The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06.16.03 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 promising future. AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 16, 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) Introduce New Employee - Parks and Recreation (Solid Waste Operator) b) Introduce New Employee - Community Development 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments) a) Ms. Karl Wilson-Smith and Ms. Carmen Fox 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (6/2/03 Regular) (6/2/03 and 6/4/03 Special) b) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approve CLG Grant for Study of Historic Rural Properties - Administration d) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Premises Permit American Legion - Administration e) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Event Permit Senior Class Parents- Administration f) Adopt Resolution - Mutual Aid Fire Services Agreement - Fire Department g) Approve No Parking Zone - Charleswood - Engineering h) Adopt Revised Agreement Dakota County Fair Board - Finance i) 2003 Curbside Cleanup Summary - Parks and Recreation j) Approve 2004 ALF Ambulance Budget - Administration k) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - 19Sth Street Project Assessment - Engineering b) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - Approved Building Materials Industrial Park - Community Development 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT Action Taken Introduced Introduced Information Received Approved Information Received Approved R37-03 R38-03 R39-03 Approved Adopted Information Received Approved Approved R40-03 Appeal Denied 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Soil Testing Results - 3rd and Spruce Street - Community Development b) Vermillion River Presentation - Mr. Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water District - Engineering c) May 2003 Financial Report - Finance d) Consider Reconvening of MUS A Review Committee - Community Development e) Adopt Resolution - Final Plat Meadow Creek 3rd Addition - Community Development f) Adopt Resolution - Preliminary and Final Plat Lot 1, Industrial Park 2nd Addition - Community Development g) Adopt Ordinance - Parkland and Trail Dedication Requirements - Parks and Recreation h) Schedule Joint City Council/Planning Commission/Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Meeting - Community Development 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Labor Negotiations 15. ADJOURN Information Received Information Received Information Received Approved R41-03 Continued to July 7, 2003 Ord 003-490 July 16, 2003 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 June 16,2003 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) Introduce New Employee - Parks and Recreation (Solid Waste Operator) b) Introduce New Employee - Community Development 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments) a) Ms. Kari Wilson-Smith and Ms. Carmen Fox 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (6/2103 Regular) (6/2/03 and 6/4/03 Special) b) Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Parks and Recreation c) Approve CLG Grant for Study of Historic Rural Properties - Administration d) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Premises Permit American Legion - Administration e) Adopt Resolution - Approve Gambling Event Permit Senior Class Parents- Administration f) Adopt Resolution - Mutual Aid Fire Services Agreement - Fire Department g) Approve No Parking Zone - Charleswood - Engineering h) Adopt Revised Agreement Dakota County Fair Board - Finance i) 2003 Curbside Cleanup Summary - Parks and Recreation j) Approve 2004 ALF Ambulance Budget - Administration k) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - 19Sth Street Project Assessment - Engineering b) Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - Approved Building Materials Industrial Park - Community Development 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT Action Taken Pages 933-941 Pages 942-968 Pages 970-971 Pages 972-978 Pages 980-981 Pages 982-983 Pages 984-989 Pages 990-992 Pages 993-996 Pages 997-1000 Pages 1001-1027 Pages 1028-1054 Pages 1055-1058 Pages 1059-1113 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Soil Testing Results - 3rd and Spruce Street - Community Development b) Vermillion River Presentation - Mr. Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water District - Engineering c) May 2003 Financial Report - Finance d) Consider Reconvening of MUS A Review Committee - Community Development e) Adopt Resolution - Final Plat Meadow Creek 3rd Addition - Community Development f) Adopt Resolution - Preliminary and Final Plat Lot 1, Industrial Park 2nd Addition - Community Development g) Adopt Ordinance - Parkland and Trail Dedication Requirements - Parks and Recreation 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION -Labor Negotiations 15. ADJOURN Pages 1114-1116 Page 1117 Pages 1118-1119 Pages 1120-1143 Pages 1144-1147 Pages 1148-1151 Pages 1152-1164 June 16,2003 Dear Mayor and Farmington City Council Members: I am a motber of three children and I would like you to know how I feel about daycare in the Farmington Industrial Park from an industrial park employee's perspective, and from a former daycare worker's perspective. I can't think of a better place for a daycare center. I have no concerns about safety. In fact, the proposed site is just as safe than many other places in which daycares are located, such as directly off a busy highway or in busy strip malls with lots of traffic and strangers in a hurry coming and going all the time. In the industrial park it is reasonably quiet and there will be lots of fenced-in. green space for play areas. It's a great almost park-like environment. Plus, it would be extremely convenient and beneficial to have some place close by work to take my children and not ha"e to worry about racing somewhere to pick them up and drop them off. And, just knowing that they are so close by makes the day go much better for me and, therefore, my employer. It is also important to be able to bring my children to a daycare that looks friendly and inviting such as that which is proposed by Just Kidding Around. A daycare's environment and welcoming feel is very important. Having been a daycare director previously, I know how important it is to have a quality daycare environment to work in and how important it is to the community to be able to attract quality teachers and assistants. By having a great new building, such as that proposed by Just Kidding Around, they will be able to attract quality teachers who can provide the great care that I as a parent and working motber desire and deserve for my children, here, close to work. Just Kidding Around seems to have done a good job in meeting everyone's needs and anyone would feel good about taking their children to Just Kidding Around or working in a building such as is proposed by Jan or even being her business neighbor. It's sure to be a valuable asset to the Industrial Park as well as the Farmington community. Sincerely, {JodI h J.. ~ L. - {/O cf /.....J"""UA'"oa,rj/l lody Schumann Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. .3415 UNIVERSITY AVENUE. SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55114 651-642-4200 FAX 651-642-410.3 STANLEY S. HUBBARD Chairman and Chief Executive Officer June 13, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: Jan Karrmann has worked very closely with me for 9 years. During all that time I have observed that she is diligent, very smart, hardworking and honest. In addition, and very important, is the fact that based on my experience, Jan is a person who has the dedication and the stick- to-itiveness to see a project through to a successful conclusion. She will work day and night and do whatever it takes, as long as what it takes is honest and above board, to make her project successful. I am happy to give Jan my heartiest endorsement. Sincerely, ~"S.~ Stanley S. Hubbard cle City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463..7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers . 1 FROM: Ed Shukle, City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: June 16,2003 It is requested that the June 16,2003 agenda be amended as follows: CONSENT AGENDA Replace 7 (k) Approve Bills - Finance The list of bills included in the Council packets was from a previous week. Attached is a . current listing. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Add 10 (h) Scheduling of Joint City Council/Planning Commission/Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Meeting- Community Development Attached is a revised Master Plan Timetable for the Spruce Street Corridor Area planning process. Staffwould like to schedule a Joint City Council/Planning Commission/Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force meeting for 7:00 p.m. on July 16, 2003 at City Hall. Respectfully submitted, e dministrator IO~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator q~ . FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Scheduling of Joint City Council/Planning Commission / Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Meeting DATE: June 16,2003 DISCUSSION The initial timetable that was adopted for the Spruce Street Corridor Area planning process provided for a joint meeting of the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force when a draft of a proposed Master Plan was ready to be reviewed. The date that was selected several months ago for this joint meeting was June 25th. At this point, it does not appear that the draft will be 100% complete by that date, so the City's consultant has suggested slightly modifying the deadlines for three of the identified "tasks" in order to keep the overall project on schedule. I have attached a copy of a revised timetable, which proposes a joint meeting on Wednesdav. Julv 16th. Staffwould like to verify the Council's availability on the proposed date and determine the Council's willingness to start the meeting at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to (a) approve the revised Master Plan Timetable (attached) and (b) schedule a joint City Council/Planning Commission / Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force meeting for 7:00 p.m. on July 16, 2003 at City Hall. (. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OPPORTUNITY GRANT MASTER PLAN TIMETABLE 2 3 4 5 6 7A :-;' A rove Contract with Hoisin on Koe ler Grou Initial Meeting With Property Owners and Task Force Kick-Off Meetin Assemble Base Information Document Existin Conditions/Tour Site Initiate Market Anal sis Conduct 2n Meetin With Pro ert Owners Conduct W orksho # 1 Conduct On-Site Planning Charrette - Information Session - 11 :00 a.m. - 2:00 .m. (Da 1 of 3) Conduct On-Site Planning Charrette 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (Da 20f3) Conduct Worksho #2 - 9:00 a.m. - Noon (Da 30f3) Review Concepts With City Council/Planning Commission Develo the Preferred Alternative as the Master Plan Assess the Financial Feasibilit ofthe Master Plan Cit Council/Plannin Commission Review of Master Plan Conduct Workshop #3 - Neighborhood Review 7B 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Deliver Final R ort Public Hearing (at Planning Commission) on proposed Master Plan Cit Council Review/Ado tion of Master Plan Public Hearing (at Planning Commission) on proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments and Zoning CodelMa revisions City Council Review/Adoption of proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments and Zoning CodelMa revisions Cit Council lifts Moratorium 16 17 18 19 April 25 (City Hall) Au st 18, 2003 September 9,2003 September 15, 2003 October 6, 2003 [Revised 6/23/03] t,CL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminJrton.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator { ~ FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Response to Citizen Comments -- Ms. Carrie Wilson-Smith and Ms. Carmen Fox DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION During the "Citizen Comments" portion of the June 2nd City Council meeting, Ms. Carrie Wilson-Smith (19879 Emperor Court) and Ms. Carmen Fox (19810 Emperor Court) commented on the presence of a model home (19872 Emperor Court) in their cul-de-sac. DISCUSSION Ms. Wilson-Smith and Ms. Fox [hereinafter "the residents"] both indicated at the June 2nd Council meeting that a vacant home in their cul-de-sac was designated as a Brandl Anderson model home sometime during the week of May 28th. The residents expressed concerns regarding the additional traffic that will presumably result within their cul-de-sac due to the presence of the model home. The residents suggested that an ordinance be adopted in order to regulate model homes, and/or that Brandl Anderson be required to sell the model home before the next Parade of Homes. With regard to the latter suggestion, City staff members believe that the City does not have the legal authority to unilaterally require a property owner to sell hislher/its property within a specified period of time or by a specified deadline. We will check with the City Attorney on this point, and if he believes otherwise, he will be prepared to indicate that fact at Monday night's meeting. With regard to the suggestion that an ordinance be adopted to regulate model homes, City staff members have contacted other cities to see whether they have such provisions in their respective city codes. The City of Maple Grove has had a model home section in its city code since at least 1984 (see attached). The City of Lakeville has had a model home section in its city code since at least 2000 (see attached). Both of these cities have code provisions that specifically address most of the concerns that have been expressed by the residents of Emperor Court in Farmington. For example, Maple Grove and Lakeville have both adopted virtually identical language that provides that "...access [to/from a model home or temporary parking facilities related thereto] shall be directed away from.. .residential neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible." Both cities also recognize model homes as "a unique temporary commercial use," and indicate that "special consideration must be given to the peculiar problems associated with them and special standards must be applied to ensure reasonable compatibility with their. . . environment." City staff members have concluded that there is considerable merit to the residents' suggestion that the City of Farmington consider adopting an ordinance to regulate model homes, primarily to minimize disruptions to existing and developing neighborhoods. At the same time, we recognize that commercial developers and builders are integral components of Farmington's past and future growth, and that they should be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon any proposed ordinance that would affect the procedures that they have traditionally used to market their products. Accordingly, we recommend that the City Council authorize City staffto: I. Prepare a draft of a new ordinance regulating model homes. 2. Take the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and comment. 3. Disseminate the draft ordinance to all developers/builders who are currently constructing homes in the City of Farmington. 4. Present the draft ordinance to the City Council for review and possible adoption after it has been considered by the Planning Commission and the "development community." The preceding recommendation is, admittedly, a potential long-term solution to what Emperor Court residents probably consider a current, short-term problem (for them). City staff members have made efforts to contact Brandl Anderson Homes to clarify that company's intentions regarding the Emperor Court model home. Brett Stitch, a Brandl Anderson construction site supervisor, has advised City staff that his company i s "running 0 ut 0 fh omes to se 11" in Farmington, and that a s a result, he does not anticipate that the Emperor Court model home will continue to be needed for an extended period of time. Judy Kincaid, Marketing and Sales Supervisor for Brandl Anderson Homes, was not immediately available when we attempted to contact her to get more precise information. A secretary at Brandl Anderson's corporate office advised us on June 1th that the hours of operation for the Emperor Court model home are as follows: Monday thru Thursday, 12-7; Friday, 12-5; Saturday, 9-5; and Sunday, 12- 5. She said that she doesn't think that this model home will be in the Fall 2003 Parade of Homes. We will continue our efforts to get more information about the company's plans for the model home, and we'll provide any newly acquired information to the Council and the residents at Monday night's meeting. ACTION REQUESTED Authorization to proceed with the four actions specified in the first full paragraph at the top of this page. Re ~ub ltt~", '" ~ () evin Carroll W"v~ Community Development Director cc: Ms. Carrie Wilson-Smith Ms. Carmen Fox Brandl Anderson Homes 2 June 2, 2003 To the City Council of Fannington: My name is Carrie Wilson-Smith, and I currently live at 19879 Emperor Court in Fannington. I reside with my husband, Mike, and our two children, ages 6 and 10. I respectfully request the council consider putting in place a requirement that all builders be required to apply and receive a permit to place a model home in Farmington. Please let me take a moment to express why this request is being placed in front of the council tonight. Last week, almost directly across the street, Brandl Anderson placed a model in our court. No notice was given, and due to this not being a thru street, this raised many questions, especially regarding traffic flow. Eighty-two percent of the homes in the court are completed. In fact, the only lots left undeveloped belong to BrandlAnderson. Most model homes are placed on streets which are accessible from both directions. After seeing this model open, I searched the City of Fannington for models on cul-des-acs. I could not find any. I found several which were on thru streets but none on a cul-des-ac. In fact, the Brandl model , was in a grouping of models on 1981b Street which attached to our court until they moved into our court. Several people in our court have expressed a concern regarding traffic flow, especially when the Parade of Homes is being held. We have 8 children in our court, and because most of us lack yards and driveways at this time, they tend to be in the court playing (the actual turnaround area). On Sat,l,lrday, May 31, 9 people stopped at the model. This did not count the numerous cars which drove through the court just to look at the home. In addition, this model, unlike Donnay, Chase, C&M, Middelstat and Windwood models, is open ev~ry day, not just on weekends or an extended weekend. As a homeowner of a previous home in Fannington on a very busy street, my husband chose our next home on a cul-de-sac for a reason. We wanted to be away from traffic flow and speeding traffic. My concern is that with the addition of this model, it is going to become just what we moved away from. When you pay in excess of $90,000 for your lot, you try to choose the location very carefully. .It just appears that asa homeowner, I was not gi ven any choice with regard to the placement of this model in my neighborhood. Last, I know that probably nothing can prevent the current situation from changing, but maybe it can prevent the same:concerns in other future homeowners in Farmington. Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concern. Sincerely, Carrie Wilson-Smith Mikel Smith 19879 Emperor Court Fannington, Minnesota 55024 651-460-2887 NextPage LivePublish 6/e 6~~ Page 1 of 1 Sec. 36-14. Model homes. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for the erection of model homes in new subdivisions without adversely affecting the character of surrounding residential neighborhoods or creating a general nuisance. As model homes represent a unique temporary commercial use, special consideration must be given to the peculiar problems associated with them and special standards must be applied to ensure reasonable compatibility with their surrounding environment. (b) Special requirements. (1) Temporary parking facilities equal to four spaces per model home dwelling unit shall~be provided. The overall design, drainage, and surfacing of the temporary parking facility shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. (2) Access from a temporary parking facility onto a local residential street shall be discouraged. Where 1 this requirement is physically impracticable, access shall be directed away from residential neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible., (3) No model home shall incorporate outside lighting which creates a nuisance due to glare or intensity, as provided for in section 36-819. (4) All model home signage shall comply with the sign regulations as contained in chapter 24. (Code 1984, 9 375:45) Sees. 36-15--36-40. Reserved. http://livepublish.municode.com/27 /lpext.dll/Info base 79/1 /228f/23 8c/256c?f=templates&fn... 6/9/2003 11-27-1: PURPOSE: ~~~--f;g~-rof-1 ?