3 connecting the Middle Creek development to 20Sth Street. The southern portion of Parcel 3 would have 100 feet of frontage on 208th Street. According to the Zoning Code, properties must have at least 150 feet of frontage in the Industrial Park zoning district. The Planning Commission granted a variance from the minium lot width requirement on June 10,2003. Area Summary Lot 1, Block 1 = Lot 2, Block 1 = Lot 3, Block 1 = Total Area = 3.38 acres 2.54 acres 3.45 acres 9.37 acres ACTION REQUESTED Approve the preliminary and final plat for the replat of Lot 2 Block 1 of the Farmington Industrial Park Phase II Addition. Respectfully submitted, CJ~~ JiZ Atkinson Assistant City Planner RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF FINAL PLAT REPLA T OF LOT 2 BLOCK 1 FARMINGTON INDUSTRIAL PARK PHASE II 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 7th day of July, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, an application meeting City requirements has been filed seeking final plat review and approval of a re-plat of Lot 2 Block I of the Farmington Industrial Park Phase II; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the preliminary plat on the 10th day of June, 2003, preceded by 10 days' published and mailed notice, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS; the City Council reviewed the final plat on June 16th, 2003; 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 final plat be approved and that the requisite signatures are authorized and directed to be affixed to the final plat with the following conditions: 1. Any engineering issues shall be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division shall be granted. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of July, 2003. Mayor Attested to the day of ,2003. City Administrator z o I-i, l- H o o <( I- W W IT I- Cf) I ~'," aJ o C\J ~ IT <( CL ----1 <( I-i 0=, r' Cf). ::J o :z I-i z o I- 'CQ Z I-i 2::. 0: <( LL .1 ~ ~. lJ l f J ~ !l J ~~1 l(j ~ ~ f :i . t!~ ~ 1 i . e' ~ J 'a ,J .08 l X III 'ell .8' i J ~ t ;1}1 I~ J ~ ~ .11 ",Ji~~ t1j ! I J! E ~ 'a ! ! ~ifl ]~ i J ~. I .a 0 ~ ~! .f ,J I J S'8~ I] if IS i tlu ~ 18 ,) ~ i I' fJ ... J .; ~. ~ ji IJ j] 'a jtt 1 ., J ,J ~f J ~ ~:i II I;: IfI~ U I;: 8 j 1 .~ J U 'd n 1 .;11 .; I j · J ~ g. . -s. . ~I . .fs z ~.9 t j. 'i '" J ni"'. I~ ...1 ~ · 1;1 . JJ.!~ ~~ 'el' ~l5. .~'a ~ t5 ~ l r l ] f I) .f .1 ~ .... IP U I 1~1 I ~... . . U ~ i'.s Jr' la'a .~ S .[ 'a ~s 8. J I j~ .a ~! i 1] f ! ! g,J ~ >>i 1 .. J ~ tl u. AU Ills I, ! 11 ~ .~jl '" g ~j 0 .si .~ z8 ~ I'" ~ I S U .B.n ~J ~. ;.~ It ~ -~J!] 0 I! If !~ '" I ~ ,J~ f: J Jil !~ ~ 1,g -8 I. ~ f~ ~ :::1 ~J iil. t j I 'at ~~; 'at 008 ~l ~j ~ ~~; ~ ~u f~lij ~u 5~ I 5i ;.';. , . . , '. NOUlIIlIY lIN2 lIlrid "l\'III1SIO/I NOlilNDIHY~ ':I ItruniJ lINIl 1m . "- ._ .---r-- _. ----:. --- -- ~ -l.Z -7 J!~ () 1-- (I) -7' ,"'- I-:; ';:".. ~~ (1: '<C' I. . L.L....;.. ~~ 1 , ~ f' i ~ 8 , i. I ~ ~ >. I J ~-8 I ~ 'i i I ~ "'I ! it ! ~ ~j 1 Ii j ]; j ,JD i 'If I ~}l ~ ~.9J ~ ~I Dl ~~ .J.,. >0'" ... ~.! ~J~ o~ ~f~ d ~j ~f~ ~ .... E$."185. """'--','.'~ ..'..- " .,"'.:"" ~ f I It ! lIS . j ! 8 X l'a ~ j i 8... ,J~ 'el .s il .s~ 11-5 ' ;ar 11 . .1';, III ~... Iil~J~ ~~fol ~Jfi I ~.... ~I' , :z: ,', ,: '.q I. id Q ~ . lil . . .; a::; . . ~. I . - (!)~Ei . " i~ ~ o C\I a: I ..... ~ ~ l- I 10 C\I u UJ If) ~i I :~l~ .~I J 1 .~~ . lil~ 11 ~ I~i ~~ Ji'il ~J ,~:!l .~ a 'a.-I S8'~ : ,p .f ! 1-8 ' 118 . .~ 1~~J 11f ! ' :; r :; II :; I e- i :; ! II ~ UJ -' Ll. z ~ !i! o ! lOci City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ~r FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Proposed Resolution in Support of Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act Demonstration Account DATE: July 7,2003 INTRODUCTION The City has submitted a grant application to the Metropolitan Council, requesting a grant in the amount of $1,597,000 to assist with the cost of the new bridge and the new roadways that will be required to extend Spruce Street across Denmark Avenue and into the future commercial/retail area located west of Denmark Avenue and south ofCSAH 50. DISCUSSION For the past six months, City staff members and the Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force have been diligently working on the creation of a Master Plan for a currently undeveloped 450-acre area located south of CSAH 50 and west of Denmark Avenue. At an upcoming meeting on July 16th, a draft of the Master Plan will be discussed by the Task Force, the Planning Commission and the City Council. One of the recognized obstacles to the development of the future commerciaVretail area in question has been continuing uncertainty regarding whether, when, where and how Spruce Street will be extended across Denmark Avenue in order to provide access to the heart of the new business district. Anything that reduces the costs that would be incurred by the City, the property owners and their developers will expedite the installation of the required infrastructure and the desired commercial growth. One way to reduce such costs is to obtain a grant that would pay for some of them. The Metropolitan Council has a "Demonstration Account" that is used to fund Opportunity Grants and Development Grants. Last year, the City applied for and received a $40,000 Opportunity Grant to assist with the cost of preparing the aforementioned Master Plan. This year, the Met Council's Demonstration Account has $7.9 million available to fund Development Grants for specific development projects, especially in cases where the applicant has completed (or is about to complete) some type of Master Plan for the development in question. After discussing several alternatives with Met Council representatives, City staff decided to apply for a grant to assist with the cost of extending Spruce Street across Denmark Avenue, which will require a new bridge across the Vermillion River. Staff obtained cost estimates and other required information, and then wrote, collated and delivered to the Met Council the grant application that has been enclosed for your review. New Century, Inc., the developer that is representing the Knutsen family regarding their 60-acre parcel in the northeast comer of the Opportunity Grant Study Area, provided the City with a letter in support of the grant application. The Met Council's rules regarding Development Grant applications require that each applicant provide the Met Council with a City Council resolution in support of the applicant's application by July 31,2003. A resolution in the format required by the Metropolitan Council is attached hereto for your review. At Monday night's Council meeting, more information will be provided regarding the number of applications that the Met Council received by the June 30th application deadline, and the total dollar amount of those requests. ACTION REQUIRED Motion to adopt the attached Resolution Authorizing Application for a Development Grant through the Livable Communities Demonstration Program. Respectfully Submitted, , i 1/.7 1-~:....J &c-~V Kevin Carroll ~ Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF FARMINGTON2 MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT GRANT THROUGH THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM WHEREAS the City of Farmington is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2003 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to make application for funds under the Livable Communities Demonstration Account; and WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purpose/s and criteria; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements; and WHEREAS the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the development grant application submitted on June 30, 2003; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator or the Community Development Director is hereby authorized to apply to the Metropolitan Council for this funding on behalf of the City of Farmington and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Dated this _ day of July, 2003 Mayor City Administrator Office Use LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT GRANT APPLICATION FORM 2003 Instructions: Submit form and attachments by 4:30 p.m. on June 30, 2003. Use font size 11. Use ofbulleted lists is encouraged. Do not attach a coversheet, page(s), or use any graphic images on top of the application form. Limit application to 12 pages plus attachments, for a total of no more than 19 pages. p I ~ f ro I ect norma IOn: ." Project Name: Spruce Street Bridge Project Applicant (Governmental Unit): City of Farmington Project Location (city): City of Farmington Address (street boundaries or East of the intersection of Spruce Street and Denmark A venue Major intersection): Primary Project Contact: Name: Kevin Carroll Title: Community Development Director Address: 325 Oak Street, Farmington MN 55024 Phone: 651-463-1860 Fax: 651-463-2591 E-mail: kcarroll(aJ-ci.farmin2ton.mn. us Authorized official(s) - (names and Ed Shukle titles for contract execution) City Administrator Project Summary In the space below, summarize the project goals and components. (Limit 20 lines) The goal of the Spruce Street Bridge Project is to create a new transportation corridor that will link Farmington's "historic" downtown commercial district with a new commerciallretail/housing zone that will be located near the downtown, in a currently undeveloped area. By doing so, the City hopes and inten~ to avoid a problematic development pattern that has often appeared in other developing suburbs and rural growth centers: "big box" commercial development that occurs in an area that is distant from and poorly connected to a long-established, traditional downtown business district. Throughout the nation, suburbs are spending millions of dollars to [quite understandably] create traditional downtown environments where they do not currently exist. Farmington's objective is to meet the retail needs of its rapidly-growing population by facilitating new commercial development in a location that complements, rather than competes with, an existing downtown that has functioned effectively for 150 years. A critical component of this objective is a direct, convenient, accessible and pedestrian-friendly roadway/trail connection between the "old" and "new" business districts. In Farmington, this connection will be provided by Spruce Street, which passes through the heart of the existing downtown and . currently terminates at the eastern boundary of a 450-acre area that is the subject of an Opportunity Grant that the Met Council awarded in 2002. In order to extend Spruce Street into the heart of the [planned] commercial/retail portion of the Opportunity Grant Study Area, a new bridge will have to be built across the Vermillion River (a designated trout stream) in a manner that does not adversely affect the wetlands, floodplain and underground gas pipelines that exist in that vicinity. In the absence of this bridge, future commercial development will have to rely exclusively on access from a county road that borders the Study Area, which will likely result in a development pattern that is less progressive, more auto-oriented, and essentially "freestanding" rather than contiguous to or well integrated with Farmington's existing downtown. ~ ;:s c 6' - ~ ~ I.l ~ ~ '- "I:l l::l .sca QJ = OJ)e~ ~ ~:S c QJ .