- +14-~1 /, '- e 11-27-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for the erecti.on of~model homes, which may include temporary real estate offices~ in new subdivisions without adversely affecting the character of surrounding residential neighborhoods or creating a general nuisance. As model homes _ repr~sent a unique temporary commercial u~e, special consideration must be given to the peculiar problems associated with them and special standards must be applied to ensure reasonable compatibility with their environment. (Ord. 674, sec. 1,7-17-2000) http://66.113.195.234/MN/L~U017000000001000.htm 6/9/2003 11-27-3: QUALIFICATION: Page 1 of 1 11-27-3: QUALIFICATION: To qualify for a building permit for a model home, which may include a temporary real estate office, the following shall be required: A. Upon receipt of final plat approval and recording, one b.uilding permit per subdivision may be granted. No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the infrastructure ... improvements including the first lift of asphalt have been completed and approved by the~ City.' B. Upon completion Of infrastructure improvements including the first lift of asphalt within the respective final plat subdivision, additional building permits may be issued for model homes and/or t~mporary real estate offices, provided that the number of model homes and/or .. temporary real estate offices shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the lots within the final ~ plat. (Ord. 674, sec. 1,7-17-2000) r~--:--------' http://66.113.195.234/MN~vilJel.k7027000000002000.htm 6/9/2003 U-27-5: PROCEDURE: Page 1 of 1 11-27-5: PROCEDURE: The erection of a model home(s) within all residential districts, which may include a temporary real estate office(s), shall require an administrative permit, as may be issued by the Zoning - Administrator. (Ord. 674, sec. 1,7-17-2000) ~ http://66.113.195.234/MN/~~e/17027000000003000.htm 6/9/2003 11-27-7: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: Page I of I 11-27-7: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: A. Model homes and model homes with temporary real estate offices shall be ~lIowed.in all residential zoning districts in-which they are located and shall be utilized solely for selling purposes of lots and/or homes within the subdivision in which it is located. B. Temporary parking facilities equal to four (4) paved spaces per model home dwelling unit or a model home with a temporary real estate office shall be provided. The overall design, drainage, and surfacing of the temporary parking facility shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. C. Access from a temporary parking facility shall be directed away from developed and... occupied residential neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible. D. No model home or model home with a temporary real estate office shall incorporate outside lighting which creates a nuisance due to glare or intensity, as provided for in Section~1-16- l"Lof this Title. E. All signage shall comply with the sign regulations as contained in ChaRter 23 of this Title for the zoning district in which the model home and/or temporary real estate office is located. F. The administrative permit shall terminate three (3) years from its date of issuance or when - eighty five percent (85%) of the develoP01ent is completed, whichever comes first, unless - extended by the Zoning Administrator. - G. No residential certificate of occupancy shall be issued for a model home or model home with a temporary real estate office until such time as the structure has been fully converted to a residence in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Additionally, such conversion · shall include, but not be limited to, parking lot restoration and the removal of signage and lighting. H. The restoration of all temporary parking areas with appropriate landscaping shall be completed by the end of the following growing season. (Ord. 674, sec. 1,7-17-2000) ~~ http://66.113.195.234/~1lIen7027000000004000.htm 6/9/2003 . U-27-9: RESTRICTED USE: Page 1 of I 11-27 -9: RESTRICTED USE: Model homes and model homes with temporary real estate offices shall be used solely for the display and sale of home fixtures and products, and real estate for the subdivision in which they are located unless approved by the Zoning Administrator through an administrative permit. (Ord. 674, sec. 1,7-17-2000) - -~~'" http://66.113.195.234/M~yille!11027000000005000.htm 6/9/2003 ~ COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR June 2, 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 J amnik, City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public W orkslCity Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Steve Wischman, Jeff Krueger, Carrie Wilson-Smith, Carmen Fox Jan Karrmann, Larry White, Steve Fenlon, Aaron Tinklenberg, Michelle Leonard 4. APPROVE AGENDA Mayor Ristow pulled the May 19,2003 Special Minutes. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Carrie Wilson-Smith, 19879 Emperor Court, asked Council to consider developing an ordinance where model homes would require a permit to be placed in developments. Her reason for this request is last week, 19872 Emperor Court was designated as a model home. They live in a cul-de-sac, so traffic has to go in and out. Most model homes are placed on a through street, where traffic does not have to turn around at the end of the cul-de-sac. There are eight children in the development, and the development is 82% complete. Why place a model home in a development that is almost complete? Because they sold the other model home and wanted to sell this home. On Saturday there were nine people that stopped at the model, with numerous cars driving through the cul-de-sac. During the Parade of Homes they are concerned traffic will become a huge issue. Right now, they do not have lawn so the cul-de-sac is the only place for the children to play. She moved from 180th Street, because ofthe traffic. They chose this lot mainly because Council Minutes (Regular) June 2, 2003 Page 2 they did not want to be on a through street. She feels this needs to be regulated more by the Councilor the building committee. When you pay $90,000 for your lot, and with the house the cost is over $300,000, it is disconcerting to see a lot of traffic and not be able to park in front of your home because there are too many people visiting the model. The model is open every day ofthe week. Most models are open Friday - Sunday. She would like to see more regulations where they place model homes. Most models are placed in a cluster. Brandl Anderson moved out ofthe cluster on 198th Street, and into the cul-de- sac. The builder's last model was open for 1 1/2 years. She does not want them there for 1 1/2 years. Ifnothing can be done now, she would like to see this regulated in the future. She asked if there was currently any ordinance for placement of model homes? Staff did not recall seeing anything in the code specifying placement of model homes, but staff will research the issue. Ms. Jan Karrmann, 18614 Egret Way, she spoke regarding Just Kidding Around Daycare and the industrial park and to respond to comments made at the May 19,2003 Council Meeting. Owning your own business is not easy. She has discovered a need in Farmington for daycare. In the last two years there has been no daycare coming to Farmington. It would be wonderful to help the citizens of the community to find daycare that is affordable in a reasonable location. The economy is such that many families are two-income families. With the rapid rate of growth in Farmington how better to serve the community, than providing a service those families need. To be able to do it well with a reasonable cost, through a locally owned business is something everyone can be proud of. Our community is not based on one or two people or businesses who are interested in furthering their own personal agendas or grudges. It is based upon what is best for the entire city of Farmington. No one can argue that the city of Farmington definitely needs more daycare. The industrial park is an excellent location for Just Kidding Around Daycare. She is excited and enthusiastic about it. She cannot say enough good things about being part ofthe industrial park as a service to the many businesses and families of the community. As anyone would do with a business, she has considered all aspects of starting a daycare business. This is a family and business friendly community. Ms. Carmen Fox, 19810 Emperor Court, regarding the model homes, if Council cannot develop an ordinance, she would like Council to require the builder to sell the home before the Parade of Homes due to the amount of traffic during that time. a) Response to Mr. Jeff Thelen - Community Development Staff provided Council and Mr. Thelen a written response to his comments at the May 19, 2003 Council Meeting. 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7a) Approve Council Minutes 5/19/03 Special Mayor Ristow stated he pulled the special minutes of 5/19/03 due to some confusion on behalf of the City Hall Task Force. He and Councilmember Fitch met with City Hall Task Force Chair Jim Gerster, Jr. and went over some clarifications. As the minutes are not taped, there is no way to go back, so without the full context ofthem, Mayor Ristow moved to not approve and leave in the file as stated. He checked with the City Attorney Council Minutes (Regular) June 2, 2003 Page 3 who said that was fine. Councilmember Soderberg asked if there can be a meeting without approved minutes? City Attorney Jamnik stated they will be reviewed, but not labeled as approved. There is no action taken. The statute specifies that the official proceedings of the City Council have to indicate certain things. The entire text as proposed will still be there. It will be indicated that the Council reviewed them, and did not act to approve them. MOTION by Ristow, second by Fitch that the 5/19/03 Special Minutes be filed as not approved. Councilmember Soderberg stated he did not see any problem with the minutes. Councilmember Fogarty agreed with Councilmember Soderberg. Mayor Ristow stated he did not want to debate but it is just the context of some of them. The minutes were written fine, but there is some confusion. The Task Force is alive and well and it is not ended. He shared with Chair Gerster that a test on the proposed City Hall property has been ordered. If it came back negative, then it probably could have an effect on the site only. Councilmember Soderberg suggested that in order to avoid this, perhaps the workshops should at least be audio recorded so that there is something to go back to to verify until there is a written copy. City Administrator Shukle stated the microphones will not pick up from the middle of the room. Council preferred to have a different forum for workshops than Council meetings. Staff will investigate arrangement of the room to provide for recording. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch. Voting against: Fogarty, Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (5/19/03 Regular) b) Approved Dew Days Permits - CEEF Fee Waiver - Parks and Recreation c) Approved Tobacco and Beer License Transfer - Super USA - Administration d) Accepted Resignation - Heritage Preservation Commission - Administration e) Approved Mutual Aid Agreement - Police t) Accepted Donation Rambling River Center - Parks and Recreation g) Adopted Credit Card Use Policy - Finance h) Approved Hoisington, Koegler Group, Inc. Contract - Parks and Recreation i) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Solid Waste - Human Resources j) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Community Development - Human Resources k) Approved Soil Testing Request - 3rd and Spruce Street - Community Development I) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Issuance of Bonds Trinity Health Campus - Finance When Trinity Hospital closed a few years ago, U.S. Bank acquired the campus of Trinity Hospital and assisted living services. St. Francis Health Services of Morris, Inc. wants to purchase the property from U.S. Bank. St. Francis has approached the city to act as issuer of revenue obligations under state statutes. These obligations are known as conduit debt. The city acts as the issuing agent, however the city has no financial responsibility for the bonds. St. Francis would be responsible to the bond holders for the repayment ofthe bonds. The city is allowed to act as an issuer for a non-profit corporation. This is the only way a Council Minutes (Regular) June 2, 2003 Page 4 non-profit corporation can issue tax-exempt bonds. Mr. Steve Fenlon is acting as agent for St. Francis. The proceeds of $6.5 million worth of bonds will be used to purchase the campus, the facilities, and St. Francis Health Services will provide the services in those buildings. This does not impact the city's debt limit. A city can issue up to $10 million in debt in a year. That $10 million would include this conduit debt. All debt issued this year, including the Main Street bonds, would be added to the bonds issued by St. Francis and that would total less than $10 million. At this point, the city has no intention of issuing more debt this year. It is not detrimental to the city in any way. Keeping those buildings on the tax roles in the community and finding a good solution to the problem, is to the community's benefit. Mr. Steve Fenlon, discussed the bond process and the St. Francis organization. Adoption of the final resolution will be brought to Council at a later time. Mr. Fenlon stated that St. Francis has no intention of reopening the hospital. However, the skilled nursing and independent living areas will continue. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the bond issuance is based on St. Francis' ability or the city's ability? Mr. Fenlon replied 100% St. Francis. All the buyers know the city has no legal or moral obligation. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R35-03 giving preliminary approval to a project under Minnesota Statutes section 469.152 through 469.165, referring the proposal to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) for approval, approving a housing program under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C and authorizing preparation of necessary documents. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT a) Adopt Resolution - Main Street Project Phase 1 - Engineering Four bids were received for the Main Street Project Phase 1. Barbarossa & Sons Inc. submitted the low bid in the amount of$1,485,810.00. The total project budget from the feasibility report is $2,095,600. The city sold the bonds for the project on May 19, 2003. Phase 1 ofthe Main Street Reconstruction Project consists ofthe reconstruction ofthe streets and utilities along 4th Street and 5th Street north ofthe railroad tracks and Willow Street between 4th Street and 5th Street. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Soderberg to adopt RESOLUTION R36-03 accepting the total base bid of Barbarossa & Sons Inc. in the amount of $1,485,810.00 and awarding the project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) 2002 Audit Report - Finance The city finished 2002 in the black. The city added $458,371 to the general fund balance, bringing it to $2.377 million or 41.2% of2003 expenditures. The budgeted goal was between 35% to 40% of annual expenditures be in the general Council Minutes (Regular) June 2, 2003 Page 5 fund. Mr. Steve Wischman, of Kern, DeWenter, Vi ere stated the audit opinion is unqualified which is the highest they can issue. Mr. Wischman then discussed the audit process. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to accept the report. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Approve Preliminary Action Plan 2003 Strategic Planning Retreat - Administration Council and management participated in the 2003 Leadership, Planning and Team Building Retreat. The retreat was facilitated by Don Salverda. The primary objectives of the retreat were: 1. To review progress being made by the city 2. To enhance communication and develop renewed team spirit among participants 3. To discuss changes that are likely to impact the city 4. To develop consensus on issues and opportunities facing the city (1-3 year perspective) 5. To develop an updated goals program for the city (1-3 year perspective) 6. To develop preliminary action plans for the highest priority goals 7. To review the roles ofthe city's leadership team 8. To be an educational and enjoyable day Last year the city adopted a mission statement and a values statement. Council and staff developed five external goals and three internal goals and a timeline and action plan for completion. External Goals 1. To mange the city's growth to insure quality and diverse development and future transportation routes. 2. To continually work on maintaining good communication with the public. 3. To stimulate and promote increased industrial and commercial development and redevelopment. 4. To improve the city's aging infrastructure and municipal buildings. 5. To expand the city's recreational facilities and opportunities. Internal Goals 1. To insure the continuous financial stability of the city. 2. To improve internal communication and team work. 3. To continue to provide a positive work environment for employees. MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to adopt the goals as developed at the 2003 Leadership, Planning and Team Building Retreat and approve the action plans as proposed. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council Minutes (Regular) June 2, 2003 Page 6 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fitch: 1. Regarding communication with the public, he and Mayor Ristow had a meeting this week with the Chair ofthe City Hall Task Force who received several calls from the task force regarding comments made in the paper and impressions left by the press as far as what the condition of the City Hall Task Force was in. He wanted to reiterate what the Mayor said earlier. Another meeting has been scheduled for June 4, and another meeting June 16. The issue is not dead in the water as a lot of people think. The press has limited space and time to put in their information and comments. He would suggest to the public, ifthey are really interested in an item show up for the meetings and you can hear the context and what is really being said in the meetings. 2. One of the rather stranger items is that he and Councilmember Fogarty did not switch seats in this Council Chamber to signify any specific order or grouping or how we are going to stack up against each other. There are a lot of people that think that. If you have a question you can call either one of us. 3. There was another traffic problem tonight. The idea of stop signs is a wonderful thing. Let's be respectful of each other's neighborhoods, property, and children. You do not have to go 45 mph to get to Pilot Knob or Akin Road, or wherever. There is no reason for it, the time savings is not there. If you want the city to put a stop sign at every single comer to inconvenience everybody, we could certainly do that, but it is not practical. Let's be respectful of each other has human beings and our neighborhoods. Remember when you are on Pilot Knob, you are in someone's neighborhood. It is summer and school will be out and the chiefs office will be inundated with phone calls regarding driving habits. 4. The Mayor mentioned taping of future meetings. He hoped that issue was resolved. That way if someone has a question, we can refer back to them. 5. Some citizens have mentioned they were afraid to call members of the Council. In speaking for all five members, we are public servants, we are very accessible, we all have phones, our numbers are listed on the website, and all have e-mails. Any of us should be accessible to the public at any time. City Administrator Shukle: On June 4, the Budget Workshop will be held at 6:00 p.m. Following the Budget workshop, there will be another workshop to discuss the City Hall facilities. Council Minutes (Regular) June 2, 2003 Page 7 Community Development Director Carroll: Soil testing ofthe Blaha site started May 30. The soil borings and samples have been taken. A verbal report will be ready for the June 16 Council Meeting. Mayor Ristow: He received letters from students and one from a resident on 18ih Street requesting a stop sign at 18ih Street and Easton. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 8:24 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, L~'/~~~/7/?~eef'--J //-7 "Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP FIRE CODE MINUTES June 2, 2003 Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 8:35 p.m. Audience: Mayor Ristow, Councilmembers Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief; John Powers, Fire Marshal; Ken Lewis, Building Official; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant; Pat Sheehan, Chief State Fire Inspector Michelle Leonard Present: MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council adopted the state building code in April 2003. At that time, Chapter 1306 was not included. Prior to 1999 the city code contained Chapter 1306. In 1999 Council repealed that chapter. The opposition was sprinkling of existing buildings and the burden it placed on the owners of those buildings. Now there have been changes in Chapter 1306 which provide more flexibility for cities to adopt it. Mr. Pat Sheehan, State Chief Fire Inspector, gave an overview of sprinkler systems, Chapter 1306, and options staff recommended. Sprinkler systems are the oldest automatic fire suppression system. There has been an increase in technology during recent years. In Minnesota the 1306 provision goes back to the early 1980's. 1306 was a way to address fire protection concerns in rapidly developing outer ring suburbs and redeveloping inner suburbs. The intent was to reduce the thresholds of the building code that required sprinkler systems. The desire was to have sprinklers installed in newly constructed buildings and those undergoing major change in occupancy and renovation. One of the arguments of the past was that there was not enough flexibility for local communities. Over the last 4 or 5 years the 1306 committee has worked very hard to come up with options various communities can use to suit their needs. In sprinkled buildings there has never been a loss of firefighter life. Sprinkler systems have traditionally been for protecting buildings. The positive side is that in sprinkled buildings it reduces loss of life to almost nothing. Residential sprinklers are designed to save lives. 