~ Q"I:l -~ ._ C ~;;l e '" ~ '- .': ~ .s '" QJ .s a; ....~.... c-.... ~:S . :: OJ) ~:; .~ t~~= lZl",t~ a.i o..l:l Q., ~ c'""-,- =~~"C QJ ; CoI C e...."I:l = :::....cc- "I:l ;,; =.~ ~ CQJ",-= = 7i=:= ;;;. ",e:!Q~ "I:l = '" ~ ~ c~S"l:l61'7 .::~='" 'Q::e~ -=~.2 c CoI Q CoI ~ ~ -= .s e .... a.i"~ 0 ~ =~g8 Q)~.s "I:l~c== ..c=enc.o ~"'="I:l ....Q)~ ~ ~:!; c E S;.a .;:! 5<QJQJ= ....~~ !3 ~=~..:: ~tI)5h CIJ ~=e~ ~~I-< ~ '-Q",'- .--.,,,ro u QJoO._~ Q)....en Q) "f=f:': ;:l~~ ;;: Q:;:QJQ 5u.il 0 .o:!;QJ ~6u t) .i: ~ == .~ '" '.a ~ ,II) Q U U I-< - .- "I:l QJ '- "C: E 0 Q) =='-=Q ~ U == - = ~ t:: _ '" c ti ~ l"'i en._ ;:l .-.0== 1::1::0 C' "'.-..._ )<800 000.) ==.::!~::s! .... >. 0.... .. - .- ..c= c;; I:: 0 ~ t:.Cj~= ....u~ ro-u "I:l ~ ~ e ~ 'fi .p, ~ Vi I:: ~"''-QU -G';:l en8 ~-==c ~ - Q) _CoIQ.,Q~OI::U S"" CoI = .... .- - '.a 0 I:: ;:l 5 e Q .... ..c u .- en '" 5 =e.::,.~"2o en en ~;OQ.=-~r.ns= caOO ~ QJ ~ ; ~ ~.2;'( ~~ .5 "I:l c-"" - Q):>,:: _._ CoI - 0 '" ;: S .$ = ~ '1:: ~"" i:2..: = '- .... ~QJ <Il Q)"" ...~ '" Q., = ~ t 'C 0 I:: 0 ~ ...:'.8 - E-- ;:l a::I ..s .~ c ~~~,,; o~ ::::=CIJ .... a QJ en Q) C;; .- S ti goO .~~Q) a.... QJ~:::e t::......._s Q)~ .O':S== l"'iCZl_ >~ a.~ e c ..g ~ 0 Q) .U_ - '- QJ '-"'::l::G ..c .5~ ~ ] t) SofA : t) ...."'.-CoI Q)CZl@) Q)~ == ~ ~ .s ~"2:>.. 5 ~ ::QJ.2:C Q)2~ Q)en .S2 ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .gp ~ ti l; :: e I- -a ] 'C;:l ~r..-=.!!l $Q) 8]a::Iu OJ) ..2,1).; 4-< ..c= 4-< .- t) .s .s~et: 0'::0~Q) ~"'.!!l"l:l 1::0....Q).br.:l:i Q = .- QJ .~ I::,~ I-< CZl 0- =QJ!!":: cnO-~ClJCf.) .s :c QJ - ~ .- C;;.D u- QJ .Stl"l:l:: ~ ~ Q) ~ 2 ~ ; ~ ~ ~ I~ o.S 8 $~ Q.) = ..... .- 't :::: bi.~ ~ - QJ C =..- Q.,:C .,., ~ .. _ e .Stl 't: < .s 18~: '" ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ = ~ Vi o o N Vi o o N ..- ~ - & ~ .5 ..,; ~ 9 CIS 0'...-1_ ~~~8-; - ~.......-=~ .. ;> 0 () .... .5 51 OO.E Q) CZl 'en'2 ~ ~ ~ ~R a Vi o o N Vi o o N - & - ~ ""'" ""'" .5 "'" = 9 .~ "'" = 9 o "- _ l""l 0 ol""l ~ ~Oc-~O=- N 0 t':l .... N 0 t':l ~......-=~ ~.......-=~ ;> 0 () .... ;> 0 () .... = OO.E Q)~ = OO.E Q)~ .~.S '" .~.S '" Q) .... = Q) .... = 1'3~8aC5~8a .5 "'"" = 9 ~ g .~ ::= .... N 0 t':l ~..... .-= ~ ;> 0 () .... = OO.E Q)~ .~.= '" Q) i: = C5~8a o o o o o - o o o~ Vi Vi 00 @) ~ ~ ~ :: c ..... .~ ~ Q) = .... - Q) e .... ~ "'0 = ~ ... t:I.l Q) := ~ Q) ~ QJ) = .... "'0 = := ~ ... ~ Q) .'"""':l o l-i ~ N ~ o o o 0" Vi N o o o N" 0\ r-<"l ..9 . 6_@)en ~~....~ Q) 0E:~~ ] E-<I-<So] C3 Q) ~ U 8"" .S .s ~ 4-< Q) Q) o 'o:::'.s 0.== ~~ ....~;:l....;:l '" 7i)~~~gg.1:: Q) - ::c <..::< I-< CZl .~ ~4-<....C;; Q) ~.... .--., 0 1-<0 Q),.c ~ Q): _I::>. 5 ooct::::t-4;.::~O~ ""~""0t::E-<'" .C I-< Q) 0 l"'i Q) ~ a::I~20~.s~ t)1::..::!-.s0&; Q):..;;lp.~c.o""en .bl-<~SI::~Q) CZl~O;:l:.aI::U Q);>....en~Q)~ u: c.o en So :> i5.. 2Q)1::~ <CQ) p..s'"8~5~ ~ CZlI::Q)Q)enl-<l-< ]'- 2 ~ a S ~ .... la 0 cii..a I:: ~ 'O&U..c=~~.b ~o..l::""l::""cn ~ ~ .~ ~ 0 S] ~ ~ I::~":: 0 U en ..s E 0 '0 <l:: 5 ~en~Vien2,.c Q)~",,~2[3cn .s p..c; <C ~ S ~ - en CZl Q) Q) .b g.a~~U]5oo~ <l:: p. ~ ~ C3 l5. 1: '-"' Q) <t; I:: I:: t:: c.o ~ u ca...... ~._ aJ s:::: 1-1 Q) ~ ".... '.;:: Q)0.g1-<0Q)Q) .b U._ ~ I:: ~ ~ CZl]tC'enuoo Q) .... UO CZl Q)o 2 ul:: ~~Q)en~ 2 .- .... ~ Q) = $"2 ~ oi5~~ ~ '0 .~ ~ ~ ..s ~ ~.~_ s::frcu.;3c;.bcn 0"" u Q) CZl ._ 2 I:: I:: ~ ~~o..~;,e~~ Q)~CZl~O::lU .... .... ilJ ..:; Vi I-< !: ~g'::=~~$~ r-<"l """ QJ - = "I:l ~ ~8 ......'2 ~o-oo,.g NQ)=~ --c..-uo... = '" Q) .-= Q) ~ So'~ c.. t; ~~~~ Vi o o N - '- = - '" -c QJ .. .Q:j ~ QJ '- "I:l '- = ~ = .... C t':l '- OJ) .... Q - = = Q e = QJ .c .... OJ) .....-l .= E;'7 .... = CoI :c .s - .~ """ o o N c.o !: .- I-< P. CZl . ~ -M ~o ::~ .. >. .5 l:a CI.:l e t':l ..... '" .... l1~E ~<Eo~ ~ .... g.~ .~=""...... ~~Q)o ~ ,-".::: = ~ 0 8.g 6I'7gf::l~ 0" Q) @<'2 "'" 00 .. t':l EI'7 0 8 a o o o~ ro- 0\ Vi.. Q.i <Il ~ .g '- o - ~ .~ Q a ~ .. ~ ~ ~ .l: - .. ~ ~ - ~ ~ = .s - ~ ~ 5 Q ~ ~ = ~ - .. ~ - rI.l ~ .l: - ~ = ~ ~ ~ - <Il ~ ~ ~ .. <Il .. ~ - - o ~ - ~ - ~ .... c = 6:0 ~ -< U Q '? u 0 ...:l ~ C 4-< = 0 .c .... .... [3 .~ S "I:l P. QJ 0 -g ~ .:: .:J Q)"""" = "" 1:: .Q ~ - ~ '" = ~ I-< = ..;:: t:I .~ ~ 5 .0 t .;.l a "" .... '- = Q'- I:: -= ~ U ~ B CoI Q ~ ~ 5 .~~~] 8: '-QuQ)o Q.,~...:l~ ~~~38l '" -= ~ U 0 Q - ~ I-< N Q.,.... = Q) '--' Q Q = S I:: a~ ~ S B ~.g.a8gp ..... rIJ Q.)"- .... = = I-< a ~~.SB~ c.!!~tZ~ QJ~"I-<I:: c 1:0 ~ 0'- Q Q c..=. ~ Q.,~ I::Q) e"l:l ~..< 8 ~ s:: I-< ...._~ I-< 0 = .- ~ ~ = ~ ~ 'E ~= ::Eo :::: 4-< u g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .s.b QJ= ....CZl '" "I:l ~ Q) OJ)c au .s Q p,. ::l ;;.._ .... I-< 6] ~ $ ] e QJ Q -= CoI -"I:l C ~ - '- = .... '" "I:l QJ .... = .5 .... '" QJ "I:l = = ~ ~ 't:l.l: - -.... ~ = t)J) ~t)J)O=.l: = ~ Q .... 't:l._ <Il - = = ~ .... = 0 ~ .E ~ ..-::.~ ~ .C' ~ ~ -.s '- QJ .. c.';: Q ':~CZl= ~:6;-S: ,.... ~.... M.... ~"..s.....~= _c. M=QJ .. Q -: '-"' = .. .5-~Q..c< CI.:l - :> I/'l .~ ~ B~=~'t:l -QQ-<.s-= ....=CI.:l....CI.:l :a..Ju.c~ ~=.::Q':: ..~-=- ~ ~....;::(.... - ... ~ Q ~~=], ;.l Q3 .s .- = <Il:>'t~~ ; ~ ~ Q = ....'t:l<ll-= ~t)J) t ~..cO ~ = .... .. c;;.;._ = ~ = = 't:l.... = .. Q......O'~ _~=CI.:l.l: =~~=....= ~ .. .. ~ Q ~ = = Q <Il =Q~E-;~ ~.... <Il .l: ~'t::Qr'" ~~......~ ~.= Q = = ..c't:l.l:-=,S 't:l=-=="~ -~Q~- ==<Il.l:~ ~s~-.;: ~u-aC/.) s.e-.8....e: -.... 't:l Q ~U~~M ..'t:lQ..M ~=~~~ ~ ~ ..c .to .~ ";:rliQ~~ =-=~~ .... ~;::( ~ ... ~:> -'t:l =f:....~= ..c o...g .. ~ = c.~v.ic c..~ _ ~<:~~ .l:CI.:l.... = .. ~ ~] a,cii <Il;;iE~CI.:l.l: ~ ~ ~ t)J).... <Il <Il QJ = M = ~ ....... ~ .l:..c'i:''t:l-.;. c.~~=Q =~'t:l~1/'l ~s;~= g.~c;~< ~ - ~ ~ C/.) <Il ~.- ~ U .c~t)J).. e o..,s<.s ~, Q Q .... - = >.~ Q~Q-g~ t)J)~.E-';: .s 't:l ~ CI.:l C/.) a ~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~ _.:: ~ - =.... = 't:lrliS'Q!:: = =.!"l J'!!' ~ .s a c~ 1;;:=-=CJ Q 't:l c.'t:l ~ ~=c.== '" Q = = = ~ ~ = Q Q ; .:! e-..c CoI - ~ ~ = Q ~... .. .... =Q-g~..a ~sCj<ll~ I~ ~ = ~ Q I~ di .:::: IS: ;:: .,j- QJ - = "I:l = .~ - QJ '9 e Q CoI "I:l = = - CoI <Il .~ ~ Q <Il =] ;~ -= ~ .... .. "='s '" = ~~ = -a QJ '- = ;S - ~ a.i" :c = i = == = .S2 .... .COI QJ '" ~ .~ .$- ~ QJ -= .... c 2. Additional Project Information (limit one page) · In the space below, provide additional project information or history of the .site (not included in the project summary on page 1), including any plans to phase the project. (Limit 20 lines) The Spruce Street Bridge Project would create a new river crossing within the [2002] Opportunity Grant Study Area, just west of the intersection of Spruce Street and Denmark Avenue (see attached map). The new bridge would connect the future commercial area (within the Study Area) to a wide range oflocally important uses situated along Spruce Street. Proceeding east on Spruce Street from the planned bridge, a driver/biker/pedestrian would pass, in turn, the following: Farmington High School; the City-owned Ice Arena and an adjacent park; a Federal Aviation Administration facility that is one of the region's largest employers; a two-block residential district (which includes some higher-density housing); the City's existing business district, which also includes (on or within one block of Spruce Street) a Dakota County library, the Rambling River Senior Center, several high-density senior housing buildings, and Farmington City Hall; several additional blocks of residential housing; State Highway 3, which is the primary north/south route through Farmington; and the award-winning East Farmington subdivision (with its nationally recognized Prairie Waterway storm water drainage system). Long before the City received its [2002] Opportunity Grant to study the "Spruce Street Corridor Area," the City's 2020 Thoroughfare Plan classified the future westward extension of Spruce Street (from its intersection with Denmark Avenue) as a major collector. Spruce Street therefore has the potential to become the City's primary business corridor, extending the entire length of the City from east to west and connecting to large residential subdivisions and major north/south routes including State Highway 3 and CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) -- thereby creating exciting opportunities to incorporate new and progressive transit options into the City's long- term transportation plans. The Spruce Street Bridge is the "missing link" in this chain. As such, its completion is currently the most critical component of the first phase of the future development activity that is subject of the Spruce Street Corridor Area Master Plan (which the Met Council helped to fund with a 2002 Opportunity Grant). · In the space below, state how LCDA funding will overcome obstacles or provide a catalyst. Describe any time constraints, financial hardship or complexity that requires LCDA funding. Address what could not be accomplished but for receipt of an LCDA grant. Limit 20 lines With regard to time constraints, a developer retained by the owners of the undeveloped 60-acre parcel located in the northeast comer of the Opportunity Grant Study Area (i.e., the parcel that is closest to the existing downtown) has already submitted a sketch plan regarding commercial building sites within that parcel. Uncertainty regarding the final location of (and construction timetable for) the Spruce Street Bridge is severely limiting the developer's ability to design and plan the southern portion of the parcel (which would be accessed via the bridge and the westerly extension of Spruce Street). As a result, attention is currently shifting to the north, away from the planned Spruce Street corridor and toward CSAH 50 (2 12th Street), which would provide a much less direct, less pedestrian-friendly connection to the existing downtown. With regard to financial hardship, most of the City's available or anticipated bonding authority has already been pledged to several other long-overdue and much-needed road improvement projects. Keeping pace with infrastructure demands in a rapidly growing city is always challenging; it becornes even more so with LGA reductions and levy limits. In the absence of outside financial [grant] assistance, the full cost of required new infrastructure might have to be borne by the developer or property owner, which would likely delay or even halt the commercial growth that the City desperately needs. With regard to complexity, this project presents a constellation of obstacles that are not typically found together in other suburban roadlbridge projects, including: construction in and through wetland and floodplain areas, the crossing of a river that has been designated as a protected trout stream (resulting in higher standards regarding the handling of storm water run-off), the need to protect/preserve nearby wildlife habitats, and the existence of several underground high-pressure gas pipelines in the vicinity. In short, neither the City nor the affected property owners/developers have been able to determine a way to get the Spruce Street Brid e built quickly and affordabl and in a manner that com lies with all a licable environmental re lations. 