1306 has been redeveloped with all these things in mind. We need to do all we can to encourage sprinkler systems. The code gives us certain thresholds that we can require, but we want to make it feasible for facilities to want to install sprinklers, to get payback on their investment through insurance reductions. Farmington's current ISO rating is 5/9 (5-city, 9-rural). Mr. Sheehan stated 5 is a good rating for cities to have. Sprinkler systems in buildings can significantly improve that over the years. The ISO rating is based on the fire departments ability to fight fire and that affects the homeowner insurance rates along with the business rates. Mayor Ristow stated looking at the options survey, most all the cities, other than Mound which is smaller than Farmington, are triple the population, and are not adopting 1306. Why aren't similar cities adopting this? Is the survey not up to date? Fire Marshal Powers replied the survey is compiled by the Fire Marshal's Association of Minnesota. The most recent edition is Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes June 2, 2003 Page 2 from mid-February. Mr. Sheehan stated it is hard to get people to respond to surveys. Fire Marshal Powers replied Apple Valley has adopted 1306, and Rosemount has a variation of it. Mr. Sheehan stated there is a new provision in 1306 that requires that any city that adopts this within two weeks notifies the state. Mayor Ristow stated he was involved when the city adopted the Uniform Building Code and dropped 1306. We are a city that is business friendly and some ofthe change of occupancies has to be clarified more. There were certain businesses moving out because the code recommended ifthere was a slight change, they had to revise the whole building. It caused a hardship in the businesses and quite a stir in the community. He is for sprinklers, but when safety becomes involved it is in everyone's best interest, but the hardships have to be looked at. Councilmember Cordes stated she believes there was a change of occupancy in one of the units at Town's Edge and because of that change they would have been required to sprinkle the whole building. That would have been a tremendous hardship. Fire Marshal Powers stated that was in 1999 and had to do with the daycare and their expansion. Mayor Ristow stated from what he read in the information, it should not be a hardship and if the water supply was not available, the city would look at that. It was not a bad thing, but it was quite a burden. Some people were thinking to just vacate and let the city go back to a ghost town like it was at one time because of the cost. There were other buildings the city was looking at and owners said they were unable to do this. They would have to leave and go somewhere else. We lost some of the businesses to the neighboring townships. Ifwe are not consistent, they can go across the line and build the same thing with the same operation and not comply. That is not right either. It gives people an option, if they don't like what we are doing here, they will go somewhere else. Mr. Sheehan stated the building code is a state building code. It is applicable throughout the entire state. In the early 1980's, there was a statute that allowed counties outside of the metro area to have referendums to decide if they wanted to have enforcement of the building code. That was a situation of the legislature overriding the rule. There is nothing we can do to prevent that. Mr. Sheehan stated one benefit of sprinklers is that sometimes sprinklers will allow you not to do certain construction features. If you sprinkle the building you do not have to make a box out of a certain area with fire walls just to confine the fire. The biggest thing for a fire department is chasing a fire through a building that has additions. Over the long run sprinklers can be a cost savings. Mayor Ristow stated he read the information provided and it is good analogy. He is 100% for sprinklers. He read where one sprinkler can put out a fire before the fire department gets there. Before we were talking about existing buildings and no one had a problem going into it, if you knew you were going to add on. Installing sprinklers in existing buildings is more costly than constructing new. Mr. Sheehan stated it is also a protection for existing tenants. They are there with the assumption that to some degree their neighbors are not going to cause them any problem. If a tenant moves in with a more hazardous process, now tenant A is at risk, because if tenant B has a fire and there is no sprinkler or separation, tenant A will be out of business if tenant B has a fire. Unfortunately laws are made not to protect us against ourselves, but to protect us against the unsafe acts of others. Mayor Ristow wanted to reiterate that he is not trying to talk down the sprinkling, because he thinks they are great, but it is the existing buildings and homes. The existing code says to put a double fire core sheet rock wall between them. In the information he was reading, it is only a wall and the fire pops out in the attic and Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes June 2, 2003 Page 3 the roof, which are not sprinkled anyway, and that is where the majority of the fires are and can drop down. Putting up the extra cost of the double fire core sheet rock really is not any good either. Mr. Sheehan stated the fire separations will stop a fire, but they will not do anything to put it out. Sprinklers will not only detect the fire, but they will also control the fire, if not put it out completely. The built-in fire separation units work to a point. Building Official Lewis stated fire walls are there to buy time to allow people to vacate. Mayor Ristow asked under this code, if adopted, it says a 16-unit townhouse would require sprinklers because it is over a certain amount of square footage. Would you still require a fire wall between the two if all are joined together? Building Official Lewis replied you still would have a fire wall, but you would need a one-hour separation instead of a two-hour separation. There is still separation there, but not as much. The cost for that will go down which they can put into the sprinkler system and the cost evens out. Councilmember Cordes asked if 16 units means 16 continuous units attached, or 4 units here and there. Fire Marshal Powers replied the units are back to back, under one roof. Councilmember Cordes asked about subpart 3 where it says additions to existing buildings, would it be just the addition that would be required to be sprinkled or the whole building? Fire Marshal Powers replied ifthere is occupant load added to the building, the entire building would have to be sprinkled. Mr. Sheehan stated if the operation now imposes a greater hazard sprinklers would be required. Mayor Ristow asked about City Center where Edina Realty joined next to New Moon. That was an addition. Would that require sprinklers for the whole building? Fire Marshal Powers replied that would have required the whole building, however he chose to put in a two-hour concrete block wall. Edina Realty is actually it's own building. Under 1306 that would go away. They could not put the wall there and call it two separate buildings. Mayor Ristow stated last time it caused so much hardship, we could not get people to expand, and you could not get people to upgrade old buildings because of undue hardship. Councilmember Cordes asked about the Rochon dairy building, ifthey were to add on, would they have to sprinkle the whole building or just the addition, or does it depend on what they use the addition for? If it was just for storage, probably not? Fire Marshal Powers stated 1306 is triggered by the occupant load. If Gossips put an addition on the back for restrooms, it would not increase the occupant load and would not require sprinklers. If they put a banquet hall at the back of the building, then they are doing a major addition. Mr. Sheehan stated the building code already requires that if the addition affects exiting, you have to upgrade the old part to ensure you have a safe exit. You do not want to increase the danger level in the existing portion because of the new addition. Mayor Ristow stated it is not necessarily the addition, but if refurbishing the inside changes the occupancy it triggers sprinklers. For example, the daycare at Town's Edge, where he is a tenant in the building, it was rough on business while the sprinkling system was being installed in the existing building. Fire Marshal Powers stated that was because the daycare expanded within the existing building. Under the current building code, it required the building to be sprinkled by the daycare. At that time the owner decided he would make a business decision to keep the daycare there and install sprinklers or lose the daycare. Mayor Ristow added or shut down the whole building like it was at one time. Fire Marshal Powers stated or the daycare could not have expanded in that particular building. Fire Chief Kuchera stated the sprinkler system has been a tremendous benefit. Mayor Ristow stated he is not criticizing, he is looking at the cost and overall balance between businesses that did this. If we don't, you end up with a dead building sitting there only at the discretion of the landlord, and you have no tenants which is not good. Trying to be business friendly with existing businesses, you could name the ones that left Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes June 2, 2003 Page 4 because of the sprinkling. That was our intent not to bring undue hardship to the people that were coming in wanting to fill the buildings. Fire Chief Kuchera stated we are talking about a countertop business, which used hazardous materials. That is what triggered the need for sprinklers. Mayor Ristow replied he is doing the same thing across our borders and bigger. Are we business friendly, or aren't we? It is a good layout, but in a 2,000 sq. ft. house, ifit is a new house, he could understand it. There are 3-story houses here. Fire Marshal Powers stated we are talking about 3 stories with 16 units. Mayor Ristow replied no, it mentioned 2,000 sq. ft. or above. Councilmember Fogarty read from Chapter 1306 where it states "Group E occupancies with 2,000 or more gross square feet of floor area or with two or more stories in height." Fire Marshal Powers stated that is not residential, that is apartments and townhomes. Building Official Lewis stated there are not currently any 16-unit townhomes. Townhomes with 12 units are the largest being built. Councilmember Fogarty stated she understands that for the reconstructs to get to the requirement of a threshold to require sprinkling systems, you are doing a major reconstruction. The cost is going to be more but not a significant amount for the majority of people we are discussing. There might be a small majority of small businesses that might get caught. Fire Marshal Powers stated when doing a major project, by installing a sprinkling system, they would be able to trade off some of the separation and other costs, such as alarm systems that might not be needed. Mr. Sheehan stated it can reduce the level of interior finish for fire rating, and drop in category. Councilmember Fogarty stated the sprinkler systems have advanced. Usually with advancement the. cost comes down. Mr. Sheehan stated the typical cost is $2.25/sq. ft. There are different standards of sprinkler systems. One is for commercial and there is a residential called 13R, which is for apartment buildings. The BE is for residential. Residential systems are designed for not more than 2 heads to go off in a room. Mayor Ristow stated the new part he does not have a problem with. But everyone has got to understand what goes in the old. The water main may not be big enough, you have to increase the water line to a 12-inch line, you have to have a box for the valves, a special building with heat in it, and a telephone line. It costs a lot of money. For the businesses we have that are not real huge, a smaller business, like a daycare, if you don't have a building owner that is agreeable to do it you are limited to places where you can be. There were a lot of businesses that left here and went to Rosemount, and Lakeville. There are people in this community that wouldn't open a business here. There are no affordable lease spaces in the city because of some of the requirements you have to have. Fire Marshal Powers stated Rosemount does have Chapter 1306, so he did not know if that was a factor. When Mr. Adelman. . . Mayor Ristow interjected saying we are not going back to Mr. Adelman, that is over with and done. You are not going to change that. Mayor Ristow stated he is looking to the future. If we want to be a business friendly Council and city like we are, we have to look and understand what we are implementing and what kind of hardships it will cause. The last time 1306 caused a lot of hardship. There was a lot of chaos and a lot of differences in the city for expanding buildings, existing buildings or new buildings. We have to be very clear and we need to know what we are adopting. Councilmember Soderberg stated he has two concerns. One is what existing buildings will be impacted? He is all for putting them in new construction. What buildings do we have in town now that would be required if they did some sort of remodeling? He also asked about the definition of occupancy change and what type of occupancy change triggers this? Fire Marshal Powers stated a good example is there is a church that will be vacant. It is an A occupancy. If Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes June 2, 2003 Page 5 changed to another use such as a daycare which is E, it would require sprinklers with or without 1306. It may not matter depending on the size of the daycare. Mayor Ristow asked if the state regulates whether it needs to be sprinkled in certain instances, like a daycare? Fire Marshal Powers stated it is in the building code. Councilmember Soderberg asked if we adopt this chapter for the city, that situation is going to happen whether we adopt this or not. For example, the Exchange Bank building, would that renovation require sprinklers? The Antique Store? Duebers? Fire Marshal Powers replied all those buildings are typically sales or mercantile occupancy and will be replaced by those types ofthings. Mayor Ristow stated last time the Exchange Bank building was brought up it was because there was a fire hydrant within 50 feet and that was why that building did not have to be sprinkled. Fire Chief Kuchera did not recall that. Fire Marshal Powers stated the Exchange Bank building is unique in a lot of ways. The upstairs would have to be sprinkled regardless of 1306 because it is above the level of discharge. Mayor Ristow stated the last person said no, because the fire hydrant is in close proximity and the B-2 downtown business district had less requirements than outer areas. Mr. Sheehan stated it might have been in respect to stand pipes in the stairways, which impact the fire departments ability to get into the building to connect the hoses. If the hydrant is close to the building and you can get in with a couple lengths of hose, that will be fine. If the hydrant was not there and the fire department has to string a lot of hose to get inside, the stand pipes are right there to connect to to go on up. The fire code is applicable throughout the state. In some communities, it is enforced by local authorities. Where it is not enforced locally, ifthe state fire marshal is called in, we will enforce the code and if sprinklers are required, we will enforce it. Mayor Ristow stated he hoped the property owner of the Exchange Bank building is aware of that, if they have to go back and run the sprinkler lines for existing businesses. Fire Marshal Powers stated the owner is aware they have to sprinkle the part that is above the level of exit discharge. Councilmember Fitch stated county by county can adopt this. If someone were to build a like building in Castle Rock, would they have to follow this code? Mr. Sheehan stated counties outside of the metro area were allowed to vote no enforcement by referendum. Councilmember Fitch stated if Dakota County is in the metro area, this has been forced on them. Mr. Sheehan believed this was correct, but he would have to check. Councilmember Fitch stated if we build something in Empire or Castle Rock, they technically are supposed to be meeting that code. Is that a fair statement? Mr. Sheehan stated if Farmington is the fire official for that area, they should enforce the same as Farmington. Councilmember Fitch wanted to make sure they are supposed to be following the rules. Mayor Ristow stated surrounding areas do not have water, they have wells. Councilmember Fitch stated he is trying to get a feel for the landscape, because if we as a city provide the fire protection for them, we should have some kind of pull in ensuring they meet those codes or our charge to them would reflect that. Mr. Sheehan stated rural contracts do not always address the code issues. They are paying for basic fire protection, regardless of what they have. Mr. Sheehan stated there is no oversight by the state as far as rural contracts. Mayor Ristow stated if we are going to do something it should be consistent around the area. Mr. Sheehan stated the legislature saw to it that people have that choice. Mayor Ristow asked Building Official Lewis if it would be his duty to say he would not approve occupancy if the code is not met? Building Official Lewis replied yes, within his jurisdiction. Mayor Ristow asked why would the townships allow occupancy if the code is not met? Mr. Sheehan stated it depends on the enforcement. Mayor Ristow stated if there is a plan in place and it is consistent throughout, then you do not have a problem enforcing it. Councilmember Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes June 2, 2003 Page 6 Cordes stated it also comes down to interpretation. Mr. Sheehan stated you cannot be an active building official without being certified. On the fire inspection side, there is no state oversight. Mayor Ristow asked regarding the industrial park, if any of those buildings are sprinkled? Fire Marshal Powers and Chief Kuchera stated all are sprinkled. Mr. Sheehan stated sprinklers are a selling point, especially if a business has a hazardous product. Councilmember Fogarty asked if 1306 would have made the Market Place require sprinklers? Fire Marshal Powers replied yes. If he would have sprinkled up front, he could have saved some money. Mayor Ristow stated it is the balance of the cost of the building, and how much you are paying to lease it versus a bigger city. Fire Marshal Powers stated Mr. Einess asked his tenants if they would be willing to pay more rent for a sprinkled building. They called the insurance company and the difference between rent and insurance savings would have been a wash. Some of the businesses chose to serve alcohol, and that triggered the need for sprinklers. Mr. Sheehan stated in the future, the fire service will be focusing on how drinking and fires do not mix. If a business wants to serve alcohol, sprinklers will be a good thing. Mayor Ristow stated we cannot compare it with a city of 17,000. Big businesses are not going to come here. We have to look out for affordable businesses that can come here. They will leave to get a more affordable lease. Councilmember Fitch asked how many buildings will this affect? Fire Marshal Powers stated a lot of the buildings are sprinkled. It would depend on if they put on additions. If a building is landlocked and cannot put on an addition, it would not be affected. Councilmember Fitch stated if a new business comes in, and does not have the occupancy of the previous owner, there would not be a need to require it. Councilmember Soderberg stated if a building changed to an E use, that is an occupancy change. The square footage mayor may not trigger it. Fire Marshal Powers stated if a building changed to a B (business) occupancy, that would be less ofa hazard than A (alcohol) occupancy. In that case it would be a hardship to dig up the street for a less hazardous occupancy. Fire Chief Kuchera asked what buildings that we currently have will have to put in sprinklers? Councilmember Soderberg stated only if there is a change that triggers it. Councilmember Cordes stated a few years ago it was a pretty aggressive move. Mr. Sheehan stated there are options in Chapter 1306 that cities can choose. Councilmember Cordes noted staff put together options they would like to see adopted. After listening to this, she is more comfortable with this. Her major concern was current buildings. Mayor Ristow asked if there are two or three businesses that want to come in that will be a plus for the city and their budget is short, then what? Councilmember Cordes stated that is a business decision they have to make. Mr. Sheehan stated it is reasonable to have a plan. It is not unreasonable to approach a particular business with a phased-in plan. Mayor Ristow stated he is 100% for sprinklers. They are an improvement for safety. It is a hardship that we have to look at. Newly established businesses know what they are getting into. Ifwe have empty buildings, we will have the pressure of the community. Councilmember Soderberg stated without 1306 we cannot require sprinklers in new buildings. Fire Marshal Powers stated it takes the threshold from 8500 - 12,000 sq. ft. depending on the occupancy code, down to 2000 sq. ft. unless it is a daycare. Council Workshop Fire Code Minutes June 2, 2003 Page 7 (Fire Chief Kuchera left the meeting at 9:46 p.m.) Councilmember Soderberg stated he is comfortable with adopting 1306. His concerns were the burden that would be placed on existing buildings. Councilmember Fogarty stated she is also comfortable with it. She has a greater concern with new buildings and she cannot see an excuse not to put them in in new buildings. Councilmember Soderberg stated if we do have an existing structure where it becomes a burden, we can find some way of working with them. Mayor Ristow stated he had a few other questions. On the Statement of Need and Reasonableness, number 2 states "certain smaller buildings constructed for the state may now be included in groups requiring sprinklers." Does that mean state or county buildings that were previously owned? Fire Marshal Powers stated this might apply to some buildings on the north shore, where there is no water supply. Mr. Sheehan stated this shows why the state thinks the rules are reasonable and needed. Mayor Ristow asked are they only saying state, county, city? What about City Hall, if someone wanted to come in and it was not sprinkled and wanted a similar use, could that trigger it? Mayor Ristow then asked regarding R3 attached occupancies over 8500 sq. ft. The existing ones would not? He wanted Mr. Sheehan to clarify that. Fire Marshal Powers stated the R3 will be for buildings built from now on. There is a provision under the B option for 16 units instead of 8500 sq. ft. threshold because there are buildings that do meet that. Mayor Ristow asked ifhe bought the building on the comer, is it a change of ownership or occupancy ifhe changed it from what it is? Fire Marshal Powers stated it is still the same footprint and it is still being used for an R3. Mayor Ristow stated so it would not be required to be sprinkled. Mayor Ristow stated he will call Mr. Sheehan to answer some questions. He wanted to make sure in his mind before he approves it, that it will not be a hardship on smaller businesses. This will be brought back to the July 7,2003 Council Meeting to allow time for Council to review the issue and answer any questions. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 9:57 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ." - /:?~ .7' ...zK!{-d" /r7~~J ~Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City Council 2004 Budget Workshop Minutes June 4, 2003 Absent: Mayor Ristow, Councilmembers Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, City Engineer; Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Councilmember Cordes Present: Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Administrator Shukle stated the purpose of the workshop was to establish goals for the 2004 budget. Council was also provided with some background as to what happened at the legislature and how that affects the city in terms of local government aid cuts. Also provided were revenues and expenditures as of May 31,2003, the lO-yearperforma, and the 2004 budget calendar. Council will be asked to approve the preliminary budget on September 2,2003. Budget workshops will be held in the fall, with final budget approval in mid-December. Mayor Ristow asked about goal number one for 2003, and if the general fund was actually at 35- 40% or was it 25-35%? Finance Director Roland replied last year we adopted 35-40% based on the auditor's recommendations, as they have been stating for the last number of years. We had originally started at 25%, but the auditors have always said that 35-40% would be their preferred goal. The auditors like to see 35-40% particularly in times like these where we would have counted on some of our fund balance in helping to make up any lost LGA. Reverting back to Council's budget as adopted last year, we took a proactive stance of levying back for a potential loss of LGA. We levied back half, which was $296,000. We put the LGA in the budget, worst case scenario if that goes away, we have $296,000 that we budgeted through the tax levy that we would have to offset any lost LGA. The legislature for 2003 has removed all but $144,000 in LGA from our 2003 budget. Last year we had $590,000 coming in LGA for 2003. Halfwe levied back, so $296,000. If all of it went away, we would have to make up $296,000. We could have taken that out of the fund balance and still been at 35% of expenditures. Our revenues this year, particularly in the area of building permits, are up significantly. Ifthe state gives us $144,000 this year, which is what they are going to do instead of the $596,000, the difference we have to make up is about $150,000 to make it a balanced budget. We have already seen that excess revenue in building permits. Even with the loss ofLGA in 2003, given our current situation, staff does not anticipate dipping into the fund balance before the end 2003 because of the planning we have done and because of the amount we will receive in LGA. Mayor Ristow asked ifthat was with the $296,000? Finance Director Roland replied that is with that. She continued, stating for 2004 that $596,000 is gone. What is going to challenge us is the fact that the legislature did not take into consideration that we were $750,000 below our levy limit last year. A couple years ago when Representative Ozment was here, he said we are setting levy limits and you do not lose any levy capacity. In 2004, all of that is gone. We need to take Council Budget Workshop Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 2 the amount we levied in 2003t we add back 60% of our lost LGAt which means we take $596tOOO x 60% and we add it back to our 2003 levy. The maximum levy we are allowed is what is reflected in the performa - $4.65 million. That will be all we will be allowed. There are no growth factors in the levy limits. In the past when we have had levy limitst they have considered how many households we havet how much commercial/industrial property did we addt how much is inflation. The legislature said no to all of that. You get your 2003 levy and if you lost LGA you get 60% of any lost LGA and that is it. Councilmember Fitch stated it is strange when the state gets in troublet they punish the cities. Finance Director Roland stated Ron Abrams who is the chair of the house tax committee acknowledges they are treating cities unfairly. Representative Strachan voted against this package because he did not believe the levy limits were set reasonably. There are no growth factors and he was very upset with that. He felt growing communities like Farmington should be able to raise their levies enough to make up for the growth. Staff told Representative Strachan we could propose a budget without the LGA we had last Year. We had some solutionst we had enough fund balance to fall back on if we needed to. But leave us alone when it comes to levy limits. According to the legislaturet there will not be levy limits in 2005. They will reconsider some other things in 2005. Staff believes there will be levy limits in 2005. The number in the performa is no different than the one for Main Street and City Hall. We had anticipated this levy request even before the levy limit came on. We were within $50tOOO. Finance Director Roland suggested we levy to our limit this year. Last year we could have levied $750tOOO more than we did. We could be sitting on roughly $1 million that we collect in taxes. But that was not the conservativet prudent thing to do. Weare not under our levy limit anymore. With a growing communitYt we have already anticipated this is the amount we will look at. We have talked in the past about how this performa reflects a 10% annual increase in the levy and a 10% annual increase in expenditures and that is what we have gone with. Over timet we have decreased the amount that the top number on the levy has gone up. At this pointt staff recommended we levy to our limit which is $4.6 million. Mayor Ristow asked about the growth of the city's tax capacity value at 12% mentioned under note number 1 on the performa. Finance Director Roland stated that was the original plan in 1997. Looking at the line for percent growth in GTCV t when we started out in 1998 the actual number was 9.72. It has gone up and down since then. The numbers received from the county indicate that between 2003 and 2004 our gross tax capacity value will grow 22.88%. Roughly 10-11 % more than anticipated. That being the bottom number in the equation for a tax ratet that would mean even if the tax levy went UPt the tax rate would go downt because of that growth. According to the county we are now over $1 billion in market value in the city of Farmington. Which equates to a tax capacity value of$11t372tOOO. Of that $11 million roughly halfis due to new construction. The other half is due to the accelerated value of existing homes in Farmington. Councilmember Fogarty stated Representative Strachan had mentioned part of our $700tOOO that we did not uset would be given to other cities. Finance Director Roland stated in reality that is what happened. Councilmember Fogarty stated so Governor Pawlenty could say overall the taxes are not going up on properties. But in individual communities taxes will go up because they took our extra and gave it to communities they feel needed it. Council Budget Workshop Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 3 Finance Director Roland stated the preliminary numbers for 2004 reflect a 9% change in the general fund levy. It would reflect debt as a percentage requested levy at 23.8%, which is below the 25% which is identified as a Council goal. Ifwe follow this plan we will end up with expenditures at 10% or less increase and we will have the revenues to cover that. Finance Director Roland stated she does not inflate building permit revenues unduly. She does not anticipate a growth level at the level we are currently at to budget for 2004. When we revise the budget for 2003 we will take those numbers into consideration. The proposed budget will be at a level we canjustify for building permit revenues. It is a solid number. Councilmember Fitch asked if the excess will go to the fund balance? Finance Director Roland replied yes. Right now, with the loss ofthe majority ofLGA and what we have taxed for and where we are in revenues, and we meet our budgeted expenditures, we will break even by the end of 2003. We will not dip into the fund balance and we will not see excess revenue. Community Development did an analysis as ofthe first ofthe year. With the plats already approved, there are still 1 ,000 lots still to be built on. Councilmember Fitch stated that has to carry us through our deal with the MCES through 2007. Finance Director Roland stated it is now 2005 and we still have a bunch in reserve. Mayor Ristow asked City Engineer Mann about where we are with the Vermillion River Watershed Board if this will have an affect next year on building permits? City Engineer Mann replied it will be awhile before that is implemented. At the same time, staffhas talked to Genstar about their development and the AUAR process. We have applied strict standards to that development in anticipation of the MPCA's requirements through the MPDES Phase II. The requirements will end up being less restrictive. The Vermillion River will affect commercial/industrial more than residential. Mayor Ristow wanted to make sure it would not affect permits, we were counting on. Finance Director Roland stated when we estimate permits we pick a target number, and we are very conservative. She would rather be way under on her guess on revenues, than way over. Finance Director Roland reviewed revenues and expenditures for May 31, 2003. At this point, building and permit revenues are at 62% ofthe annual total and we are at 42% ofthe year. Intergovernmental revenue will go down significantly on the budgeted side, because on the budget side we have the $876,000 reflecting the LGA amount. We will knock that down where it belongs. We have already received $80,473. Take $500,000 out ofthe budget number and you have a higher number of intergovernmental revenue we will collect. We will see our first advance on tax revenues at the end of June. We are in a very good position compared to other communities. Expenditures are at 39%. In some departments expenditures are a little higher than the budgeted amount due to two things. We spent a lot of money on capital outlay the first part ofthe year. That puts an extra weight at the beginning of the year and evens out as the year goes on. Those were budgeted items. Weare currently finishing paying for some personnel who have retired, but chose to take their severance over a period of time. That will balance out at year end. Weare in a strong position in the enterprise funds. The city is not anticipating raising fees in the water, sewer, storm water or solid waste areas. We will look at those as we go through the process. We count on the enterprise fund for some transfers into the general fund to Council Budget Workshop Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 4 help offset overhead cost. Those transfers continue every year and would increase on a reasonable basis. Mayor Ristow asked if tipping fees for the garbage have settled down? Finance Director Roland replied they have. We have seen some stability. The issue is whether or not we are able to continue to put the waste in a landfill as opposed to a garbage burner. Ifwe have to take the waste to a garbage burner we have to take all of it and there is a higher cost. We budget for the higher cost. When we see less, it ends up in the fund balance. We have been paying cash for garbage trucks, not bonding. That is $185,000 a piece. We buy one every year. (Fire Chief Kuchera left the meeting at 6:45 p.m.) Councilmember Soderberg stated on Monday night there were some funds identified with deficits, one was a 1991 annexation fund. Finance Director Roland stated she would like to address that in the 2003 budget. If Council agrees, she would like to wipe that off the books in 2003 through a transfer in the general fund. Those are legal funds that never got cleaned up from the annexation. It is an inner fund borrowing that is not recognized on the books. Councilmember Soderberg asked if our fund balance for 2003 is at 41 %? Finance Director Roland replied yes, it is above our goal. The other deficits in the report which are the PIR fund, which is at $1 million in deficit contains three projects right now. One is 195th Street W where we are waiting for payments from the county and from the school district; 209th Street where we are waiting for developer payments; and the water and sewer extension for Middle Creek were paid for out ofthe water and sewer funds. Those projects will put us in the positive with cash receipted by September. Regarding the Municipal building fund, as part of the building fund budget there were $222,000 worth of transfers that were supposed to come in from other funds. The transfers were not made until the auditors said this construction payment has to be booked. This put us $75,000 down. We have retainage of over $250,000 to pay the contractor on that project. By September we will be in the black on that fund. The other fund that is in a deficit position is the HRA capital projects fund. That relates to the TIP we are receiving from all of the districts to make us whole. We bought land, we went into a deficit position in industrial park 1 and 2. Cash went out and we are looking for TIP payments over time to reimburse that fund. The deficit position got better this year. It started at $560,000 in the hole and we are now at $500,000 in the hole. Mayor Ristow noted the values keep going up. Finance Director Roland replied that is correct, unfortunately the values are not matching what was originally put in the TIP plan as the assessed value. They are significantly lower. The only differences are the East Farmington project and the Dalsin project which are better than the TIP anticipated. Councilmember Fitch asked if that was due to the adjustment the legislature did a few years ago? Finance Director Roland replied yes, the only other thing we are allowed to do in the downtown district is to payoff debt with the TIP we are receiving. City Center is suffering from the lower valuation, but with the replatting of that property and the Elm Park cleanup we will see three more parcels come into the TIP district. Mayor Ristow asked if the downtown is set to where we can only use it downtown? Before we shifted it to the industrial park. We cannot do that any more? Finance Director Roland replied no, the debt that was issued to buy the industrial park land is coming out ofthe downtown district and all of the TIP that comes from the downtown district is used to pay back that debt. Mayor Ristow thought we did Council Budget Workshop Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 5 balance it out and pay it back. Finance Director Roland replied for example, Minnesota Pipe. We bought the industrial park 1 land and sold it to Minnesota Pipe for $1. As part of the TIF agreement, all ofthe TIF comes back to the city. Those bonds were issued out of the downtown TIF district, so what happens is when the TIF comes in it pays back the downtown district which pays the bonds. In the TIF agreements there is a limited percentage that goes back to the HRA. Mayor Ristow asked when the TIF comes off of East Farmington? Finance Director Roland replied TIF does not come off East Farmington until 2008. Mayor Ristow thought once the houses were sold and lived in for a year, they were paying the full scale market value. Who gets the cut? Finance Director Roland replied Sienna. The way that the TIF agreement is written with Sienna is that they got $3,256 per lot without the infrastructure. The city pays the bonds first out of the TIF, then we reimburse based on a formula for that $3,256 per lot over time. That will end in 2008. Councilmember Soderberg then asked about the performa and what the legislature has done with giving us a levy limit at where we were. Finance Director Roland stated the performa still anticipates a 10% increase in 2005. Councilmember Soderberg stated if they do the same thing next year, we will not have the capacity to increase our levy. Subsequent years could be problematic. Finance Director Roland stated hopefully Representative Strachan will be able to get his point across to other legislators and install growth factors back into the levy limits. If they can do that, we will be in a better position. If not, 2005 might look the same as 2004 as far as the actual dollar levy goes. Some cities get around levy limits by paying for capital items out of their general fund. Farmington puts capital items in a separate fund and we issue certificates of indebtedness to pay for them over time. What other cities do is they pay cash for these items out of their general fund and they are included in their levy. With levy limits this strict, what they will do to get the extra money they need, is pull the capital items out of the general fund and do what we are doing. There is no limit on debt. Debt is outside of levy limits. The legislature did not install reverse referenda which is a good thing. With reverse referenda, if you could get 5% ofthe people that voted in the city to sign a petition, you could recall the issue and have to have a vote on it. Finance Director Roland asked Council if they would agree to maxing the levy limit. Councilmember Soderberberg stated if we had done that last year, we would be in a better position today. Finance Director Roland stated the budget calendar indicates how staff will proceed for the next few months. Council will see a draft budget on August 18. Council will vote on a preliminary levy and budget on September 2. That is where we max out our preliminary levy and we can reduce it after that, but we cannot increase it. There will be a budget workshop in early October. Councilmember Fitch stated ifthere are any taxpayers complaining about how high their taxes are going up, his went up 30%. Anything over 12% people can file for a refund from the state for 60% of anything above that 12%. There is no income limit. His valuation went up 13%. Taxes went up because of the school levy. Finance Director Roland stated market value credit is put in place instead of HAC A. Market value credit is paid by the state, not the county or city. We get it instead of our levy. The county collects all of the money, they send some to the state, the state sends us money and the county sends us money. The city does not lose any market value dollars in 2003 or 2004. Cities who Council Budget Workshop Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 6 did not have enough LGA, actually lost market value credit. Every dollar the city levies, we will get back. The city receives $389,747 in market value homestead credit in 2003 and 2004. The Council recessed at 7:14 p.m. before reconvening for the City Hall workshop. Respectfully submitted, -0' . 7'" be::.- /-r? . /?/7 .L.:7-~d--t:..PL~ ~~-<./ 'Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City Council Workshop City Hall Project Minutes June 4,2003 Absent: Audience: Mayor Ristow, Councilmembers Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg Ed Shukle, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, City Engineer; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant; Michael Cox, Wold Architects Councilmember Cordes Tad Johnson Present: Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. City Administrator Shukle stated the last meeting on the City Hall project was May 19,2003. At that time it was decided to have another meeting tonight. Where we left off on May 19 was discussing siting options, the existing site versus 3rd and Spruce Street site. Council did request staff at that time to do some environmental work. Staff is in the process of doing that. Tests have been taken and they are being analyzed by a laboratory. Results will be available at the June 16 Council Meeting. Staff wanted to discuss if there was interest in exploring other sites or continue to focus on the existing site or Spruce Street. The Mayor and Councilmember Fitch met with the Chair of the Task Force about this. The purpose of this meeting was to have a general discussion and decide when we are going to move forward and in what manner we are going to move forward, or bring something back to the task force or put it on hold. Mayor Ristow stated what Chair Gerster was hearing from the task force was about the property and the possible pollutants. Until those results are in, to make any decisions would be going above the scope of the recommendation. We decided to wait for the results. If it is too far polluted and it is too costly, we will probably look at a different site. Where City Hall is now was the second site. Chair Gerster was agreeable to that. Councilmember Fitch stated there was general misinformation out there. Chair Gerster thought Council had "deep 6'd it." Councilmember Fitch did not know how anyone got that impression, because at that meeting we scheduled this meeting, plus another meeting after the next Council Meeting. How their impression was that City Hall was a forgone conclusion and they had been duped. .. It all came out of two comments in the paper that were taken out of a very small context of a large discussion. As he said Monday night, the newspaper has limited space and other things and they can choose to paraphrase, phrase, however they want according to free press rules. That was kind of the gist of things. Weare still on track as we are going to meet with the task force in July. That was our discussion at the last meeting. We put a 45-day limit on the Blaha property. The June 16 meeting will be close to that 45 days. Mayor Ristow stated if the city is not interested in the property, the HRA still might be, but environmental might mean a lot there also. Community Development Director Carroll stated the HRA has been interested in the property all along. Mayor Ristow stated we left the discussion City Council City Hall Workshop Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 2 that ifthe city left it, the HRA could continue on but it would be based on the pollution. Councilmember Soderberg stated that would be taken into consideration just as if City Hall would be sited there. So he understands, barring any pollution problems, is that an acceptable site? Mayor Ristow stated he did not know about acceptable. That will come back to Council to see what we decide if that is a suitable site from the recommendation. That is the task force's recommendation and it is up to us to decide. Councilmember Fitch stated in order to answer the question as directly as I can at this point, I don't have a problem with the site, but what I am going to have a problem with, is unless we have the foresight right now and make the decision and the financial commitment that we will buy enough area that we will not land lock ourselves so in 15-20 years we outgrow the City Hall, and we cannot expand on that property, what are we going to do? Build another new City Hall? Go through this again? I think our auditor's report showed buildings at about a 50-year lifetime expectancy. We are looking at about 40% of that. If we are going to make this big commitment, and if you want to build it there, that's fine. But let's start looking at adjacent properties that we are going to have to purchase so we can make this a commitment that is here and it's going to stay downtown. We aren't going to grow any more land in downtown Farmington. Councilmember Soderberg stated he agreed with Councilmember Fitch. If you look at the details of the task force, early on there was a lot of concern about outgrowing it in 20-25 years and what do we do in 30-35 years given there is a life expectancy of buildings to be 40-50 years. That was one of the concerns initially talked about. There were some that thought the estimates from staff as far as space needs were a little too conservative. Some task force members wanted to have additional spaces available which for the time being would seem like a lot of space, but as we fill those spaces up as the city grows, the space would come down more in line with staff estimates. Councilmember Fitch stated we are looking at a two-story building at 3rd and Spruce with barely adequate parking now. If we try to expand on