3. Regulatory Status A. Please check (X) the following if it will be needed, is underway or is completed, and briefly provide additional information as noted. Ifnot applicable, place a 'NA' in the box. Will be Needed Underway Completed Comprehensive plan amendment. If needed, please describe: X Private property owners within the [2002] Opportunity Grant Study Area, and their developers, have proposed some uses that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan did not contemplate for that Area. City staff members are re-examining the Comprehensive Plan and preparing to make appropriate revisions as part of the Master Planning process that is currently underway. Environmental Reviews - EA W, EIS, AUAR. If needed, please describe: X Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik &Associates is currently preparing an AUAR for the entire 450-acre area that is the subject of the 2002 Opportunity Grant. Completion within the next few months is anticipated. Zoning changes and variances. If needed, please list and include change. to/from: Private property owners within the [2002] Opportunity Grant Study Area have proposed some uses that are not permitted or X conditional under the existing zoning. For example, portions of the Study Area are currently zoned for agricultural uses only. City staff members are re-examining the current zoning and preparing to make , appropriate revisions as part of the Master Planning process that is currently underway. 4. Project Site and Components A P did ropose an use changes: (check appropriate box) Yes No X Will buildings be rehabilitated? Briefly describe: X Will buildings be demolished? If yes, indicate the number of and type of buildings: No buildings will need to be demolished in connection with the Spruce Street Bridge Project. However, a small number of buildings (a vacant home, a machine shed, etc.) will eventually be demolished or moved when development begins to occur within the [2002] Opportunity Grant Study Area. X Will new buildings be constructed? If yes, list the percent mix of commercial, residential, public or other uses: No new buildings will be constructed as part of the Spruce Street Bridge Project. However, new buildings will be constructed when development begins to occur in the [2002] Opportunity Grant Study Area, with the following approximate mix (based on estimated gross developable acreage): 30% Commercial (116.9/394.4) 31 % Public (Parks/Open Areas; 124.4/394.4) 35% Residential (138.4/394.4) 4% Other Uses (Mixed Use; 14.9/394.4) X Will new streets or other infrastructure be added? 4 X Will any park land be converted? Briefly describe: No existing park land will be converted to non-park uses as a result of the Spruce Street Bridge Project. There is currently no park land in the [2002] Opportunity Grant Study Area. However, new parks and open spaces will be created as commercial and residential development occurs in the Study Area. X Will new pedestrian infrastructure be added? If yes, check type: -L Sidewalks -L Bike paths X Trails B. Mix and Type of Uses: List the number and types of commercial, retail, office, government/civic, arts/cultural, entertainment or other uses existing or planned in the project site. fUses/acreages shown below are based on "workin!!. draft" of Master Plan for Spruce Street Corridor Areal Number of Square Number of Square Indicate if planned uses Type of Use Existing Footage Planned Uses Footage or are new construction or Uses or Acreage rehab Acreal!;e New Rehab Commercial 0 0 Undetermined 43.5 acres X Retail 0 0 " * X Restaurant 0 0 " * X Office 0 0 " * X Government/Civic 0 0 " * X Arts/Cultural 0 0 " * X Entertainment 0 0 " * X Open Space/Public Unimproved wetlands, " 124.4 acres X Space floodplains and natural open spaces now exist Other (list) Most of the area is Bus/Comm Flex: 73.4 acres X currently being farmed Mixed Use: 14.9 acres * "Commercial," "Business/Commercial Flex, " and "Mixed Use" may each include retail, restaurants, offices, entertainment, and buildings/spaces for government, civic uses, arts and cultural activities C. Type and Tenure of Housing: List the number of housing units by type and tenure (owner/renter) currently in the project site area and planned. fUses/acreages shown below are based on "workin!! draft" of Master Plan for Spruce Street Corridor Areal Distinguishing Features: Total # of # Units # Units (# of stories, Units Owner Rental architectural desil!;n) Existinl!; Housinl!;: Single-family 4 (est.) 4 (est.) 0 (farm homes) Townhouse 0 0 0 Apartments or Condominiums 0 0 0 Duplexes 0 0 0 Planned Housinl!;: Single-family (see acreage calculations below Townhouse (see acreage calculations below) Apartments or Condominiums (see acreage calculations below Other: High Density Residential 62.2 acres 1375 (est., based on average of22.1 units/net acre)* Other: Med. Density Residential 76.2 acres 567 (est., based on average of 7.44 units/net acre)* Other: Mixed Use 14.9 acres (number and nature of housing units undetermined) * Allocations of units between owner-occupied units and rental units have not yet been projected, although both are desired and expected Housin Densi : Current Overall Density (units er acre - net) Virtually zero 5 E. Housing Affordability: List affordability levels for existing and planned housing in the following format: (Area median income - $75,300) # of Units up to # of Units at 50- 50% of Area 80% of Area # of Units at # of Affordable units to Median Income Median Income Market Rate be demolished (if any) Existing housing 0 4 (est.) 0 4 (eventually) Planned housing Affordability of planned housing is impossible to N/A predict at this early stage, but the City is committed to providing a reasonable amount of affordable housing, especially in the vicinity of planned commerciaVretail development that will require service sector employees. Yes I No (Check appropriate box) Ix Are there mechanisms to ensure lon2-term affordabilitv? Ifves, what type? (Check any that aDlI]V) Land trust Resale price indexing Other (list): No such mechanisms currently exist in the undeveloped Opportunity Grant Study Area; however, the City will be receptive to the possible implementation of such mechanisms and is prepared to discuss them with property owners and developers. F. Employment connections: Estimate the number of jobs within 2 miles of the project site and list major employers. Check appropriate Number of Jobs number Maior employers within 2 mile More than 5,000 3,000-5,000 1,000-3,000 X 500-1,000 Less than 500 Federal Aviation Administration (400+); Independent School District 192 (600+); Dakota Electric Association (220+); Farmington Industrial Park businesses (300+); downtown (existing) commercial district employees (250+) G. Creation of new jobs: Yes (Check appropriate box) X Will this roject create any new 'obs? If yes, how man and what e? The construction of the Spruce Street Bridge, by itself, will not create any new jobs; however, the existence of the bridge will facilitate economic development that will create such jobs. The first phase of development (on the 60-acre Knutsen parcel that will be accessed from the south via the bridge) is projected to create approximately 150-250 jobs. Later phases of development (as commercial activity proceeds westward through the Opportunity Grant Study Area) could create over 1000 new jobs. Most of the new jobs would presumably be in the service sector, along with some administrative, office, technical and managerial positions. 6 H. Adjacent land uses and relationships: Describe any plans or opportunities to link adjacent land uses to the project site. Limit 8 lines As noted earlier above, the primary purpose of the Spruce Street Bridge Project is to do exactly that: to link the future commercial, retail and residential uses in the Spruce Street Corridor Area (Opportunity Grant Study Area) to the rest of Farmington -- and especially to the existing downtown business district and the wide range of uses located in it and near it (retail operations, professional offices, financial institutions, dining establishments, government buildings, educational facilities, high density and senior housing, etc.). Roads and trails will also be created to link the Study Area to the Farmington Industrial Park (located to the immediate north), Rambling River Park (located to the northeast), and future commercial/industrial areas (on the west side of the future southerly extension of Pilot Knob Rd. from CSAH 50/2 12th St. to 220th St. 1. Describe how the project links to transit, if transit is available. Limit 8 lines Transit is currently being provided by DART [Dakota Area Rapid Transit] buses. It is anticipated that DART service will be extended into the new commercial/retail district that will created in the vicinity of the Spruce Street Bridge. It may also be possible to provide shuttle bus or trolley service directly between the "old" and "new" commercial districts. There has been considerable discussion regarding the possibility of a regional transit system that would utilize the Cedar Avenue Corridor between the Mall of America and CSAH 50 (212th Street) in Lakeville; if that comes to pass, one transit circulation option could have buses proceed south on Cedar Avenue to CSAH 50, then east on CSAH 50 to Pilot Knob Road, then north on Pilot Knob Road 1. Environmental protection and enhancement: Yes No (Check appropriate box) X Does this project include environmental protection practices and environmental enhancement measures? If yes, what kind? Progressive storm water management techniques will be employed, both during and after construction. Infiltration will be utilized to the greatest extend practicable. All of the other practices referred to immediately below will also be used. (Check all that a ply) X Ecologically sensitive storm water management practices - including draining, filtering and retaining storm water in innovative ways that maximize use of natural svstems X Preservation or restoration of existing trees and other natural vel!etation X Use of natural resources to create communities amenities, e.g. restoration of buried creeks and wetlands X Provision of green spaces for recreation and scenic value X Other (describe): Other techniques as suggested/recommended by the DNR, Soil and Water Conservation District, MPCA, Dakota County, Vermillion River Watershed District, or City staff and consultants K. Replicability: State how you will use components of or processes developed for the project in other locations in your community, or in the comprehensive plan and zoning codes. Limit 8 lines The process that the City has used for the preparation of a Master Plan for the Spruce Street Corridor Area has involved substantial citizen input from all sectors of the community, the creation of a Task Force, frequent meetings and discussions, periodic informational sessions for elected and appointed officials, ongoing interdepartmental interaction among City staff members, judicious use of outside consultants, and careful consideration of the environmental ramifications of development decisions and options. The preceding combination of factors has enabled the City to successfully and expeditiously move through a complicated planning process that might otherwise have taken years to complete. This process (which the City's 2002 Opportunity Grant helped to fund) will likely become our template for future land use planning endeavors. 7 5. Partnerships and Community Participation (Begin new page) A. Planning and Implementation Partnerships: List and briefly describe the type and nature of partnerships in the project among government, private, for-profit and non-profit sectors. Name of Partners Private ro erty owners/develo ers Farmington Chamber of Commerce Inde endent School District 192 Ad'acent Townshi (Eureka) Dakota Coun Other interested citizens/organizations T e of Partnershi Members of S ruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Member of S ruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Member of S ruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Member of Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Members of S ruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Participants in charrette process and public discussions as part of Master Plan development rocess B. Community's role: Describe any public participation processes (including residents, businesspersons and others) in developing the proposal, including the process to date, and plans for future community involvement in project implementation. Limit 8 lines At the start of the Master Plan development process, public participation was sought by requesting that a number of local organizations, interest groups and geographic areas nominate representatives to serve on the Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force. A date-specific timetable was developed for the process. The Task Force has completed 14 of the 19 tasks identified on the schedule. A draft of the final Master Plan document will be formally and jointly reviewed by the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Task Force on July 16,2003. Final adoption of the Master Plan is expected to occur in August, after which City staff will proceed to implement any Comprehensive Guide and/or Zoning Code revisions that will be required to implement the Master Plan. C. City's role: How has the city supported the project? Limit 8 lines The City has supported the 2002 Opportunity Grant project (the Spruce Street Corridor Area Master Plan), andwill support the related Spruce Street Bridge Project, by providing project coordination, staff time and expertise, and public information regarding progress, status, goals, options, and future steps. The City will continue to advocate and implement a multi-jurisdictional, environmentally sensitive, collaborative "team approach" to local and regional issues associated with each project, in the belief that effective planning and "smart growth" are objectives that need not be limited or adversely affected by political or jurisdictional boundaries. 8 6. Regulatory And Implementation Tools and Strategies (Begin new page) A. Ci Yes X review/regulatory process: (check appropriate box) No Were any new city review or regulatory processes or procedures used or developed for this ro'ect [In ro ress) If yes, describe them: (limit 6 lines) Please refer to the preceding response(s) regarding the creation of the Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force and the use of a facilitated" charrette" process to encourage citizenlbusiness input, public review and group "brainstorming" during the creation of several alternative development scenarios for the Spruce Street Corridor Area. The Spruce Street Bridge Project is largely based upon the preferred development scenario that evolved from the charrette process. B Z / h omn2iregu atory c anges: (check appropriate box) Yes No X Were any zoning or other regulatory tools necessary for the project to be implemented as planned? [In proKress] State status of development or city adoption of them: (limit 6 lines) The City plans and intends to initiate whatever Comprehensive Guide amendments and/or Zoning Code revisions may be required to implement the final version of the Master Plan that is ultimately adopted in August. Any such amendments and revisions are scheduled to be discussed with the Planning Commission and City Council between August and October of 2003, so that the entire process can be completed prior to the October expiration of a temporary development moratorium that was implemented by the City after the 2002 Opportunity Grant was awarded. C. Desi n standards: (check appropriate box) Yes No X Were any desi standards develo ed? [In ro essJ If yes, state status of adoption or inclusion in formal regulatory processes, and how the standards were or will be used: (limit 6 lines) Design standards currently exist for most of the City's commercial and business zoning districts, including the zoning districts that exist within the Opportunity Grant Study Area. City staff members are studying the design standards that have been adopted in other communities (especially Burnsville) to determine if our own standards should be updated or revised. If so,we hope to complete that process at or shortly after the time that the Comprehensive Guide and Zoning Code revisions are processed. 9 7. Developability (Begin new page) A. Market and feasibility studies: (check appropriate box) Yes No X Have market and feasibili studies been conducted for the ro.ect? If so, state briefly the conclusions of the studies: (limit 4 lines) The McComb Group, Inc. was recently hired to prepare a market study of the current and future Farmington trade area. The McComb study indicated that the Farmington trade or market area could absorb an additional 600,000 square feet of commercial/retail space between 2003 and 2020. The projected land uses in the Master Plan that is in now ro ress are based on the McComb Grou 's anal sis. Is a develo er(s) committed to the Name of Developer(s) New Century, Inc. (based in Apple Valley, MN) ro . ect? If yes - Type of contract or commitment New Century is representing Knutsen family members in connection with the 60-acre parcel of undeveloped land that they own near the future Spruce Street Bridge in the Opportunity Grant Study Area. A sketch plan regarding planned commercial development has already been submitted to and reviewed b the Ci . 8. Readiness and Financial Aspects of the Project A. Yes No X Is the development site as represented currently within a designated development district, or an approved development (Le. PUD)? The future commercial portion of the Knutsen property (near the site of the future Spruce Street Bridge) is appropriately zoned for commercial development. The developer has recently indicated a possible interest in ex lorin the use of a PUD for the ro ert in uestion. B. Describe the a plicant's controls of the site, or sites re resented in the ro osal? (check appropriate box) Under 0 tion Own Condemnation Within a TIP District X Other (list): The City does not currently control the future site of the planned Spruce Street Bridge, but the City plans to acquire whatever easements and/or property ownershi interest s ma be re uired rior to the construction of the brid e. C. If the site is not under the applicant's control, what steps will need to be taken in order to do so? Limit 5 lines See response to 8 (B), above. Inasmuch as the current owners of the site of the future bridge will be th~ primary commercial beneficiaries of the bridge itself, acquisition of any easement(s) that may be required is not anticipated to be problematic. 10 D. Yes X No Are market studies or appraisals available for all components of the project (i.e. retail, office, ownership housing, rental housing)? A completed market study is available for the commercial/retail growth that is expected to occur during the first phase of the new development that is anticipated. This growth will take place in the vicinity of the lanned S ruce Street Brid e. E. Yes N/A No N/A If the developer is acquiring the development site from the city, is the site being sold at fair-market value? [Not A licable] F. Yes X Has an architect/en 'neer been selected for the roject? If yes, what level of completion are the drawings at? (limit 4 lines) Architectural/engineering work for the Spruce Street Bridge Project would be supervised by Mr. Lee Mann, City Engineer/Public Works Director. Mr. Mann is a member of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates. Bonestroo staff members, including Mr. Mann, would perform all of the re uired architectural/en ineerin work. G. How have costs been determined? (check appropriate box) Bidding Contracting estimates Developer estimates X City estimates X Other (list): Cost estimates were initially prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., the firm that is assisting the City with the preparation of the Master Plan (for the Spruce Street Corridor Area) that is being funded by the Opportunity Grant that the City received from the Met Council in 2002. The initial estimates were then independently reviewed and approved by City Engineer/Public Works Director Lee Mann and his staff. H. If commercial is proposed, provide as much specificity as possible regarding the type of tenants and ro.ected rents. T e of Tenant New Century, the developer of the 60-acre Knutsen parcel in the Opportunity Grant Study Area, has indicated that the City can expect businesses such as restaurants, a gas station, auto-service establishments, a medical clinic, a bank, a grocery store, and miscellaneous retail 0 erations. 