that site, parking will become terribly inadequate. Let's look ahead for the next 15 years if we have to buy a property. Councilmember Soderberg stated there was some suggestion to move parking over to the north side of the alley on the vacant Feely lot. However, if Feely builds on that lot, it is gone. It might be prudent to talk to him about a right of first refusal. City Administrator Shukle stated we did talk with Don about that and he is not interested in selling. Councilmember Soderberg stated not interested in selling, but how about a right of first refusal? Ten years from now, that could change. City Administrator Shukle replied he said he would be around for about 10 years. Councilmember Soderberg stated that is fine, we do not want to do anything to inhibit that. Things change, every one of us is terminal. Mayor Ristow asked ifhe was the only owner? Staff thought he and his brother owned the property. Councilmember Soderberg stated it has been there for 100+ years, but things will change somewhere down the road. It might be 50 years from now. Even if it doesn't, a parking ramp would double the parking space. Councilmember Fogarty asked ifthere was room to put a parking ramp? Mr. Cox replied it would be difficult to place a parking ramp at 3rd and Spruce unless you incorporate it with the building. Mayor Ristow stated at one time we were looking at the Larson Building, the Riste Building, and NSP to put in a parking ramp. That is how much land we needed. Councilmember Fitch stated that is his only consideration. Councilmember Soderberg understood and that was one of the considerations the task force took into account early on. City Council City Hall Workshop Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 3 Councilmember Fitch stated we need to keep it downtown, but like he told Chair Gerster when he sat on the HRA 7-8 years ago we talked about putting together a plan for downtown saying this is how we want to redevelop it and this is how we are going to redevelop it. This would all be a piece of that puzzle. Maybe it is time to look at areas where we should be removing some property and that would be a good site for City Hall. He does not want to land lock this building. That is his biggest concern. Councilmember Fogarty asked how can we achieve that? How can we keep it downtown and not have it land locked? Councilmember Fitch stated we are going to have to buy the space now, and commit to it now, even if we are not utilizing it for building. Mayor Ristow stated we mentioned the Spruce Street corridor, that would have been a part of downtown. If this is connected it would be an extension of downtown. But if you look at expanding it in the current location you could go east. Buying residential is cheaper to buyout than commercial. If it doesn't work on 3rd and Spruce, the current location is the second recommendation of the task force. It is easier to go east with residential and only one commercial for expansion, even if we wanted to close off 4th Street. At one time we did do a study of the whole block for a supermarket. The time is right and it is not going to get any cheaper. As Councilmember Fitch said, we do not want to be looking at this again in 15 years. Councilmember Fogarty asked Mayor Ristow what he expected the longevity of the building to be? Mayor Ristow replied as the auditors were saying you should be able to get by for the next 50 years. Councilmember Fogarty stated she knew that, but Mayor Ristow sat on the task force. How long did you anticipate this building would last? Councilmember Soderberg stated 20-25 years. The task force discussed what happens beyond 25 years and designing the building large enough so there is room within the building itself to expand. Mr. Cox stated as with the Police and Maintenance facilities, we designed the addition. I would think you would want to do that with this building also. Mayor Ristow stated the library will not be there forever. Hopefully the county will build a new library once we exceed 25,000 in population. There are a lot of other businesses utilizing the adjacent parking lot. The parking has always been a problem here. Councilmember Soderberg stated early on we discussed the concept of this 1/2 block as having an interior parking ramp with buildings around it. That was more of a commercial concept. Mr. Cox stated we could still do that. Councilmember Soderberg stated the task force was looking at keeping the disruption to city services at a minimum. We would demolish this site, and have to buyout Farmington Printing. We cannot move the Frontier building. Mayor Ristow stated at one time when we did the restructuring of the old library, we looked at moving a wall back and increase the Council Room. Councilmember Soderberg asked how much it cost to do a ramp? Mr. Cox replied we did not include that in the options. A parking ramp could create other commercial opportunities. Mayor Ristow felt we needed to wait for the environmental study. Councilmember Fogarty felt it is not possible to have an area downtown without parking problems. It goes with the territory. Mayor Ristow stated we have always tried to work on it. We spent a lot of money on 2nd Street. The other thing is that the building will be built up to the property line that takes further parking away. There is only so much street parking. Mr. Cox stated no one has talked to the library about parking across the street. Mayor Ristow stated on any given day, the front row is full. Some ofthe residents that live to the south do not have City Council City Hall Workshop Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 4 driveways and have received permission to use the parking lot. Also visitors to Spruce Place and Red Oak Manor use that parking lot. Councilmember Fogarty stated when there is a high volume of people at City Hall, the library is closed. Mayor Ristow stated the library also has events there at night. Councilmember Fitch wanted the city to be prepared to hold our own. What ifthe county decides to build a new library? Mayor Ristow asked if the city has right of first refusal? Finance Director Roland will review the agreement with the library. Mayor Ristow felt he and Chair Gerster left with a good understanding. The decision rests with the environmental study. What he heard from Chair Gerster was that if 3rd and Spruce did not work, the current location is the second choice. Councilmember Soderberg stated the task force wants to keep City Hall downtown. Councilmember Fitch stated we are getting to the size where if we want to keep it downtown, we need to revitalize it somehow. We have to start looking at the big plan. How do we start deciding what properties to buy to put a City Hall on, or where we start to develop the commercial business in downtown? Mayor Ristow stated Walnut Street was part of the downtown district also. The block across Hwy 50 to Main Street was also included in the downtown district. Mr. Cox stated a City Hall should be a 50-year building. You should always have an addition plan. The staff count was done with an analysis of staff input and models from other cities. You could build additional square footage and not finish it. Mayor Ristow stated his concern is that it seems congested and why do that when looking long term? He thought the city bought the Tribune out with CDBG funds. Finance Director Roland stated CDBG funds were used for the acquisition and restoration of the property for $120,000. There is no restriction on it, because we would be utilizing that property, we reduced blight, and took care of a pollution problem. Because we already utilized the funds for that, there would not be any payback. Mayor Ristow asked if we could use it for our own benefit, other than for redevelopment of future businesses. Finance Director Roland replied there is no restriction on that money. Community Development Director Carroll recalled some provision for CDBG money being used to acquire property. The goal generally is to be used for private use rather than public. The worst that could happen would be the city could have to repay some portion of the CDBG money. You would not lose it. It would go back into a CDBG account that you could then spend on another use. Mr. Cox stated sometimes they have clients that start on the design process and look at functional things to check the plan with the site. We have not looked internally at this building. The next step would be to start the design process and then check that with the site. Mayor Ristow wanted to wait a couple weeks for the soil results before starting that. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff is gathering some current information regarding parking downtown. There is a prospective tenant for the upper level ofthe Exchange Bank building and Larson building for a catering business. The occupancy load is for 200-250 people. They asked ifthere is enough parking. Staffhas gone all around the downtown and counted parking spaces. That information can be used for the City Hall analysis. He has had City Council City Hall Workshop Minutes June 4, 2003 Page 5 conversations with Xcel Energy about their building to obtain an easement agreement to reach the back of adjacent buildings. Mr. Carroll has talked to Mr. Brown about tearing off the back of the Riste building. Mr. Brown is still talking about tearing that building down. The Xcel building is vacant most of the time. Staff has asked them if we could find another property for them, if they would let that property go? They have not said yes or no. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, 7~~/Y7~~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 7~ DRAFT Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes from the Regular Meeting on May 14,2003 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Dawn Johnson, Mike Buringa and Debby Ruth Members Absent: Paula Higgins Other's Present: Parks and Recreation Director, Randy Distad I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Motion of Oswald and seconded by Ruth to approve the meeting agenda. APIF III. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Ruth and seconded by Johnson to approve the minutes from the April 9, 2003 meeting as amended to show that Commission member Higgins was absent and to add a sentence about the discussion on the City purchasing a school bus for the Parks and Recreation Department. APIF Buringa entered the meeting at 6:08 p.m. IV. Presentations A. Moguls in Prairieview Park Citizen was not in attendance to make a presentation to the Commission. V. Old Business A. Vending Proposal Exclusive soft drink vending proposals from Pepsi and Coke were reviewed. Appeared to be some disappointment that the proposal from Pepsi didn't contain more up front money. Commission members directed Parks and Recreation Director Distad to try and get more product value per year from Coke. Motion by Oswald and seconded by Johnson to approve recommending to the City Council that the proposal from Coke be approved. APIF VI. New Business A. Recreational Facility Task Force Discussion Discussion occurred about which two Commission members should be on the task force. Motion by Buringa and seconded by Ruth to appoint Chair Oswald and Higgins to the task force. Voting in favor were Commission members Buringa, Johnson and Ruth. Abstaining was Oswald. Commission members suggested some ideas on providing some direction to the task force. The following direction will be carried to the first task force meeting for review by task force members: . The task force should look at needs of entire group. . Whenever possible, the task force should try to focus on the City and school district working cooperatively together on facilities so that there is not overlap in facilities or so that facilities may be shared. . The task force should focus its attention on where the City currently falls short or is deficient in facilities. . There should be a short-term vision (2-3 years) and a long-term vision (5-10 years) created by the task force when looking at future recreational facilities. . Whenever possible, public/private partnerships should be considered by the task force. . The information that is gathered and presented by the task force should be factual and not skewed or biased. . If possible different finance methods should be examined. . By the end of 2003 a final report should be presented to both the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and City Council for adoption. . Recreational facility needs should be prioritized in some manner by the task force. B. Update on Spruce Street Corridor Task Force Parks and Recreation Director Distad updated Commission members on the status of the master plan for the Spruce Street Corridor. Of importance to the Commission was the park and open space plan component of the master plan. Commission members seemed to like the parkway concept. Chair Oswald would like to have the suggestion brought back to the task force to look at the option of securing the area along Denmark that is shown as residential become park and open space because it is already surrounded by park and open space. He felt that it would be a more usable area then for athletic fields. This would be the residential area that is currently right across from the existing high school. Director Distad said that he would bring this idea back to the task force at its next meeting. C. Meadow Creek Fourth Addition Preliminary Plat Review Director Distad updated Commission members on the Preliminary Plat for Meadow Creek Fourth. Currently the plat shows oversized ponds for a possible canoe route. This would require some portaging of canoes to make this concept work. Director Distad commented that it might make more sense to reduce the size of the ponds and put a trail along the ponds. He stated that trails would most likely get more use than if it were left as a canoe route. Commission members agreed. Motion by Chair Oswald and seconded by Buringa to recommend that the preliminary plat be redrawn so that the ponds are downsized and trails are added in along the west side of the ponds. APIF VII. Additions to the Agenda There were no additions to the agenda. VIII. Staff Report Director Distad updated Commission members on the Giles Addition and that it is not quite ready to be developed. Director Distad voiced a concern about how small the size of the park is and that it will limit what kind of programmed activities could be done in the park. One suggestion was to put a climbing rock that was previously seen by the Commission on a playground proposal submitted by Webber Recreational Design, Inc. Commission members seemed to favor this type of equipment. Director Distad also updated Commission members on City Council approval of the Youth Scholarship Program and the Meadowview Park name for the park located in the Charleswood Development. IX. June Agenda Items The Commission would like the following items placed on the June meeting agenda: . Concern from citizen about moguls in Prairieview Park . Update on the vending proposals from Coke and Pepsi . Update on the Park Dedication Ordinance . Update on Park Master Plan for Meadowview Park . Presentation by Don Hayes on winter season X. Adjournment Ruth moved and Oswald seconded to adjourn the meeting. APIF. Meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Randy Distad, CPRP Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /c.. TO: M C .1 b C. Adm.. t;.\ ayor, OunCI mem ers, lty mlstrator FROM: Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Survey of Rural Farmington DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION The Heritage Preservation Commission respectfully requests Council approval to begin a architectural and historic survey of rural Farmington. DISCUSSION In January, a grant application was submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society by Robert Vogel, the City's Preservation Planning Consultant, to obtain a Certified Local Government Grant on behalf of the City of Farmington and the Heritage Preservation Commission. The grant is for an exploration to be done on approximately 1200-1800 acres of rural Farmington from July 1, 2003 through July 31, 2004. The survey is intended to identify buildings, sites structures, objects and districts worthy of historic consideration in community development planning. This type of grant is a "matching" grant and the City of Farmington has been approved for $4000.00. The matching funds from the City that are required to match the $4000.00 grant include funds related to stafftime involved, "in-kind" services provided by the City's Preservation Planning Consultant and a cash match of$800.00. Attached is a copy of the approved grant application that was submitted to the state to begin a survey of rural Farmington. BUDGET IMPACT The staff time required will be provided for in the 2003 and 2004 budgets, Mr. Vogel's "in-kind" services is part of his standard contract with the City and the $800.00 cash match required for this grant can be deducted from Mr. Vogel's 2004 Annual Retainer. ACTION REQUESTED The Heritage Preservation Commission is requesting Council approval to begin the architectural and historic survey of rural Farmington. Respectfully submitted, ~tl, xAadUL Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director Cc: HPC Members Robert Vogel I Appendix I I Minnesota Historical Society Certified Local Government Grant Application Date Received: MHS Number: Name of City Farmington Mailing Address 325 Oak St. City/StatelZip Farmington, MN 55024 CLG Certification Date: 2/ 1 6/94 3. Fiscal Officer: Robin Roland Name t;~ si~jle 325 Oak St. Print Name Street Address (;,5/- <./~3-ICCol Telephone Number Farmington, MN 55024 City/State/Zip 4. Project Director: 5. Heritage Preservation Commission Chair: Lisa Shadick Susan Strahan Name Name 325 Oak St. 19179 Echo Ln. Street Address Street Address Farmington, MN 55024 City/State/Zip Farminqton, MN 55024 City/StatelZip 651-463-1802 Telephone Number 651-463-4523 Telephone Number Proiect Information I 6. Brief Project Description: 7. Budget Summary Architecture/history reconnaissan~e Grant Funds $4,000 survey of rural historic Applicant Match $4,200 preservation planning areas Total Project Budget $8,200 8. Project Duration 7/1/03-7/31/04 Proiect Area I 9. Project Area (please check) o ~ o o A. Comprehensive Planning 0 c. Survey 0 B. Pre-Development: Histcr:-ic Structure Report 0 I Re-use Study r D. Evaluation E. Local Desgination Forms 0 F. National Register Nomination Forms G. Public Education (please specify): 10. Detailed Project Descrlf?tio:9 (uS:e additional sh~etsas needed) Applications must include ALL INFORMATION REQUESTED for the project area checked above as outlined in Part 111_ pages 2-5 of the Certified Local Government Grants Manual. Include a discussion of how this project reflects the goals and strategies outlined in the 2000 statewide preservation plan. . . Type of survey: architecturelhistory Level of documentation: reconnaissance Number of acres in survey area: approx. 1200-1800 The ]995 Farmington Historic Context Study delineated 16 historic preservation survey areas (HPPAs) and outlined a comprehensive program of reconnaissance surveys to identifY buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts worthy of consideration in community development planning. Architecturelhistory surveys of the Downtown, Oak Street, and Main Street HPPAs within the urbanized area have already been conducted by the HPC. A narrow corridor along MSAH 50 was previously surveyed for historic resources by MnDOT. The proposed reconnaissance survey will focus on undeveloped rural areas in the Akin, Creek, Pine KnolI, Clay Quarry, Industrial, Flagstaff, and Devonshire HPPAs that are located outside of existing platted subdivisions (see the attached map). The proposed survey reflects statewide preservation themes and planning goals relating to the following post~contact period historic contexts: Early Agr.iculture and River Settlement (1840-1870) and Railroads and Agricultural Settlement (1870-.1940). . Applicable local historic contexts, as described. in the 1995 Farmington Historic Context Study and in the Historic Preservation chapter of the 2000-2020 City of Fannington Comprehensive Plan, are: Agriculture and Rural Lifeways (1854-1950), Transportation (1950- 1950), and Geographical Features of Historical Interest. Background knowledge of the survey area suggests that historic properties are present as farmsteads, isolated agricultural buildings and structures,nonfann rural residences, road-related transportation structures, and quarries. Settlement of this area began in the 1850s and land use was predominantly agricultural until the present time. Rural Farmington was an important general farming area with strong economic and social links to the town of Farmington, which was founded in 1866 as a rural trade center. The survey will commence on I July 2003 and all products will be submitted on or before 31 July 2004. Survey findings will be presented in a GIS submitted as part of the narrative fmal report. State inventory fonns will be completed for all significant properties identified by the survey. SHPO will provide b/w film; a digital photo record will also be kept. Survey work will adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines for identification (48 FR 44720-44723) and the MN SHPO Guidelines for Architecture/History Surveys (January 1993). Reconnaissance survey methods will follow National Register BulIetin 24, Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. The state historic preservation plan established "identifY, evaluate, and designate significant historic and archeological resources" as a priority for 2000-2005. Surveys and their related preservation plans are an integral part of historic preservation planning and provide the basis for sound community development decision making. In carrying out surveys of areas that are subject to urban development activity, the City of Fannington strives to meet its responsibilities as a member of the federal-state-Iocal government preservation partnership. The date and interpretations generated by the survey will constitute an important contribution to knowledge in their own right and will enhance the MN SHPO inventory of the state's heritage resources. 111. Project Products Provide a concise description of the products that will result from the project. The reconnaissance survey will produce a final report designed to meet both technical and informational needs. Survey findings will be presented using text, tables, photographs, GIS, and other formats as appropriate. The report will meet all applicable survey reporting standards and guidelines. Printed and digital copies of the report, along with original state historic site inventory forms, photo print sheets and photo logs, will be provided to MHS upon completion of the project. 