1. Pro' ected Rents Presently unknown to applicant. Yes No X Does the applicant intend to apply for LCDA funds for this project in future years for additional phases or components? Although no final determination can be made at this point regarding the possibility of future grant applications, the projected length of time (20+ years) over which commercial and residential development is expected to occur within the [2002] Opportunity Grant Study Area suggests that there will opportunities to seek the Metropolitan Council's assistance with development issues in order to ensure that growth occurs in a manner that is consistent with the Council's lon!!-term !!oals and objectives. J. Provide project sources/uses budgets on the following page. 11 SOURCES AND USES Sources $ Amount Status Approval Anticinated bv: LCDA Development Grant (for $1,597,000 Application submitted Spruce Street Bridge and portions of immediately adjacent roadways) City of Farmington (bond $4,763,560 Under discussion, pending Undetermined proceeds, levy, assessments, decision on LCDA Grant etc.) -- forbalance of projected Application costs for all public infrastructure, as estimated in working draft of Master Plan TOTAL: $6,360,590 $ Portion from $ Other Public $ Other Private Uses $ Amount LCDA Source Sources Sources Hard Costs: Estimate of all public $6,360,590 $1,597,000 $4,763,560 infrastructure costs, per (Spruce Street (All OTHER "working draft" of Master Plan Bridge and adjacent required public roadways) infrastructure) Total Hard Costs: $6,360,590 $1,597,000 $4,763,560 Soft Costs: Soft costs have not been specifically included in the cost projections that appear in the "working draft" of the Master Plan. However, the City typically estimates soft costs (legal, financial, architectural, engineering, etc.) as 15-20% of the hard costs. The City is prepared to treat its total soft costs on the Spruce Street Bridge Project as an "in-kind contribution" in the event that it receives a Develo ment Grant for that project. OVERALL TOTAL $6,360,590 $1,597,000 $4,763,560 12 City of Farmington - Spruce St Corridor/Bridge o 1,000 - -- 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet 2000 Aerial Photo 6/27/03 City of Farmington - Spruce St Corridor/Bridge Regional Infrastructure and 2020 Planned Land Use ~ I.i l..~..... I. .... ------------------------------11 ;/ ~ I :1 o 1,000 - -- 2,000 3.000 4.000 5,000 Feet _ Regional Park _ Park Reserve Special Recreation Feature D State .. Federal - Local Trail - Regional Trail - State Trail @J Sewer Interceptor Lift Stations = Gravity Sewer = Force Main Sewer. Principal Arterial - A Minor Augmentor - A Minor Reliever - A Minor Expander - A Minor Connector - B Minor Major Collector Minor Collector P Park and Ride Lots -+-+ Railroads a - Bus Routes j~~r 'I 1 '~.j, . .J~.~:~;;~ ,.:,,5-.... '.J-~)"" . '"" ,; , '.~",. ~1Z~~~.~;~; l1li Airports in the Regional System Agricultural Rural Residential Single Family Residential _ Multi-Family Residential _ Commercial .. Industrial _ Mixed Use - Single Units _ MUltiple Uses - Several Units _ Institutional _ Pari< and Recreation _~e Open Space: Restricted Use Open Water 6/27/03 City of Farmington Spruce Street Bridge Project N A Structures Vermillion River D Park Institutional Commercial Residential _ Opportunity Grant Study Area 0.04 0 0.04 Miles I I I t ~ lo. ~ ~ ~~ ~g -l (j <...... -( "'I. _ <.r.I _...... .. Q~ Z U ~ ~ i s: ~'" 1lffi ~ i " . I ~ @~ ~~ t5 g ~ ~ ,.<::0: :r: CQ ::.. Q ~ . ~I '. t .. a .. ~ a z " II ~ I tl.l I I 1IIIIIIill ~ .. ,. I .. .. 5 ~ J .. .. .~~ : .. : I . '\1l '0 ~ ~ I: Ii: r: -~l :Ji 01~ ~ _'k. 1 ~ J ~ <>L If -z I il G ~\ J ~ ~ ~ ~~ 2 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ! I~ ~ i~ ~~'~ I Z .' ~ d) JL ai -T c:5 ~ r -E i ~ '" CIl ~ CIl ~ ~ 8 ~ --JI ~, ~ {/) ~ '" CI.l - (U, () .~ '" <: () ~ oS ~ g. ~ 8 -0 o ..;j = ~ II) 000 Q..~ bb II) ::l '" = 0 0 0 .~ ~ O~ ~3.o8g .... OIl '" o.~ 8 ~ 0.0 () 0 D:r:~~ M o o N - ]: 00 ~ o ~.- C\J1:) ~~ 8"0 ~ a I........ u .a ..... ..... Q) fro g a 0........ U~ Farmington Spruce Street Master Plan ~ Preferred Concept Estimate of Public Infrastructure Costs for Planning Purposes only ,timate of Public Infrastructure Costs Quantity Water Sewer In place. no Storm Sewer' . 'ID~vel~per responsibility Spruc&Street/Parkway,elden$lon .,'</ .. I Roadway (no sOilcorrecti~~S/fiil)'- ... Spl1.lce StreetlPc:lrk\ovayStrE'let~cape Curb and gutter Bituminous street paving Concrete walk Streetlights @ 80' OC Trees @ 50' OC Bench @ 200' OC Trash receptacle @ 200' OC Restoration (sod) 4500 Unit Unit Price Category Total Category Subtotal $0.00 $0.00 $1,125,000.00 LF SF SF EA EA EA EA SF LF 10.00 4.00 4.00 5000.00 400.00 1500.00 1000.00 0.40 280.00 1260000.00 $1,260,000.00 SF 14400.00 20000.00 4800.00 12000.00 4800.00 20000.00 10000.00 87500.00 1850.00 175350.00 Town Square Concrete walk @ 6' width Lights Trees Bench Trash Receptacles Fountain/Focal Point Other Landscape Sod Irrigation Bridge;. ,Enha nce!T1ent~_,: ~.' -,-~""y'C" 0.' :L::;:;~i:,'.:_::::L?;~:.':~;:,.,~,.:_., ' Spruce Street EastlWest over Vermillion River North/South over South Creek Pari< Acquisition I Park Improvements '. Trails @ 8' Pedestrian Bridge Soccer Fields Ball Fields Parking Lots 3600 @ 4 4 EA @ 5000 12 EA @ 400 8 EA @ 1500 4 EA @ 1200 1 EA @ 20000 1 EA @ 10000 25000 SF @ 3.50 4625 SF @ 0.40 15840 3 ? ? ? Project Total Draft June 27, 2003 :,Ji~~~~~_iitiI~r:~~:!~:~~!~,:Th\tr.~. LF EA $253,440.00 150000.00 16 75,000 $403,440.00 $6,360,590.00 IB Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. New Century 6915 West 146th Street Suite One . Apple Valley MN 55124 P 952.432.2445 f 952.432.0800 June 30, 2003 Livable Communities Advisory Committee Metropolitan Council 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-3780 Dear Committee Members: On behalf of Mr. Bob Knutsen, Mr. Stan Knutsen and the Mel-Gen Corp. Inc., I am writing to advise you of their support for the grant application that the City of Farmington has submitted to the Met Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account. The Knutsens are the owners of a 60-acre' parcel of property in Farmington. Their property is located in the northeast corner of a 450-acre area that is the subject of an Opportunity Grant that the Met Council awarded to the City of Farmington in 2002. The Opportunity Grant is providing a portion of the funding for the creation of a Master Plan regarding the commercial and residential development that is expected to occur in the area in question. Of the various parcels located within the Opportunity Grant study area, the Knutsen parcel is located closest to Farmington's existing downtown, and it is therefore likely to be developed first. Our company is advising and assisting the Knutsens with regard to the development of their property. The City of Farmington has indicated that the creation of a vehicular and pedestrian transportation link [along Spruce Street] between Farmington's "historic" downtown and the future commercial zone on the Knutsen property is critical to the long-term success of both areas. However, our ability to properly plan for the commercial development of the southem portion of the Knutsen property has been hindered by uncertainty regarding whether, where, when and how Spruce Street will be extended across Denmark Avenue and into the Opportunity Grant study area. The projected cost of the new Spruce Street bridge that will be needed to cross the Vermillion River and access the Knutsen property from the south is a related complication. It is our understanding that if the "Spruce Street Bridge Project" receives a Development Grant from the Met Council, the City. of Farmington will be able to immediately move . forward with the design work for the bridge and the related roadway segments, which would be closely followed by the actual construction of those improvements. The completion of this physical link to downtown Farmington would, in our opinion, facilitate and expedite the type of commercial and retail growth that Farmington needs. It would also help fulfi the "s art growth" objectives that served as the basis for the City's 2002 applicati fI an ortunity Grant. For these reasons, and others, the Knutsens fully suppo t lication for a 2003 Development Grant. e r , Vice President , , Inc. a world of experience IDe City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: ~J Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Second Quarter 2003 Building Report and Population Estimate DATE: July 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION The following is a report summarizing (a) the new construction permits issued during the second quarter of 2003 and (b) an updated population estimate for the City of Farmington. DISCUSSION Building Permits: During the second quarter of 2003 (April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003) the City issued new residential building permits for 71 single-family homes and 50 owner-occupied townhouse units for a total of 121 new housing units. None of the housing permits issued during the second quarter of 2003 included any new rental housing units. The average building valuation of the single-family homes during the second quarter of 2003 was $192,206, up from $186,800 during the first quarter. The average building valuation of the townhome units through the second quarter of 2003 was $150,620, up from $120,371 during the first quarter. (Note that the valuation averages do not represent the overall sale or market value of the home; since they do not include the value of the lot or any amenities added to the home that are not part of the building code formula). Population Estimate: Prior to the first quarter of this year, the quarterly reports provided to the City Council by the Community Development Department referred only to building permit activity. At the end of this year's first quarter, City staff decided that each quarterly report should include an updated population estimate for the City of Farmington. After discussing several methods of calculating population, a decision was made to base our population estimates on Certificates of Occupancy rather than upon building permits. Building permit activity is not a "real time" reflection of actual population, given the "lag time" between the issuance of the permit and the actual occupancy of the dwelling unit (i.e., the time required to construct, market and sell the home). Accordingly, staff started with the City population as of April 1, 2000 (as determined by the u.S. Census Bureau) and then determined the number of Certificates of Occupancy [C.O.s] issued by the City since that date. The number of C.O.s was multiplied by 2.95, which was (according to the 2000 Census) the average number of occupants per Farmington dwelling unit. The resulting calculations are as follows: 12,365 + 885 13,250 + 1478 14,728 + 1888 16,616 + 336 16,952 + 525 17,477 Population as of 4/1/00, per 2000 Census = 300 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period 4/1/00 to 12/31/00 X 2.95 Population as of 1/1/01 = 501 Certificates of Occupancy issued for 2001 X 2.95 Population as of 1/1/02 = 640 Certificates of Occupancy issued for 2002 X 2.95 Population as of 1/1/03 = 114 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period 1/1/03 to 3/31/03 X 2.95 Population as of March 31, 2003 = 178 Certificates of Occupancy issued for the period from 4/1/03 to 6/30/03 X 2.95 Population as of June 30, 2003 Qj u= =0 .0::::' :::l C'O Cl. l:: ;=g Ql :::l z~ Ul .E 1iia3 .b ~ ~.!!l -gj!l 00000 i'~ ... ~rf 1ii-o ~ ~ ~ gj E- 0..................(") o~ U E ~ Qj zCl. C/) !::: ::2: 0:: w Cl. CD z 1ii c Ql ~~ Ql l:: 0::::::> Cii -0 I- ~Cl l:: l:: Ql "- 0:: Ul :::l ;= 0 QlI Z , 1Il >- ...J 0:: w I- 0:: <( ::::> a , "" 3j!l ::2: .- __ l:: ;=Ql::::> QlE>. zo= .r:: E ~ C'O oLl. I- LOLO......'<t~ '<tCOCOLON 00000 j!l "1: ::::> x Ql Ci. 00000 :::l Cl ~ ...... z j!l "1: ::::> LI. C/) ;= Ql Z LOLO......'<t~ '<t COCO LON "- 2 ro :::l a Cii -0 -= I- a /'- (;)-g"E=~ ...-C'\IC")'VT'"" /'- ol ol ...... ro Ql >- 0..-00.,... 00000 ..-000..- N......N(")gs /'-co/'-coN OOO~~ ONON'<t NOlN......j:! /'-/'-/'-LON ~ o -= I- a co Ci)-g"E=~ .....C'\I('l')v..- co ol ol ...... 0..-00..... o 0..... 0 T'"" 00000 LOLO'<tol(,,) '<tco/'-~;;!; 00:;:!:~l2 00000 00000 __000..... 00000 N'<tCOCOO I'::O'>;!~ LO'<tCOCOU; (")co'<t...... ONOON < LOLOO(")(") /'-CONo/'- '<tcococo~ co/'-(")~~ ~ o -= I- a ol U)-g"E:5~ .....NM..q-..- ol ol ol ...... ~ o -= I- a 0 1i)-g"E:58 ......N(")'<tN o o o N ,,",",0 0..... C\l OONON NOON'<t ......NCO/'-CO ......ON'<tCO T"""T'""T'""T'""'V ~OOO~ 00000 ON I 00000 ONOON (")N/,-ON ....../'-N/'-CO .,...,...,...,...1/) 00000 co '<t '<t ...... ~ ..... ~ COCO !'::: olo 10 ...... LO co /'- N ~, ~, N 00000 ......CONCO~ CO'<t'<t/'-N Cii -0 "- l- e ...... t)-g-e.s8 ......N(")'<tN o o N 00000 ......'<t00~ coco/'-coN ~ o -= I- a N Cii-gE:58 ......N(")'<tN N o o N 00 00 0...... CON ...... ...... 00 (")0 COLO 00 /'-...... ;:/'- ~ o -= I- a (") U5-g"E:58 ......N(")'<tN (") o o N /Of City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ~ ~( John Powers Fire Marshal \<..f> c... TO: SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Title 5, Chapter 5 of the Farmington City Code Regarding the Sale, Possession, and Use of Consumer Fireworks and Resolution Amending Fee Schedule DATE: July 7,2003 DISCUSSION The City of Farmington adopted an ordinance regulating the sale, possession, and use of consumer fireworks on March 17,2003. Since that time, however, State legislation was adopted which requires individual cities to use National Fire Protection Association (NFP A) guidelines for regulating the sale and storage of fireworks. Therefore, the attached Ordinance amends the recently adopted Code in order to be consistent with State Law. Permit Fee The fee schedule was recently amended to add a $300 permit fee for fireworks sales permit, in conjunction with the previous adoption of fireworks standards. Since that time, State legislation was adopted that limits the amount an individual city can require for such permits. Therefore, the following fees would replace the current $300 fee: . Establishments with Mixed Sales (fireworks sales as an accessory item) - $100 . Establishments that sell fireworks only - $350 The attached resolution reflects the proposed fees. ACTION REQUESTED Consider the proposed ordinance amending Title 5, Chapter 5 of the City Code regarding the sale, possession, and use of consumer fireworks. Jo Fi Attachments: Proposed Fireworks Ordinance Proposed Fee Schedule Amendment Resolution CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 5 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE AND REPLACING IT WITH ADDITIONAL STANDARDS REGULATING THE SALE, POSSESSION, AND USE OF CONSUMER FIREWORKS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 5 of the Farmington City Code is amended to add the following: 5-5-1: ADOPTION OF STATE LAW The provisions of Minnesota statutes sections 624.20 through 624.25, inclusive, are adopted by reference. 5-5-2: PURPOSE AND FINDINGS The purpose of this Division is to regulate the sale of permitted consumer fireworks in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public. The City Council makes the following findings regarding the need to license and regulate the sale, distribution, storage, and display of fireworks permitted under State law: (a) consumer fireworks contain pyrotechnic chemical compositions that are combustible; accordingly, the unregulated accumulation, storage, display and sale of these items present a fire safety hazard. (b) the improper disposal of consumer fireworks presents environmental hazards. (c) regular inspection, sampling and testing of the consumer fireworks being offered for sale is necessary to assure compliance with the limitations set forth in Minnesota Statutes ~624.20, subd. 1 (c), as to chemical content. (d) regular police inspections are necessary to prevent the sale of these materials to minors. (e) regular inspections by the City Fire Marshal are necessary to prevent improper display, storage and disposal of consumer fireworks. (f) accurate information concerning the addresses and locations of persons dealing in permitted consumer fireworks in the City is necessary to facilitate the inspection of the premises for compliance with necessary safety regulations and performance standards and to assist the City in responding to any emergency situation arising out of or adjacent to this business. 5-5-3: PERMIT REQUIRED No person, without securing a permit from the City of Farmington, shall do any of the following: 1. Manufacture, store, or sell consumer fireworks; 2. Make a public display of fireworks. 5-5-4: DEFINITIONS The following word is defined as: CONSUMER FIREWORKS: Wire or wood sparklers of not more than one hundred grams (100 g) of mixture per item, other sparkling items which are nonexplosive and nonaerial and contain seventy five grams (75 g) or less of chemical mixture per tube or a total of two hundred grams (200 g) or less for multiple tubes, snakes and glowworms, smoke devices, or trick noisemakers which include paper streamers, party poppers, string poppers, snappers, and drop pops, each consisting of not more than twenty-five hundredths grains of explosive mixture. 5-5-5: PERMIT APPLICATION The application for the permit for the manufacturing, storage, and sale of consumer fireworks shall be made to the Fire Marshal. A determination by the Fire Marshal that the location where consumer fireworks are to be stored or sold is not hazardous to property or endangers any person and that the persons in charge of selling or storing the consumer fireworks are competent and trained to handle such consumer fireworks must be made prior to processing the application. The application for permit shall be accompanied by a letter from the owner of the property on which the sale is to take place. Such letter shall grant permission to the applicant for the use of the property. The application shall include a floor plan designating the area for manufacturing, storage or display along with a list documenting the name, weight, and quantity of consumer fireworks within the building and be accompanied by the material safety data sheets. Applications must be made a minimum of ten (10) days prior to operating. Any permit granted hereunder shall be nontransferable. 5-5-6: LICENSE PERIOD AND PERMIT FEE Licenses shall be issued for a calendar year. Permit fees shall not be prorated. The fee for the permit shall be that as provided in the current city fee schedule. 5-5-7: REVOCATION OF LICENSE Following written notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the Fire Marshal may revoke a license for violation of this chapter or state law concerning the sale, use, or possession of fireworks. If a license is revoked, neither the applicant nor the licensed premises may obtain a license for twelve (12) months. If the Fire Marshal revokes a license, the license holder may within ten (10) days appeal the decision to the City Council. 5-5-8: TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMIT A permit for manufacturing, storage, or retail sale of consumer fireworks shall be issued only upon the following terms and conditions: (A) All fireworks sales facilities or stores selling fireworks shall comply with NFPA 1124 (2003 ed.). (B) Transient sales of consumer fireworks shall comply with the City Code of the City of Farmington. (C) Smoking shall be prohibited within fifty (50) feet in which fireworks are manufactured, stored or sold. (D) The discharge of consumer fireworks shall be prohibited within three hundred feet (300') of any building in which fireworks are manufactured, stored or sold. (E) A representative sample of all fireworks to be sold shall be furnished to the Fire Marshal for inspection to insure compliance with State law. 5-5-9: DISCHARGE RULES AND REGULATIONS (A) It is unlawful to use, fire, or discharge consumer fireworks along the route of and during any parade or at any place of public assembly or in any business zoning district. (B) It is unlawful at any time to throw or toss consumer fireworks at any person, animal, vehicle or other thing or object. (C) Smoking shall be prohibited within fifty (50) feet in which fireworks are manufactured, stored or sold. (D) The discharge of consumer fireworks shall be prohibited within three hundred feet (300') of any building in which fireworks are manufactured, stored or sold. (E) Consumer fireworks may only be discharged in an area with a water source connected to a hose or other acceptable means of putting out a fire. (F) The Fire Chief may ban fireworks displays and the use of consumer fireworks if a drought is evident. (G) Juveniles may not possess consumer fireworks unless under the direct supervision of a responsible adult. 