112. Community Support Provide a concise statement summarizing demonstrated community support for this project. Cash match is one measure of community support. The City of Farmington established its historic preservation program in the early 1 990s and became a CLG in 1994. The program enjoys broad public support, as demonstrated by the listing of three local properties in the National Register and five Farmington Heritage Landmark designations. The city provides the HPC with professional staff, including a senior member of the city's administration and a historic preservation planning consultant. This project wiIl be financed in part with $800 in cash and $2400 in consulting fees (in-kind) already budgeted for historic preservation in 2003. In addition, the city is prepared to contribute a minimum of $1000 worth of regular staff time (in-kind). 113. Project Impact Provide a concise statement describing the expected effect of the project on the community's awareness and understand- ing of local government in addressing local preservation issues. Describe any plans for promoting the project. Farmington is one of the fastest-growing suburban communities in the Twin Cities. The proposed survey of historic properties in the rural part of the city will provide the baseline data necessary to make wise land use planning decisions. As stated in the city code and the comprehensive land use plan, the City is committed to the preservation, protection, and sensitive treatment of significant historic resources. The survey will identify significant historic properties that may be adversely effected by future development and provide the basis for possible local designations (the Farmington Heritage Landmark program provides protection to historic sites through overlay zoning). The City places a high value on its heritage resources overall and is also committed to mitigating the effects of suburban development on rural historic properties. 114. Project Personnel List principal project personnel and their qualifications. The Project Director for the survey will be Lisa Shadick, the city's Administrative Services Manager whose responsibilities include staffing the HPC. The Principal Investigator for the survey wiIl be Robert C. Vogel, the city's Preservation Planning Consultant since] 995. The city contracts with Vogel to direct ongoing survey, registration, and planning work. He meets the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualifications standards in history and architectural history. _/___ __u____ " ,000 . lIOOO o . .- ,;' --- --.....-. --..------... r- / ./ ............ ..........- '1 I l )- ( \ I~ 17 AKIl:l -.. ) r 0__.___----. ) ) ! \.... \ '\) ~ '-\ \ CREEK ..._~-.-__ _____h___h I ?- ."j I '1-- '1 ""'" ".-- ... -.-.--.... ..... ._-- ...---.-... -- . .-..-.--....-..----...--. ----- "- '-.. ...I) . i ./ 19 20 ../ J PINE KNOll o '\ "'.. \or --, ---- .-,eo --/--1-- I -'>- FI AC1ST AFF .......1 "-4 n DI':VONSHIRF. /".--.--.- '>_/ c I I CITY OF FARMINGTON I ~! ; '" i i ; i. i iM i ~ a l t ~ C. 10 Er E ..:; 50'" ~- r I ~ I I . ~.: : i. r ~ ~ r _ .......,t. ...1:1;6 . v 11- ~ -m ':;E:'~~ i HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING AREAS LfGENO. Em:l:I ~. = = = ,,,"* .... allflM&t A nnpnn,,, "R - ~ 15. Detailed Project Budget Applicant Match Budget Item G ra n t Cash In-Kind Donated Total Project Director 0 0 500 0 500 Principal Invesf-igator 4000 800 2400 0 7200 GIS 0 0 500 0 500 (Planning- Dept: ) . A. B. C. D. E. 4000 800 3400 0 8200 TOTAL Column A must not exceed the total of Columns B + C + 0 7e! 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 AdministratorL, FROM: Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Gambling Premises Permit - American Legion Post #189 DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION The American Legion Post #189 of Farmington is requesting a Gambling Premises Permit at The American Legion Post #189 located at 10 8th Street, Farmington, MN 55024. DISCUSSION Pursuant to State Statute and pertinent City Code, an organization must first obtain a resolution from the City, granting permission for gambling to occur at a specific location. The American Legion Post #189 is requesting approval to conduct gambling activity at 10 8th Street. The appropriate application and fees have been received and the application has been reviewed by the City Attorney. BUDGET IMPACT Gambling fees are included in the revenue portion ofthe 2003 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Consider the attached Resolution approving a Gambling Premise Permit at 10 8th Street. Respectfully submitted, ~d, Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director RESOLUTION NO. R -03 APPROVING A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POST 189 OF FARMINGTON 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 16th day of June 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 349.166, the State of Minnesota Gambling Board may not issue or renew a Gambling Premises Permit unless the City Council adopts a Resolution approving said permit; and, WHEREAS, the American Legion of Farmington has submitted an application for a Gambling Premises Permit to be conducted at the American Legion, 10 8th Street, for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling Premises Permit for the American Legion of Farmington to be conducted at the American Legion, 10 8th Street is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of June 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 7e ~\. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Gambling Event Permit - Senior Class Parents DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION The Senior Class Parents are requesting a Gambling Event Permit to sell raffle tickets through December 31, 2003 and conduct a raffle at the Eagles Club on January 5, 2004. DISCUSSION Per State Statute 349.166 and pertinent City Code, a Gambling Permit must be issued by the City for this type ofevent. An application has been received, along with the appropriate fees. The City Attorney has reviewed the application and the attached resolution approving the request. BUDGET IMPACT Gambling permit fees are included in the revenue portion ofthe 2003 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Consider the attached Resolution granting a Gambling Event Permit to the Senior Class Parents at the Eagles Club on January 5, 2004. Respectfully submitted, ,!6~tl JIt~ Lisa Shadick Administrative Services Director RESOLUTION NO. R -03 APPROVING A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR SENIOR CLASS PARENTS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council ofthe City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of June 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 349.166, the State of Minnesota Gambling Board may not issue or renew a Gambling Event Permit unless the City Council adopts a Resolution approving said permit; and, WHEREAS, the Senior Class Parents of Farmington have submitted an application for a Gambling Event Permit to be conducted at the Eagle's Club, 200 3rd Street, for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling Event Permit for the Senior Class Parents of Farmington to be conducted at the Eagle's Club, 200 3rd Street is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of June 2003. Mayor day of 2003. Attested to the City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7-( TO: ~<. Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief . 1 SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Mutual Aid Fire Services Agreement DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION Attached is a copy of the new Dakota County Mutual Aid Fire Services Agreement and a resolution for adoption from the LMC. DISCUSSION The purpose of the Dakota County Mutual Aid Fire Services Agreement is to authorize the assistance of our local government's personnel and equipment in the event it would be impossible or impractical for the City Council to meet to authorize such assistance. The agreement will replace two previous documents and also contains language that will be beneficial in case of a major event where FEMA money would be available. Both documents have been reviewed by the attorneys for Eagan and Apple Valley. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution authorizing mutual aid to the cities listed in the Dakota County Mutual Aid Fire Services Agreement. ' Respectfully submitted, ~u~~ Fire Chief THE Motion for the adoption of this resolution was duly seconded by Member and upon vote being taken thereon, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor with the signature attested by the City Clerk. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MUTUAL AID WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of , Dakota County, Minnesota, finds that there are situations where another local government may need the assistance of our local government's personnel and equipment and it would be impossible or impractical for the City Council to meet to authorize sending such assistance; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of , Dakota County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It authorizes the City Administrator/designee to dispatch equipment and personnel as deemed necessary to assist another local government. This decision shall be made after considering at all times and in each case the internal needs of our local government in addition to the needs of the party requesting our local government's assistance. 2. This action shall be considered to be an official act ofthe local government and all of the local government's policies regarding the compensation, use of equipment, insurance, etc., will apply, as per the Dakota County Mutual Aid Fire Service Agreement. 3. The City Administrator/designee shall recall the local government's equipment and personnel if it is needed in our local government, or if it is no longer needed by the requesting local government or if the City Council orders that action. Mayor/City Administrator/Designee ATTEST: City Clerk H:LMC/resolutionauthorizingmutualaid DAKOTA COUNTY MUTUAL AID FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT This agreement is entered into among the Cities of Apple Valley, Bumsville, Cannon Falls, Eagan, Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Mendota Heights, Miesville, Northfield, Randolph-Hampton, Rosemount, South St. Paul, and West St. Paul, and the Metropolitan Airport Commission. 1. Purpose. This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.59 which authorizes the joint and cooperative exercise of powers common to contracting parties. The intent of this agreement is to make equipment, personnel, and other resources available to one party from other parties to this Agreement for the purpose of fire or emergency medical services. 2. Definitions. 1. "Party" means a political subdivision. 2. "Requesting Official" means the person designated by a Party who is responsible for requesting Assistance from other Parties. 3. "Requesting Party" means a party that requests assistance from other parties. 4. "Responding Official" means the person designated by a party who is responsible to determine whether and to what extent that party should provide assistance to a Requesting Party. 5. "Responding Party" means a party that provides assistance to a Requesting Party. 6. "Assistance" means Fire and/or emergency medical services personnel and equipment. 3. Request for assistance. Whenever, in the opinion of a Requesting Official, there is a need for assistance from other parties, the Requesting Official may call upon the Responding Official of any other party to furnish assistance. 4. Response to request. Upon the request for assistance from a Requesting Party, the Responding Official may authorize and direct his/ her party's personnel to provide assistance to the Requesting Party. This decision will be made after considering the needs of the . responding party and the availability of resources. The decision of the Responding Party or Official to respond shall be determined solely by the Responding Official and shall be conclusive. No liability to the Responding Party or Official shall result by failing to respond or to provide assistance to the Requesting Party. 5. Recall of Assistance. The Responding Official, at his/her own sole discretion (by order of the governing body of the Responding Party), may at any time recall assistance when it is determined that the Responding Party shall cease any further assistance. No liability to the Responding party or Official shall result by the Responding Party's recall of assistance. H:LMC/mutuaIaidagreement/ Page 1 of20 4. Command of Scene. The Requesting Party shall be in command ofthe mutual aid scene. The personnel and equipment of the Responding Party shall be under the direction and control of the commanding officer of the Requesting Party until the Responding Official withdraws assistance. The employees, volunteers, or personnel of the Responding Party shall be, and are deemed to be, employees of the Responding party and at no time shall they be deemed as employees, personnel, or volunteers of the Requesting Party. 5. Workers' compensation. Each party shall be responsible for injuries or death of its own personnel. Each party will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are providing assistance pursuant to this agreement. Each party waives the right to sue any other party for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own employee or volunteer or their dependants, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other party or its officers, employees, or volunteers. 6. Damage to equipment. Each party shall be responsible for damages to or loss of its own equipment. Each party waives the right to sue any other party for any damages to or loss of its equipment, even if the damages or losses were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other party or its officers, employees, or volunteers. 7. Limits of Liability 1. For the purposes of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Liability Act (Minn. Stat. 466), the employees and officers of the Responding Party are deemed to be employees (as defined in Minn. Stat. 466.01, subdivision 6) of the Requesting Party.. 2. The Requesting Party agrees to defend and indemnify the Responding Party against any claims brought or actions filed against the Responding Party or any officer, employee, or volunteer of the Responding Party for injury to, death of, or damage to the property of any third person or persons, arising from the performance and provision of assistance in responding to a request for assistance by the Requesting Party pursuant to this agreement. Under no circumstances, however, shall a party be required to pay on behalf of itself and other parties, any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 applicable to anyone party. The limits ofliability for some or all of the parties may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for any party. 3. No party to this agreement, or any employee, official, or volunteer of any party, shall be liable to any other Party or to any other person for failure of any party to furnish assistance to any other party, or for recalling assistance, both as described in this agreement. H:LMC/mutualaidagreementJ Page 2 of 20 8. Charges to the Requesting Party. Subd. 1 No charges will be levied by a Responding Party to this agreement for assistance rendered to a Requesting Party under the terms of this agreement unless that assistance continues for a period of more than 12 hours. If assistance provided under this agreement continues for more than 12 hours, the Responding Party will submit to the Requesting Party an itemized bill for the actual cost of any assistance provided after the initial 12 hour period, including salaries, overtime, materials and supplies and other necessary expenses; and the Requesting Party will reimburse the party providing the assistance for that amount. Subd. 2 Such charges are not contingent upon the availability of federal or state government funds. 9. Duration. This agreement shall remain in force until and unless cancelled by any party upon thirty (30) days written notice to all other parties; provided that such cancellation shall only apply to the canceling party. 10. Effective Date and Execution. Each party hereto has read, agreed to and executed this Mutual Aid Agreement on the date indicated. This agreement is intended to supersede any prior agreement among the parties. Each party to this agreement shall maintain a copy of an executed copy of this agreement. Such copy shall be provided by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Dakota County Fire Chiefs' Association. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date that any two parties have executed this Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect for each party that has approved and executed the Agreement until the party cancels the Agreement pursuant to Paragraph 10 above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Agreement to be executed in their respective corporate names by their duly authorized officers by authority of their respecting governing bodies. H:LMC/mutualaidagreementJ Page 3 of 20 CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: MAYOR CITY CLERK / CITY MANAGER / CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: H:LMC/mutualaidagreementl Page 8 of 20 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminlrton.mn.us o TO: M C '1 b C' Adm" ~C ayor, OunCl mem ers, lty llllstrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Approve No-Parking Zone - Charleswood DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION/ DISCUSSION Staffhas been made aware of parking issues on Everest Path in Charleswood, adjacent to 195th Street in the area of the entrance monument median (see attached picture). The through lanes next to the median are not wide enough to accommodate parking. It is recommended that the area adjacent to the median be posted for no parking. BUDGET IMPACT The cost ofthe proposed signs would be within the 2003 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the placement of No-Parking signs on Everest Path in the area of the Charleswood entrance median at 195th Street. Respectfully Submitted, ~h1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer attachment CC: file ; r'i I . , II U , , .. ',,: f 'I': , ~, " 990( City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7,4 (( Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ~ TO: FROM: Robin Roland, Finance Director SUBJECT: Adopt Revised Agreement - Dakota County Fair Board" DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION At their meeting on March 17,2003, Council approved an agreement for safety coverage to the Demolition Derby at the Dakota County Fair. Further negotiations have taken place and a revised agreement requires Council approval. DISCUSSION The attached agreement is the same as the agreement approved by council in March, except that the cost to the Fair Board is identified as a set dollar amount for 2003 and 2004. The agreement provides for a piece of fire or rescue equipment, of equal value to that set dollar amount, to be contributed to the City. BUDGET IMPACT Per the agreement, the Fair Board and City will agree upon a piece of equipment to be donated in advance of the commencement of the Fair equal to $2500 in 2003 and $3000 in 2004. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached agreement between the Dakota County F air Board and t he City 0 f Farmington. ' Respectfully submitted, )1?/#/'J Robin Roland Finance Director FIRE SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made this 16th day of June, 2003, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") with offices at 325 Oak, Farmington, Minnesota, and DAKOTA COUNTY FAIR BOARD ("Owner"). Recitals: WHEREAS, Owner owns the real property located in Dakota County legally described on Exhibit "A >> attached hereto and incorporated herein, located within the City of Farmington, MN ("Subject Property"). WHEREAS, Owner has requested that the City provide special fIre fIghting and related emergency services to the Owner 1 s property, in particular: Fire and Emergency Equipment and Personnel available to provide emergency services as necessary in conjunction with the owner's conduct of demolition derby events during its annual fair. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS SET FORTH HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City will provide the requested service under this Agreement for the next 3 years through December 31, 2005, and assume all responsibility for equipment and personnel to be provided, including, but not limited to, compensation and insurance matters. 2. Owner, will compensate the City by providing to the City a piece of fIre or rescue equipment of value equal to the following: $2,500 in 2003, $3,000 in 2004 and to be decided upon after adoption of the fees & charges schedule in 2005. Said fIre/rescue equipment to be agreed upon by both parties prior to the commencement of the annual fair. CITY OF FARMINGTON: By: Gerald G. Ristow, Mayor By: By: By: Edward J. Shukle, City Administrator DAKOTA COUNTY FAIR STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2003, by Gerald G. Ristow and Edward J. Shukle, respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2003, by and , the of Owner, Dakota County Fair. and Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 J11 EXHIBIT "A" to FIRE SERVICES CONTRACT DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminlrton.mn.us 7/' TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administratorf ( FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: 2003 Curbside Cleanup Summary DATE: June 16, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City has offered a clean up day to the community for many years. In 2001, the City went from a central drop-off location to a curbside pickup program. DISCUSSION The 2003 Curbside Cleanup program is now complete and participation levels were high, once again. The total amounts of materials collected from Farmington homes follows: Garbage 333.76 tons $19,024.32 Electronics 60,446 pounds $24,178.40 Tires 2071 items $12,426.00 Appliances 916 items $27,480.00 Total Cost In addition to the above materials, 15.55 tons of scrap metal were collected and recycled. The total bill for all four Cleanup Days was $106,952.46 (the above totals plus the base charge for trucks and labor). When you divide the overall cost of Curbside Cleanup Days by the approximate number of residential properties that were eligible to participate, the average cost per household was $18.50. The convenience and easy accessibility of the curbside program once again brought in much larger quantities of materials than past drop off Cleanup Days. A comparison of the Cleanup Days follows: Material 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 ~ ------ -- - - Garba2e 333.76 272.89 264.06 50.74 42.84 Tires 2071 1766 2017 630 368 Electronics 604461bs. 47,780Ibs. 44,960 lbs. 15,340 Ibs. n/a Appliances 916 795 820 269 171 In a wrap meeting to discuss concerns and suggestions with the City's contractor, Dick's Sanitation, Inc., the following items were discussed: I. Central drop-off location versus curbside pickup. Staff felt that the curbside pickup should continue as this seems to be positive feedback received on the annual City survey. 