5-5-10: PUBLIC DISPLAY The public display of fireworks shall require a permit issued by the Fire Marshal in accordance with Minnesota statutes section 624.22. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this Farmington. day of , 2003, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: By: City Administrator SEAL By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2003. RESOLUTION No. R -03 2003 FEE SCHEDULE ADDITION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting ofthe City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 7th day of July, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City requires a permit prior to manufacturing, storing, or selling fireworks within the City of Farmington; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshal will review all permit applications to determine whether the conditions required in the ordinance have been satisfied; and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to include an annual fee of $100 for establishments with mixed sales and $350 for stand-alone fireworks establishments in the 2003 Fee Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby adds the following fees to the 2003 Fee Schedule: Establishments with Mixed Sales (fireworks sales as an accessory item) $100 Establishments that sell fireworks only - $350 This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of July, 2003. Mayor Attested to the day of ,2003. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /OJ TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ~ . Co., ~v FROM: John Powers, Fire Marshal Ken Lewis, Building Official SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code DATE: July 7, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City Council adopted the Minnesota State Building Code on April 21, 2003. Optional Chapter 1306 was NOT included and therefore is not currently part of the Farmington City Code. The City Council conducted a special work session on June 2, 2003 to further discuss Chapter 1306. Since the work session, staff contacted the Chamber of Commerce to solicit opinions from the business community regarding Chapter 1306. As of the writing of this report, the Chamber has not received any comments from its members. DISCUSSION The Building Code, which is applicable statewide, is updated periodically with advances in materials, techniques, research, and knowledge. A new Minnesota State Building Code (International Building Code with State amendments) became effective March 31, 2003. Once adopted by the State, individual municipalities are required to adopt the Code. The City of Farmington adopted the Code on April 21, 2003. The Minnesota State Building Code also offers several optional chapters that may be adopted by individual municipalities, including Chapter 1306, which requires certain fire suppression systems for specific building types. The City of Farmington discussed the adoption of 1306, but did not include the Chapter with the adoption of the Building Code on April 21, 2003. Some advantages of adopting 1306 are as follows: . Reduces property losses caused by fire. . Defers or delays the need for a full time Fire Department as the City continually grows. . Reduces the potential for loss of life or injury to building occupants and Fire Department personnel. . Reduces fire insurance premiums for the building owner. . Reduces the overall cost of fire protection. Background Prior to 1999, the Farmington City Code included Chapter 1306. The City Council reviewed Chapter 1306 in 1999 and chose to repeal the chapter. According to minutes of the meeting, the main opposition was due to the requirement to sprinkle existing buildings. It was determined that the extra cost of this requirement would be too great for current building owners. Changes have been made to Chapter 1306 in conjunction with the recent adoption of the International Building Code. The current version of 1306 provides options for municipalities to determine what level of fire protection is appropriate. As described below, the City now has the option of requiring fire suppression systems for a narrower range of situations than before. Another option described below allows the City to determine the threshold that would regulate what type and size of group occupancy buildings would require a fire suppression system. According to Chapter 1306.0020, Subpart 1, if Chapter 1306 is adopted, one of the following subparts must also be adopted: Subpart 2 requires fire suppression systems for new buildings and existing buildings that fall into certain building categories as outlined in the attached Chapter 1306.0030. City Staff is NOT recommending this option. Subpart 3 requires fire suppression systems for new buildings, additions to existing buildings, and buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed. The requirements in Subpart 3 would only apply to commercial buildings as outlined in the attached Chapter 1306.0030. City Staffis recommending this option. Another option provided in the Chapter is in Section 1306.0030 (E). According to this Section, if Chapter 1306 is adopted, a municipality must also choose one of the following options to determine fire suppression requirements for certain occupancy groups: 1. Group R-I and R-2 occupancies with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area or dwelling units or guestrooms on three or more floors; and attached R-3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to the International Residential Code with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area. All floors, basements, and garages are included in this floor area threshold. City Staff is NOT recommending this option. 2. Attached R-3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to the International Residential Code with more than 16 dwelling units or more than three stories in height. City Staff is recommending this option. Staff is recommending the minimum requirements allowed in this chapter to increase safety while not becoming overly burdensome to property owners. The sprinkler system requirements of this chapter would become part of the adopted Building Code and would be applicable throughout the City. ACTION REQUESTED Consider adoption of Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code with the recommended options. K/~ Ken Lewis Building Official Attachment: 1. Chapter 1306 2. Ordinance adopting Chapter 1306 Chapter 1306 1306.0010 GENERAL. This chapter authorizes optional provisions for the installation of on-premises fire suppression systems that may be adopted by a municipality in addition to the State Building Code. If the municipality adopts them, the sprinkler system requirements of this chapter become part of the State Building Code and are applicable throughout the municipality. This chapter, if adopted, must be adopted without amendment. 1306.0020 MUNICIPAL OPTION. Subpart 1. Requirement. The sprinkler system requirements of this chapter, if adopted, must be adopted with the selection of either subpart 2 or 3, without amendment. Subp. 2. Existing and new buildings. Automatic sprinkler systems for new buildings, buildings increased in total floor area (including the existing building), or buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed, must be installed and maintained in operational condition within the structure. The requirements of this subpart apply to structures that fall 'Nithin the occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to E. Excepti9ns: 1. The floor area of minor additions that do not increase the occupant load does not have to be figured into the square footage for occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to E. 2. The existing portion of R 2 apartment occupancies, attached R 3 occupancies, and attached town homes is not required to be sprinl<lered under this chapter. Subp. 3. New buHdings. Automatic sprinkler systems for new buildings, additions to existing buildings, or buildings in which the occupancy classification has changed must be installed and maintained in operational condition within the structure. The requirements of this subpart apply to structures that fall within the occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to E. Exception: The floor area of minor additions that do not increase the occupant load does not have to be figured into the square footage for occupancy classifications established in part 1306.0030, items A to E. 1306.0030 REQUIREMENTS. For purposes of this chapter, area separation, fire barriers, or fire walls do not establish separate buildings. Gross square footage (gsf) means the floor area as defined in the International Building Code. The floor area requirements established in items A to E are based on the gross square footage of the entire building and establish thresholds for these requirements. The following occupancy groups must comply with sprinkler requirements of this chapter, unless specified otherwise: A. Group A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 occupancies; B. Group B, F, M, and S occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area or with three or more stories in height; C. Group E occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area or with two or more stories in height; D. Group E day care occupancies with an occupant load of 30 or more; E. Optional occupancy group-municipality may choose option 1 or option 2. 1. Group R 1 and R 2 occupancies with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area or d't.'elling units or guestrooms on three or more floors; and attached R 3 occupancies and attached tovmhouses built to the International Residential Code with 8,500 or more gross square feet of floor area. All floors, basements, and garages are included in this floor area threshold. 2. Attached R-3 occupancies and attached townhouses built to the International Residential Code with more than 16 dwelling units or more than three stories in height. 1306.0040 STANDARD. Automatic sprinkler systems must comply with the applicable standard referenced in the State Building Code. If a public water supply is not available, the building official and fire chief shall approve the use of an alternate on-site source of water if the alternate source provides protection that is comparable to that provided by a public water supply. If an adequate alternate water supply sufficient for hose stream requirements is provided or available, the building official and fire chief may permit the water supply requirements for the hose stream demands to be modified. 1306.0050 SUBSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION. The installation of an automatic sprinkler system, as required by this chapter, would still allow the substitution of one-hour fire-resistive construction as permitted by the International Building Code, Table 601, footnote d. 1306.0060 EXEMPTION. The building official, with the concurrence of the fire official, may waive the requirements of this chapter if the application of water has been demonstrated to constitute a serious life, fire, or environmental hazard, or if the building does not have an adequate water supply and the building is surrounded by public ways or yards more than 60 feet wide on all sides. 1306.0070 REPORTING. A municipality must submit a copy of the ordinance adopting this chapter to the Department of Administration, Building Codes and Standards Division, within 15 days of its adoption. CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING OPTIONAL CHAPTER 1306 OF THE STATE BUILDING CODE. THE CITY COUNCrr. OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 4, Chapter 1 ofthe Farmington City Code is amended to add the following: 4-1-2 Adoption of Optional Provisions. The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16B. 59 to 16B. 75 allows the Municipality to adopt by reference and enforce certain optional chapters of the most current edition of the Minnesota State Building Code. The following optional provision identified in the most current edition ofthe State Building Code is hereby adopted and incorporated as part of the building code for the City of Farmington. (A) Chapter 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems. Including the following options: 1. Subp. 3. - New buildings. 2. 1306.0030 (E)2 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of ,2003, by the City Council ofthe City of Farmington. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: By: Ed Shukle, City Administrator SEAL By: City Attomey Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2003. loh City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us FROM: Mayor, Council Members, !t1;)C- City Administrator~ .. c.. Lee Smick, AICP City Planner TO: SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance Zoning Code Text Amendments for Camping; GarageN ard Sales; Setbacks along Minor Arterials; and Zoning Officer Designation DATE: July 7,2003 INTRODUCTION The City of Farmington adopted a new Zoning Code in May of2002 that included many changes from the previous Code. During the review process, however, some provisions were inadvertently omitted from the new Code. The current Zoning Code should be amended to include those provisions. Each text amendment is detailed below and a separate approval action will be required for each. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the following Zoning Code revisions on June 10, 2003. A. CAMPING City staff reviewed the previous ordinance and recommended the reinstatement of the previous camping provisions in the new Code with a minor change allowing the connection of city water to the recreational vehicle. The City could allow the connection of water to a recreational vehicle. The camping provision would be located in Section 10-6-25. The following was the code as it existed before it was removed. CAMPING: No person shall be allowed to camp overnight in a recreational vehicle for three (3) consecutive nights without first obtaining a permit from the Zoning Administrator. Such vehicles will not be permitted to connect to the City sanitary sewer or water system. (Ord. 086- 183,9-15-1986) The amended text language is stated as follows: 10-6-25: CAMPING: No person shall be allowed to camp overnight in a recreational vehicle '>. without first obtaining a permit from the Zoning Officer. A permit shall allow for no more than three consecutive nights of overnight camping within a residential or agricultural district only. Such vehicles will not be permitted to connect to the City sanitary sewer, but may connect to city water. B. GARAGENARDSALES Provisions regulating garage and yard sales would be included in Section 10-6-26. The text remains the same as in the previous code: 10-6-26: GARAGE/YARD SALES: Unless otherwise regulated, garage and yard sales within residential districts shall be limited to no more than 3 garage or yard sales per year, lasting no more than 3 consecutive days. C. MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACKS ADJACENT TO MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS The following provision would be included in Section 10-4-1 (L). The text requires that there be a minimum front yard setback adjacent to minor arterial streets such as CSAH 50, Pilot Knob Road, 195th Street, and Trunk Highway 3 except in the downtown area of the City in Section 31. The text language remains the same as it existed in the previous Code. 10-4-1 (L): The minimum front yard setback for all districts adjacent to minor arterial streets included in the Thoroughfare Plan of the Farmington Comprehensive Plan, except for those located in Section 31, Range 19, Township 114, Dakota County, Minnesota, shall be fifty feet (50') from the planned right-of-way line. D. ZONING OFFICER The proposed text amendment exists in the current code under Section 10-3-1. Due to recent title changes for some employees, the planning coordinator position no longer exists. The following provision should be amended to reference "City Planner" rather than planning coordinator. The new Code will read: 10-3-1: ZONING OFFICER: The city planner, designated by the city council as the zoning officer shall: Section 1-7-3 (K) will be deleted from the City Code. This section currently reads as follows: 10-7-3 (K): The city administrator shall act as zoning officer pursuant to section 10-8-1 of this City Code. ACTION REQUESTED Consider an ordinance amendment to the City Code in separate motions as follows: a) Amend Section 10-6-25: Camping b) Amend Section 10-6-26: GarageN ard Sales c) Amend Section 10-4-1 (L): Minimum Front Yard Setback Adjacent to Minor Arterial Streets d) Amend Section 10-3-1: Zoning Officer and delete Section 1-7-3 (K) ;;;~~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 6 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING RECREATIONAL CAMPING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 10, Chapter 6 of the Farmington City Code is amended to add a new section 25 to read as follows: 10-6-25: CAMPING:No person shall be allowed to camp overnight in a recreational vehicle without first obtaining a permit from the Zoning Officer. A permit shall allow for no more than three consecutive nights of overnight camping within a residential or agricultural district only. Such vehicles will not be permitted to connect to the City sanitary sewer, but may connect to city water. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of Farmington. , 2003, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: By: City Administrator SEAL By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2003. 106840 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 6 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING GARAGE/Y ARD SALES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title la, Chapter 6 of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding a new section 26 to read as follows: 10-6-26: GARAGE/YARD SALES: (A) Merchandise offered for sale shall be the personal property of the occupant unless approved by the Zoning Administrator. (B) Unless otherwise regulated, garage and yard sales within residential districts shall be limited to no more than 3 garage or yard sales per year, lasting no more than 3 consecutive days each. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of Farmington. , 2003, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: By: City Administrator SEAL 106841 By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2003. 106841 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 4 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACKS ADJACENT TO MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10-4-1 of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding a new subsection L to read as follows: (L) The minimum front yard setback for all districts adjacent to minor arterial streets included in the Thoroughfare Plan of the Farmington Comprehensive Plan, except for those located in Section 31, Range 19, Township 114, Dakota County, Minnesota, shall be fifty feet (50') from the planned right-of-way line. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this Fannington. dav of . 2003. by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON Bv: Gerald Ristow. Mayor ATTEST: By: City Administrator SEAL Bv: 106842 City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2003. 106842 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 7 AND TITLE 10 CHAPTER 4 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING THE ZONING OFFICER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 1-7 -3(K) of the Farmington City Code is hereby deleted. SECTION 2. Section 10-3-1 of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding the following definition: ZONING OFFICER or ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: The person designated by the city administrator to be the zoning administrator for the city of Farmington. SECTION 3. Section 10-3-1 of the Farmington City Code is to read as follows The city planner, designated by the city council as the zoning officer shall: (A) Administer and enforce the provisions of this title. (B) Upon application, establish and advertise public hearings. (C) Maintain a permanent file of all applications as public record. (D) Maintain an updated zoning map. 106847 SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of Farmington. , 2003, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: By: City Administrator SEAL By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2003. 106847