2. Increase the amount of police patrol in cleanup day areas the evening before and the day of the cleanup collection. 3. Educate residents on how cleanup days are funded to discourage illegal or non-residential waste. 4. Set a limit on the number of mattresses and large pieces offumiture that can be set out, similar to the limits for tires, appliances, and electronics. The following graphs illustrate the change in amounts collected over the past several years. Garbage 800000 700000 600000 j 500000 i I 0 garbage I j "8 400000 '" ." c: 5 300000 D.. 200000 100000 0 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 Year Electronics 70000 60446 60000 50000 j j 40000 (5 I_ electronics I () '" 1l 30000 ::l 0 D.. 20000 10000 0 2003 2002 2001 2000 Year Tires 2500 2071 2000 j ~ "0 1500 u gJ latires I ~ ... 0 1000 ; .c E ::> Z 500 0 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 Year Scrap metal 60000 56400 50000 j ~ "0 40000 U ~ .. :0 I!lmetall Q. 30000 to :; lIJ ... 0 20000 <Il "'0 c: ::> 0 0.. 10000 0 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 Year I would like to thank Benno Klotz, Solid Waste Supervisor and Lena Larson, Public Works Administrative Assistant for the work that they do in coordinating with Dick's Sanitation, Inc. the Curbside Clean-Up Program. In addition, I would also like to acknowledge and thank Ms. Larson for her work in putting this summary together. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for the Curbside Clean Up Program was approved in the 2003 Solid Waste Budget. ACTION REQUESTED No action is needed. This report is merely for informational purposes only. ~~d Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director cc: Lena Larson, Public Works Administrative Assistant Benno Klotz, Solid Waste Supervisor City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ), ~ TO: Mayor and City Council ; , FROM: Ed Shukle, City Administrator SUBJECT: 2004 ALF Budget DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION According to Apple Valley, Lakeville and Farmington (ALF) Ambulance Joint Powers Agreement, the annual budget for ALF is to be approved by the ALF Board of Directors and submitted to each member city on or before July 1 of each year. The budget was prepared by ALF staff and submitted to the Executive Management Committee (EMC) and the ALF Board of Directors for approval. Attached is the 2004 ALF Budget as approved by the EMC and Board of Directors. It is now ready for your review and approval. DISCUSSION The budget was developed over the past few months and encompasses some of the goals discussed at a recent ALF strategic planning session. It is a realistic budget which will address the ever changing needs of the ambulance service. Attached to the budget document is a memorandum from Dennis Feller, Finance Director, City of Lakeville, member of the EMC and who had an integral role in the development ofthe budget. Mr. Feller's memo presents the highlights of the budget in more detail. BUDGET IMPACT Impacts the operations of ALF for the 2004 Budget year beginning January 1,2004 and ending December 31, 2004. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the 2004 ALF Budget as approved by the EMC and ALF Board of Directors. PARAMEDIC L~ ALF Ambulance 7100 West 147th Street. Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 Office: (952) 953-2660 Fax: (952) 953-2672 I May 21,2003 ALF Board of Directors The Joint Powers Agreement requires the annual budget be submitted to each member city on or before July 1 for approval. The Executive Board does hereby provide the proposed 2004 budget for Board consideration. The budget will be forwarded to each of the member cities after it is approved by the Board. The Executive Management Committee is responsible for enforcement ofthe adopted budget. The following are highlights of the proposed budget. Operations - Expenditures . a). Personnel. The proposed budget takes into consideration the contract provisions with respect to the Supervisors and Paramedics Labor Agreement. b). Community Services. The proposed budget includes reimbursement to the cities in the amount of $155,859. The reimbursement is for such services as personnel management, payroll processing, financial reporting, accounts payable, dispatching services and the respective cities providing quarters in their fire departments for ALF crews. c). Medical Supplies - Oxygen. The Apple Valley, Lakeville and Farmington police and fire departments provide oxygen (as needed) to patients. Since the patients are ultimately transported by ALF, the Executive Committee recommends the cost of refilling oxygen bottles be financed by ALF Ambulance and incorporated as part ofthe fee structure. d). Professional Services. The proposed budget provides $3,000 for a strategic planning session in 2004. e). Collection Services. The three-year contract with Expert-T for billing of ALF transports will expire on December 31,2003. Expert-T (Tamme Kuehn) has indicated the cost of billing services will be increasing from $18 per account to $23.50 per account effective January 1,2004. As such, the estimated cost for collection services will increase from approximately $47,741 to approximately $64,859. Apple Valley $ Lakeville $ Farmington " f). Training Services. The public safety (police and fire) personnel from each of the three member cities assist ALF personnel at medical scenes. ALF personnel therefore provide first responder training services to City of Lakeville Fire and Police Departments and the Apple Valley Fire Department. ALF personnel also provide CPR and AED training to the Apple Valley community at large. Since Farmington Fire department EMTs receive training from other sources, the Executive Committee is recommending that ALF reimburse the City of Farmington approximately $5,400 for training of the EMTs. g). Conferences - National. The Executive Committee is recommending that the Administrator and Director of Operations attend a National Conference in alternating years. h). Uncollectible Accounts. Under MedicareIMedicaid laws that became effective in April 2002, the maximum reimbursement for patient transport is $374 and $430, respectively. The estimated cost of MedicareIMedicaid write offs in 2004 is approximately $587,971. As such, MedicarelMedicaid write offs represent approximately 22% of the total ambulance service revenues. In addition, approximately 11 % of all other accounts are also considered uncollectible. The estimated cost of uncollectible accounts is $233,107. Capital Outlay Significant proposed capital outlay requests included in the budget for 2004 are as follows: a). Medic Unit 11, 1996 Ford, is proposed to be refurbished in 2004. Medic Unit 12 will be refurbished in 2005. Cost of refurbishment is approximately $76,000 per unit. b). Subject to the review and recommendations of the Technology Committee, the on- board computer system will be implemented in 2004. The five laptop computers, printers and licenses will cost approximately $45,000. c). The budget also provides $28,350 equipment such as radios, pagers, office computers, VCR, furniture and file cabinet. Due to the ominous implications of the Legislative actions regarding levy limits and state aid reductions, the proposed budget for ALF includes the issuance of Certificate of Indebtedness to finance the 2003 and 2004 capital outlay in the amount of $147,990 and $137,350 respectively. The Certificates would be issued by one of the member cities on behalf of ALF Ambulance. The Certificates would be amortized over a five-year period. Annual debt service requirements would equal the 2004 city subsidy ($59,482) based on $.50/capita. The member cities can therefore utilize the city subsidy as a special tax levy (which is exempt from levy limits) if they so choose. Revenues The proposed budget includes a recommended rate increase of 7.9%. The estimated average transport would be approximately $984, which is still $200-400 less than the rates charged by metro area private ambulance services. Net income before depreciation is $4,175. The estimated ending 2004 cash balance ($436,373) represents approximately 20% of the operating expenses. The proposed 2004 budget provides adequate financial resources to enable ALF Ambulance to provide quality patient care in a cost effective and responsible manner. The Executive Committee therefore respectfully seeks Board questions and comments and approval of the proposed budget. AA~ . ~ Dennis Feller Finance Director ALF Ambulance 7100 West 147th Street Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 Office: (952) 953-2660 Fax: (952) 953-2672 June 9, 2003 Ed Shukle Farmington City Administrator 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Ed Pursuant to Section 9 of the" Amended Joint Powers Agreement to Provide Ambulance Service", ALF Ambulance respectfully requests Farmington City Council approval of the attached 2004 Proposed Budget for ALF Ambulance. On June 3, 2003 the Operating Board for ALF Ambulance approved said budget as presented by the Executive Management Committee. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 952-953-2664. Sincerely T om Kelley ALF Administrator Attachments: 2004 Proposed Budget Introductory letter from Finance Director Dennis Feller Apple Valley $ Lakeville $ Farmington ALF AMBULANCE 2004 Proposed Budget As of May 15, 2003 ~ DMc2 9\ pp({)\Je&fo( 3j>3 OperatinQ Revenues Gross Service Billings Medicare Write-off City Support Township Support Castle Rock Eureka Empire Contract is $2.68/capita plus $150/transport Miscellaneous revenue Lifelink III and other ground assistance Standby coverages Reports First responder classes EMSRB grant Other Total Miscellaneous LMCIT Rebate State-aid PERA Investment Income: 5/21/2003 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Notes 3 2001 2002 2003 2004 1,868,611 2,081,015 2,419,720 2,717,125 (500,898) (597,971) 53,446 50,510 52,904 59,482 7,382 7,382 7,382 9,645 9,645 9,645 8,362 8,362 8,362 23,290 25,389 25,389 25,389 2,100 2,400 2,100 2,100 1,730 2,393 1,700 1,700 490 550 500 500 153 1,197 150 150 3,000 2,871 2,550 2,550 7,191 6,539 10,000 7,000 4,205 4,815 $3,500 4,200 3,967 $3,967 $3,967 3,967 28,106 30,319 24,975 10,000 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Notes 2001 2002 2003 2004 Operatina Expenses Personnel (see attached) 6012 Salaries 956,684 1,046,511 1,115,515 1,167,206 6051 Hospitalization + life 79,241 88,979 108,158 119,674 6053 Long-term Disability 4,698 5,227 4,594 4,594 6054 Dental Insurance 7,720 8,528 8,801 9,681 6310 Community Support 92,895 95,548 151.319 155,859 6110 Office Supplies 3,688 2,831 3,575 3,700 Paper, desk top items, small fixture items. 6115 Education Equipment & Supplies (training aids) Manikin 500 CPR cards 828 BLS cards 162 Heartsaver cards 195 Training books 520 265 Resusci-anne (mannequins) 1,300 (6) Medical training videos 360 (5) blood pressure cuffs 150 Oxygen kit 200 AED trainer 500 Trainer models are required for ''train the trainer" sessions which ALF medics will conducting to implement the City AED training classes. ALF currently borrows one, when available, from the technical college. Other 529 465 100 1,549 1,915 1,600 2,610 . Medics teach First Responder to AV Fire, Lakeville Police and Fire at No Charge. Medics teach outside agencies first Responder for a small fee. Medics also teach Community CPR, AED in Apple Valley, and Community CPR classes . The courses require equipment because much of the class is practical, hands-on training. Equipment gets worn out over the years and training videos become outdated as new First Aid guidelines are developed. For example, the American Heart Association updates its videos every 5 years. . ALF trainers now borrow an oxygen kit from one of the duty rigs which does impact service delivery. A kit includes tank. regulator and bag. 6120 Operating Supplies 2,608 3,590 3,100 3,000 Quarter and vehicle cleaning, maintenance supplies, flashlight batteries. Flashlights are held in chargers in rigs, exchanged in station charger each shift. Original batteries need replacing. Two flashlights in each truck, plus spare. 6121 Motor Fuels 10,417 8,280 13,750 Miles 10 16,835 11 29,625 12 18,483 14 14,058 15 14,674 Total miles 93,675 Estimated gallons 9,861 @1.15/gallo 11,340 6122 Lubricants 51 150 100 Engine oil, washer fluid. 5/21/2003 4 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Notes 2001 2002 2003 2004 6124 Clothing 19 full time @ $490 9,310 9 casual @$120. Some casuals put in more hours than others in a year. 1,080 4 new employee uniforms at $350. 1 ,400 Miscellaneous @ $400 400 11,741 9,223 11,245 12,190 6131 Equipment Parts 1,906 3,698 2,400 2,500 Vehicle parts like fuses, bulbs, new maps every year. Oth equip, replacement items around quarters. 6150 Promotions Annual report (50 copies) 250 A community relations tool. Stickers, artificail badges to pass out to children. 200 Employee photos (new hires), new Board personnel 300 ALF ambulance servcie brochure 650 Annual Employee Recognition 400 Per Resolution 99-01, Service and Safety Awards to medics. For 2004, none at 5 year. Three receive 10 year Service plus Safety awards which are $50 each, for a total of $300. One receives a 15 year award at $100. Employee Appreciation (annual family social event - 30+ familys 500 Total Promotions 1,810 2,100 2,000 2,300 6160 Medical Supplies Fairview Ridges Hasp. - (hospital used to supply at no cost) Supplies, drugs. Bandages, oxygen, Pro Splint (used for fractures, oftentimes contaminated with blood or destroyed at ER during removal. 29,855 29,855 35,605 Other 3,332 6,095 6,995 5,195 33,187 35,950 42,600 For many years the Ridges did not charge ALF for medical and drug supplies but that changed in 2002. Sometimes, the Medical Director makes procedure changes in medications as was done recently on two occations and ALF must pay for the changeover. ALF compared Fairview Ridges prices with the other large provider of medical supplies, Emergency Medical Products, and Ridges prices were much better across the board. Plus the medics are at the Ridges daily, have rapport with Staff, can get meds filled right at the pharmacy after a run. ALF also pays for miscellaneous medical supplies out of this budget item such as replacement straps for the stretchers, long boards, splints and neck collars. 6180 Computer Supplies/Software 639 685 1,000 500 Keyboard, smaller items. Mise software opportunities. 6210 Professional Services Management consultants. 21,880 Professional services related to Strategic Planning Session. 3,950 3,000 Pre-Arrival Instructions (PAl) @$10/call assuming the County pays the first $4,000 4,600 5,000 Employee physicals, new hires 1,104 2,500 2,500 Dakota Co EMS Medical Program. Protocols, guidelines, education sessions. 6,414 7,500 7,500 Annual Mantoux, flu shots ($20 each, $16 ea respectively). 389 436 472 7,428 29,787 18,986 15,472 6211 Attorney Fees 526 5,906 2,500 2,500 Not a retainer. Used by Staff, EMC, Board attorney inquiries. 5/21/2003 5 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Notes 2001 2002 2003 2004 6216 Collection Services Expert T - rate/account $ 18.00 $ 18.00 $ 23.50 Estimated number of accounts 2,524 2,652 2,760 Expert T billing @ $18 per account. Commissions to Collection Agency 41,140 47,256 47,741 64,859 Collection agency fees 22,434 21,232 24,733 25,970 Total 63,574 68,488 72,475 90,830 Our three year contract expires 12-31-03. Tamme expresses a desire to work well with ALF because we were her first client and she feels loyalty. She said she is willing to negotiate her fee downward. Her 2004 fee is $23.50 per billable run (we had 2500+ in 2003), a large increase over'her current $18 fee. We are her only large client at our current $18 rate. She is willing to negotiate if we select a multi year contract, which she offers at one or two or three year commitments. She offered to include language which would recognize that if electronic data transfer results in less work for her staff we can reduce her rate, but she is stating it is possible there would not be less work because HIPAA and other changes add to her load. In 1997 her rates were $14 per run; $15 for 1998-2000; $17 for 2001-2002. Then for 2003 we agreed to an addendum to add $1.00 to $17 fee in order for her to cover her costs for a software upgrade she installed. She spread her $24.000 cost amongst her clients. In 2000 our billing/collections costs were $48,075; $63,574 in 2001; $68,488 in 2002. Hers is a very specialized field requiring knowledge of Medicare and insurance. ALF is exploring other options but since there are no other known companies like hers in this area our options are to negotiate her rates downward, hire our own staff or share staff with another agency. 6220 Medical Director 8,168 38,610 38,610 6221 Audit 4,050 4,250 4,400 5,000 Rebid audit services for 2004. 6234 Use of Personal Auto Administrator @ $325 per month 4,200 3,900 Director of Operations @ $275 per month 1,600 3,300 Personal reimbursement @ IRS rate 450 Total 4,288 2,113 5,800 8,400 6252 Print Public Information 2,540 1,644 1,500 1,500 Public bids, employee ads for job openings 6261 Insurance Property 100 100 100 100 Mobile property 365 402 402 402 Liability 10,004 11,655 12,470 13,343 Automobile liability 2,832 2,605 2,626 2,757 UM/UIM 70 60 60 60 Automobile phyisical 3,332 3,756 3,961 4,199 Other 935 (693) Excess Liability 2,417 2,645 Total 20,055 20,530 19,619 20,861 6276 Telephone Wireless modems each of 3 rigs @ $50 ea per month 1,800 Wireless modems are in the budget in the event ALF eventually utilizes the on-board computers through Image Trend. Based on the Technology Report, the implementation date is unknown. Six Nextel cellular (Admin, Opns Dir, 4 shared between Superv's and rigs. 4,200 4,200 Office telephones, Frontier 3,900 4,800 Total 7,378 8,687 8,100 10,800 5/21/2003 6 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Notes 2001 2002 2003 2004 6277 Postage (misc.) 221 123 500 500 $200 postage for patient survey mailer; increase due to HIPPA 6280 Maintenance Agreements Life Pak 12 defibrillator/monitor service contract 4,620 Total 270 4,000 4,620 6281 Contract Auto Repair 32,036 17,291 28,500 28,500 Service at Dick's,. Electrical and body at North Central Amb. As vehicles age, repairs increase. 6282 Contract Equipment Repair 1,098 Fixing/repairing items such as straps on backboards 6286 Contract Linen 286 Linen for vehicles and quarters At this time Ridges does not charge additional, is included in Medical Supplies. 6288 Data Processing LOGIS PRlHR + Internet 6,285 5,836 6,300 LOGIS Computer Support 18,008 10,364 10,500 10,435 24,293 16,200 17,200 6289 Contract Radio Repair 2,736 961 1,500 1,500 Mobile and portable radios and pagers 6290 Lease Agreements 28 pagers @ $9.00 per month x 12 months 2,850 3,024 Copy machine @ $375 x 12 months 4,500 4,500 3,422 6,894 7,350 7,524 6308 Tuition Reimbursement 588 500 500 6311 Schools and Conferences City of Farmington - EMT training 5,400 Management training - National - Administrator/Director of Operation 1,200 1,200 Arrowhead EMS - Minnesota - One supervisor 700 700 Medical Director retreat - Minnesota - Administrator and Opns Director 600 Life Link III - Minnesota - Administrator and Opmns Director 325 325 Pediatric (PALS) and Basic Trauma (BTLS) training - Minnesota - All paramedics 2,300 2,300 Mandated every 2 years. Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) training - Minnesota - All paramedics 1,525 1.525 Mandated every 2 years. Administrative Assistant 250 Dakota Tech. Emergency Driving Course - renewals and new hires 600 600 Miscellaneous schooling - local - Paramedics 600 600 Total schools and conferences 5,461 6,757 7,250 13,500 6312 Business Meetings 948 712 900 900 Strategic Planning sessions, Goal setting sessions 5/21/2003 7 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Notes 2001 2002 2003 2004 '6313 Dues and Subscriptions MN Ambulance Association dues 1,700 1,700 1,700 Metro Emergency Management 30 45 60 Dakota Tribune subscription 24 24 24 Farmington Independent 20 League of MN Cities subscription 30 20 20 Emergency Medical Services subscription 20 20 JEMS subscription @ $24 24 24 Employment Law updates 125 EMSRB Training renewal 100 EMCAP 100 CLlA - HCFA Laboratory program 150 Wholesale Knowledge 210 EMS Insider 119 NAESAA dues 39 M. Lee Smith (employment law) subscription @ $125 125 Farmington Rotary - Operation Director 510 510 Other 92 1,826 2,402 2,560 2,603 6314 Licenses 750 750 850 850 EMSRB licenses ALF to operate in the PSA. Paramedics must renew through the National Registry every two years. Employees' renewals are staggered. 6420 Uncollectible Accounts Gross Billings 2,419,720 2,717,125 Less: Medicare (500,898) (597,971) Net Service billings 1,918,822 2,119,154 Allowance for uncollectibles (increase in 2004 due to economy) 10.0% .!1Q% Uncollectibles 188,451 173,772 191,882 233,107 6450 Depreciation 91,736 92,500 93,200 107,433 5/21/2003 8 ALF AMBULANCE. 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Transports Projected Number of Per Capita Year Population Transport Transports Estimate: 2004 118,965 2,760 2.32 Estimate: 2003 114,323 2,652 2.32 2002 109,332 2,524 2.31 2001 106,890 2,422 2.27 2000 101,020 2,393 2.37 1999 96,959 2,261 2.33 1998 92,537 2,188 2.36 Gross Revenues Revenue per Number of Gross Year Transport Transports Revenue 2004 $ 984 2,760 $ 2,717,125 2003 $ 912 2,652 $ 2,419,720 2002 $ 824 2,524 $ 2,081,015 2001 $ 773 2,417 $ 1,868,611 Proposed Rate Increase 2004 7.9% 5/21/2003 9 Medicare Write-ofts Gross revenue per transport * Maximum revenue per transport Write oft per transport Estimated number of transports Total write-offs 2004 Medicare $ 984 $ (374) 610 795 $ 485,491 $ Medicad 984 (430) 554 203 112,480 $ Total 998 597,971 2003 Medicare Medicad Total Gross revenue per transport $ 912 $ 912 * Maximum revenue per transport (374) (430) Write oft per transport $ 538 $ 482 Estimated number of transports 757 193 951 Total write-ofts $ 407,716 $ 93,182 $ 500,898 Note: * Maximum revenue per transport is in accordance with Federal regulations. 5/21/2003 10 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Salary Projections ADMINSTRATION ADMINISTRATOR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS McCauley Total 70,000 64,570 SUPERVISORS Strege Mach Beecham January 1,2004 01/01/03 Rate 18.78 18.78 18.78 Overtime 28.17 28.17 28.17 PARAMEDICS Furlong Adrian Adams (1) Long Brady Sturz Weidner Landhuis Pyle Grimm (3) Sivertson (2) Negen (3) Murray Matek (3) Administrative Assistant TOTAL BASE SALARI ES Shift Differential Holiday Part-Time NEW - Teach Hours July 1,2004 07/01/03 Rate 18.78 18.78 18.78 The new union contract gives each medic who instructs, one hour of straight time as an incentive to do the instruction. . This amount is an estimate based on number of classes. 16.58 24.87 16.91 25.37 55,727 16.58 24.87 16.91 25.37 55,727 16.58 24.87 16.91 25.37 34,830 16.58 24.87 16.91 25.37 55,727 16.58 24.87 16.91 25.37 55,727 16.10 24.15 16.91 25.37 54,929 16.10 24.15 16.42 24.63 54,113 15.09 22.64 15.39 23.09 50,719 15.09 22.64 15.39 23.09 50,719 15.09 22.64 15.39 23.09 50,719 15.09 22.64 15.39 23.09 50,719 14.40 21.60 14.69 22.04 48,406 15.09 22.64 15.39 23.09 50,719 15.09 22.64 15.39 23.09 50,719 18.20 N/A 37,856 1,079,425 6,240 22,465 49,500 9,576 TOTAL SALARIES NOTE (1) Denotes job-share position (2) Denotes float position (3) Denotes 10 hour power shift (4) Denotes f1oaVeducation 5/21/2003 11 Overtime 28.17 28.17 28.17 Total 62,500 62,500 62,500 1,167,206 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Community Cash Contributions to ALF Year Apple Vallev Lakeville FarminQton Total 2004 $ 30,479 $ 22,829 $ 6,174 $ 59,482 2003 27,108 20,305 5,491 52,904 2002 25,303 23,482 7,124 55,909 2001 24,400 22,407 6,638 53,446 2000 23,450 21,089 6,029 50,568 1999 22,509 19,914 5,670 48,092 .1998 22,174 19,271 5,348 46,793 1997 21,773 18,704 4,917 45,394 1996 21,509 18,093 4,280 43,882 1995 20,724 17,142 3,995 41,861 1994 10,034 7,926 1,708 19,668 1993 26,953 21,284 4,576 52,813 1992 33,547 26,113 5,952 65,612 1991 50,050 34,856 8,473 93,379 1990 41,598 26,758 6,719 75,075 1989 44,425 28,577 7,253 80,255 1988 94,604 59,222 16,608 170,434 1987 105,346 65,947 18,494 189,787 1986 87,406 56,074 15,520 159,000 1999 Refund (159,523) (111,395) (29,082) (300,000) 1998 Refund (107,042) (73,798) (19,160) (200,000) Net after refund $466,827 $344,800 $92,728 $904,354 % of total refunds 51.24% 38.38% 10.38% 100% Community Support - Distribution Apple Vallev Lakeville Farminaton Total 2004 79,862 59,819 16,178 155,859 2003 77,536 58,076 15,707 151,319 5/21/2003 12 ALF AMBULANCE Capital Outlay 2003 2004 Note Estimate Proposed Refurbish unit 14 75,900 A Refurbish unit 11 76,000 B Misc. Equipment for New Ambulance 3,500 2,000 Telecommunications Equipment C Mobile Radios 7,500 4,000 D Portable Radios 2,400 3,600 E Pagers 1,800 Mobile computers and printers Initial acquistion (hardware) 2,000 Initial acquistion (software) 8,500 Initial acquistion (3 add'l software license) 6,000 F On-board computers and printers (5) 35,000 F On-board computer software 10,000 G 12-Lead ECG monitor modules 30,450 Safety Helmet 375 Ambulance Stretcher 3,850 ET Airway Equipment 1,275 Pro Splint Sets 565 Computer and Monitor 2,675 H Office computers 3,000 LCG Computer Projector 2,500 J Quarters furniture, VCR. Replacements 3,000 Quarters furniture 500 VCR 100 File cabinets - two 4-drawer lockable 400 K Cellular phone - replacement 80 450 Total Acquisition of Equipment $ 147,990 $ 139,350 5/21/2003 13 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Fixed Asset Acquisition Rationale Note A New Ambulance/Rechassis/Medic 11 Medic 11 has 162,438 miles on it as of March, 2003. To rechassis a unit means that the patient module is removed and completely refurbished and fitted onto a new vehicle chassis. This is a viable option when there has not been a number of engineering changes between the existing module and new chassis, and when the new chassis is deemed in good to excellent condition. The process takes 90 days and the contractor provides ALF with a spare ambulance. This procedure will result in a net savings of between $30,000 to $45,000 off the price of a new unit. Medic 11 is a 1996 Ford Disposition of equipment scheduled for replacement: There will be a trade in allowance given for the old chasis ($2,000-$8,000). B Misc. eauipment for new ambulance At the time of M-11's rechassis there will be a number of on-board medical fixtures that will be considered for replacement or upgrade due to age, including drug bags, oxygen kit. New stretcher ($3,850) included in rechassis. Disposition of equipment scheduled for replacement: Equipment will have no value and will be disposed of. C Mobile Radios Each ambulance has a 2-set, one UHF (for medical control) and one VHF (for dispatch). They are original radios and are located in the patient module. Disposition of equipment scheduled for replacement: There is no trade in value associated with these radios but, because they are the same style mobile units equipped in three of our other ambulances they will be kept as spare parts for those units. D (6) Portable Radios These are replacement portable radios for older equipment being rotated. Radio purchases are staggered over time so as to ensure a rotation of newer equipment in inventory. Disposition of equipment scheduled for replacement: Generally there is no trade in allowance allocated for used radios. 5/21/2003 14 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Fixed Asset Acquisition Rationale E Paqers Digital pagers are carried by each paramedic. Some pagers are in need of repair but if new ones can be obtained, the parts can be used for spares. Each pager includes its own charger. Disposition of equipment scheduled for replacement: Parts to be used to repair or as spare F On board computer/printers Subject to the review and recommendation of the Technology Committee, the On-board Computer system. will be implemented in 2004. Five lap top computers and printers (one for each ambulance) is estimated to cost $35,000. License and support will be needed for the 5 rigs at a cost of $2,000 per license. Disposition of equipment scheduled for replacement: n/a H Office computers The Operations Director and Administrative Assistant are due to receive new computer/monitors. The computer in the Administrative Assistant's office already has maximized its memory capabilities. These two computers were put into service in 1999. LCG Computer Proiector The medics make use of Power Point presentations and have to borrow projectors. Oftentimes the projectors at the different locations are not available because they are otherwise committed to Fire or Police training. J Furniture/Office/Quarters Involves upgrading, replacing worn out items such as microwave, VCR. Includes adding necessary filing items such as filing cabinets. K Ambulance cellular phones Phones are used to communicate between the medic and the hospital. One needed for each of the three primary rigs. Disposition of equipment scheduled for replacement: Old phones are typically of no value 5/21/2003 15 Certificates of Indebtedness - 2003 3.5% City Date Principal Interest Total Balance Subsidy Aug-03 $ 147,990 Feb-04 $ 27,151 $ 2,590 $ 29,741 $ 120,839 Aug-04 27,626 2,115 29,741 93,213 59,482 F eb-05 10,956 1,631 12,588 82,256 Aug-05 11 ,148 1 ,439 12,588 71,108 25,175 F eb-06 11,343 1,244 12,588 59,764 Aug-06 11,542 1,046 12,588 48,223 25,175 Feb-07 11,744 844 12,588 36,479 Aug-07 11 ,949 638 12,588 24,530 25,175 Feb-08 12,158 429 12,588 12,371 Aug-08 12,371 216 12,588 (0) 25,175 Certificates of Indebtedness - 2004 3.5% City Date Principal Interest Total Balance Subsidy Aug-04 $ 139,350 F eb-05 $ 15,474 $ 2,439 $ 17,912 $ 123,876 Aug-05 15,744 2,168 17,912 108,132 35,825 F eb-06 16,020 1,892 17,912 92,112 Aug-06 16,300 1,612 17,912 75,812 35,825 Feb-07 16,586 1,327 17,912 59,226 Aug-07 16,876 1,036 17,912 42,350 35,825 F eb-08 17,171 741 17,912 25,179 Aug-08 17,472 441 17,912 7,707 35,825 Certificates of Indebtedness - Total 3.5% City Date Principal Interest Total Balance Subsidy Aug-03 147,990 F eb-04 27,151 2,590 29,741 120,839 Aug-04 27,626 2,115 29,741 232,563 59,482 Feb-05 26,430 4,070 30,500 206,132 Aug-05 26,893 3,607 30,500 179,240 61,000 F eb-06 27,363 3,137 30,500 151,876 Aug-06 27,842 2,658 30,500 124,034 61,000 Feb-07 28,329 2,171 30,500 95,705 Aug-07 28,825 1,675 30,500 66,880 61,000 Feb-08 29,330 1,170 30,500 37,550 Aug-08 29,843 657 30,500 7,707 61,000 16 Chanaes in Workina Capital 2003 2003 2004 2002 Revised Proposed Actual Budget Estimate Budget Funds Provided Net income $ 3,728 $ (51,048) $ (117,707) $ (103,258) Issuance of Certificates of Indebt. $ 147,990 $ 139,350 Depreciation 90,933 93,200 93,200 107,433 Total Funds Provided 94,661 42,152 123,483 143,525 Funds Applied Additions to fixed assets 17,728 147,990 147,990 139,350 Debt Service payments-principal 54,777 Compensated balances 28,017 Total funds applied 45,745 147,990 147,990 194,127 Net Increase in Working Capital 48,916 (105,838) (24,507) (50,602) Working Capital, January 1 1,378,125 1,333,809 1,427,041 1,402,534 Working Capital, December 31 $ 1,427,041 $ 1,227,971 $ 1,402,534 $ 1,351,931 5/21/2003 17 ALF AMBULANCE 2004 PROPOSED BUDGET Balance Sheet 2003 2003 2004 2002 Revised Proposed Actual Budget Estimate Budget Assets Current Assets Cash and investments $ 832,391 $ 428,255 $ 586,011 $ 436,373 Accounts receivable, net 620,273 788,960 805,767 904,803 Other receivable 15,630 19,044 19,044 19,044 Prepaid expenses 13,838 21,837 21,837 21,837 Total Current Assets $ 1,482,132 $ 1,258,096 $ 1,432,659 $ 1,382,056 Property, plant and equipment Machinery and equipment 742,776 890,766 1,038,756 1,030,116 Less: accumulated depreciation (471,641 ) (564,841 ) (658,041 ) (672,274) Net equipment 271 ,135 325,925 380,715 357,842 Total Assets $ 1,753,267 $ 1,584,021 $ 1,813,374 $ 1,739,898 Liabilities and Retained Earnings Current liabilities Accrued salaries $ 26,834 $ 12,923 $ 12,923 $ 12,923 Accounts payable 28,257 17,202 17,202 17,202 Total Current Liabilities 55,091 30,125 30,125 30,125 Long-term liabilities Certificates of Indebtedness 147,990 93,213 Compensated balances 61,617 75,029 75,029 75,029 Retained earnings 1,636,559 1 ,478,867 1,560,230 1,541,532 Total liabilities and retained earnings $ 1,753,267 $ 1,584,021 $ 1,813,374 $ 1,739,898 5/21/2003 18 2{a.., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminlrton.mn.us ~(. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: I 95th Street East Extension Project - Assessment Hearing DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION The City Council scheduled the 195th Street East Extension Project assessment hearing at the May 5th City Council meeting. DISCUSSION The 195th Street East Extension Project has been completed. All affected property owners have been notified as to the date and time ofthis public hearing and that final assessments may be adopted at the public hearing pursuant to M.S. 429. BUDGET IMPACT The total project cost is $1,068,000. The original project budget was $1,275,500. There are three benefiting property owners that are participating in the cost of the improvements: the City, the developer of Autumn Glen (ARC ON) and Tax Free Exchanges, Inc. (former Reisinger property). The other properties abutting the proposed roadway have been previously assessed for CSAH 31. Cost allocations are based on property front footage. The City's share of the costs has been funded through the various funding mechanisms as outlined in the previous communications to Council. The cost allocation table follows: Project Cost Allocations Total Proiect Cost $1,068,000 City $675,215 Autumn Glen (ARC ON) $280,585 Tax Free Exchanges $112,200 ARCON has already reimbursed the City for their share of the costs. The only properties to be assessed are the properties owned by Tax Free Exchanges and these assessments will be deferred until such time the properties develop. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution adopting the assessment roll for the 19Sth Street East Extension Project. Respectfully Submitted, ~Yh~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -03 ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PROJECT 01-07 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council and the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of June, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given by the Council, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments for the following improvement: Proi. No. 01-07 Description 195th Street Extension Location from the centerline of Akin Road to approximately 2500-feet easterly NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, as amended, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby adopted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount ofthe assessment levied against it. 2. Unless listed as deferred, such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2004 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution until December 31, 2003. To each subsequent installation when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. Properties listed on the Assessment Roll as having the special assessment deferred pursuant to the City's Special Assessment Improvement Policy shall not be required to make any payment nor have interest accrue thereon until such time as the property is subdivided or improved beyond its usage at the time this Resolution is adopted. At such time, the deferral of this assessment will end and payment of the assessment shall be due in accord with the terms and conditions specified above in this paragraph and below in paragraph 3. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid in the same manner as the other municipal taxes. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of June, 2003. Mayor Attested to the day of June, 2003. City Administrator SEAL ~b City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: {>- Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - Mr. Jeff Thelen - Building Materials in Farmington Industrial Park DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION Mr. Jeff Thelen has filed an appeal regarding an action taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 13th. The action in question was a Planning Commission decision to overturn (on a 4-0 vote) an earlier staff determination that a particular product known as "Hardiplank" is not "concrete" and is therefore not an acceptable exterior building material within the meaning of the Industrial Park Design Standards that are found in the Farmington City Code. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Ms. Jan Karrmann, a resident of Farmington, has appeared before the Farmington Planning Commission and the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority [HRA] on several occasions during the past few months to discuss her interest in obtaining property in the Farmington Industrial Park. Any property that she acquires would be used as the site of a daycare facility that she desires to build and operate. During the aforementioned discussions, Ms. Karrmann and her builder (Mr. Larry White) indicated a desire to use a product known as "Hardiplank" (a trade name) for most ofthe exterior of the proposed daycare building. Hardiplank is a durable lap siding that is composed of Portland cement, ground sand, cellulose fiber and certain additives (see Memo dated April 8, 2003, attached hereto as Exhibit A). However, there was (and is) some uncertainty regarding whether Hardiplank is a material that satisfies the Industrial Park design standards (attached hereto as Exhibit B) that appear in the City Code and also in a separate Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (attached hereto as Exhibit C) that affects parcels located in Phase II of the Industrial Park. Both sets of design standards specify several broad categories of acceptable exterior wall materials, including "concrete" that is "poured in place, tilt up or precast." Questions regarding the acceptability of Hardiplank as an exterior wall material in the Industrial Park ultimately led to a joint City Council/Planning CommissionIHRA meeting that occurred on April 30, 2003. At that time, a majority of the Planning Commission members and a majority of the HRA members had no objection to Ms. Karrmann's proposal regarding the use of Hardiplank. However, 105'7 there did not appear to be a clear majority of City Council members in favor of, or against, the use of Hardiplank in the Industrial Park (see minutes attached hereto as Exhibit D). In the interest of allowing this subject to move toward some type of final resolution, a staff determination was then made (during the course of the meeting) that Hardiplank does not satisfy the applicable design standards. A memo to this effect was subsequently conveyed to Ms. Karrmann (see attached Exhibit E). Ms. Karrman then chose to exercise her right to appeal the aforementioned staff determination. Her appeal was heard by the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 13, 2003 (see staff Memo attached hereto as Exhibit F). After reviewing the evidence submitted, a motion was made and approved (4-0) to overturn the staff determination - thereby, in effect, determining that Hardiplank is "concrete" and is therefore an acceptable exterior wall material in the Industrial Park. At the subsequent City Council meeting on May 19th, Mr. Jeff Thelen addressed the City Council regarding this subject during the "Citizen Comments" portion of the agenda. He indicated that he was considering an appeal of the Planning Commission's recent decision, and he delivered to the Council a letter of his own and two additional letters from Industrial Park businesses (attached hereto as Exhibit G) regarding the Planning Commission's decision on Ms. Karmann's appeal. The packet for the June 2nd City Council meeting included a staff memo that was prepared in response to the comments that Mr. Thelen had made at the May 19th City Council meeting. (See Memo attached hereto as Exhibit H.) Other aspects of Ms. Karrmann's daycare proposal were addressed at the June 9th HRA meeting (see Agenda attached hereto as Exhibit I) and the June 10th Planning Commission meeting (see Memo attached hereto as Exhibit J). At the HRA meeting, the HRA passed three motions: a motion approving (4-1) Hardiplank as an acceptable exterior wall material under the design standards found in the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants; a motion approving (5-0) an alternate proposal involving a 100% concrete block exterior, based on that material's acceptability under the covenants; and a motion approving (5-0) daycare as an 'ancillary use" as that phrase is used in the covenants. At the Planning Commission meeting, the Commission continued (3-0) the public hearing on Ms. Karrmann's application for a Conditional Use Permit. DISCUSSION The issue or question raised by Mr. Thelen's appeal is essentially the same question that was extensively discussed at the joint City Council/Planning CommissionIHRA meeting that was held on April 30th. That question is: Is Hardiplank (or Hardiboard, a similar product) "concrete" as that term is used in the Industrial Park Design Standards that appear in the City Code? If the City Council believes that it is not, the Council should sustain Mr. Thelen's appeal. If the City Council believes that it is, the Council should deny Mr. Thelen's appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Any exterior building material proposed by Ms. Karrmann has to satisfy both the design standards in the City Code and the design standards in the applicable covenants. Any material that does not satisfy both cannot be used. 2 /~~ This matter has been identified on the agenda as a public hearing. It is anticipated that Ms. Karrmann and her builder will have comments to offer, and a representative of the company that manufactures Hardiplank may be in attendance. Comments will presumably also be made by interested Industrial Park business owners. ACTION REQUESTED After introductory comments are made by City staff, the City Council should open the public hearing, take whatever testimony may be offered, close the public hearing, discuss the issue, and then vote to eithe sus in or deny Mr. Thelen's appeal. 3 I ex;, I City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us :- TO: City Planning Commission \"'f'" FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director. Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding Daycare in the Industrial Park DATE: April a, 2003 INTRODUCTION Ms. Jan Karrmann is working with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to purchase land in the Farmington Industrial Park to construct a commercial daycare facility. Ms. Karrmann is seeking general comments from the Planning Commission in order to determine whether the proposed daycare and certain elements of the daycare would be appropriate in this location. DISCUSSION The following approvals would be necessary to operate a daycare atthistocatlon: 1. Preliminary and Final Plat - As shown on the attached subdivision plim, the existing property would be divided into three (3) separate parcels. Ms. Karrmann would purchase Lot 2 for the daycare facility and the remaining lots would be sold separately. Lot 3 would have temporary access from 20ath Street until a road is constructed adjacent to the east property line. The temporary.. access would remain part of Lot 3 after a permanent access is provided. .. .. 2. Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Daycare is allowed as a conditional use in the IP (Industrial Park) Zoning District. . 3. Variance from the lot width requirement - According to the Zoning Code7 properties in the Industrial Park must have at least 150 feet of street frontage. If the property were platted as depicted on the attached subdivision plan, Lot 3 would have 100 feet of frontage on 20ath Street, 50 feet less than required. Staff believes that the configuration depicted on the attached subdivision plan is the best option and would support a variance. 4. Variance from the building material requirements - The Zoning Code regulates the type of construction materials allowed in the Industrial Park. Although commercial daycare facilities are allowed as a conditional use in the Industrial Park7 design standards for daycare facilities were not distinguished from industrial uses. The Industrial Park design standards are as follows: /o~O? ;f--j 1. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls of buildings to be constructed shall consist of one,or more of the following materials and shall receive prior approval of the city:' - (a) Brick: Size, type, texture, color and placement shall be approved, (b) Stone: Stone shall have a weathered face or shall be polished, fluted or broken ".face. (c) Concrete Masonry Block: Concrete masonry block shall be those generally described as "customized architectural concrete masonry units" or shall be broken faced brick type units with marble aggregate. All concrete masonry units shall be coated with a city approved coating. There shall be no exposed concrete bLock on the exterior of any building unLess approved by the city. (d) Concrete: Concrete may be poured in place, tHt up or precast; and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated, with a minimum life expectancy of ten (10) years. 2. ALternate MateriaLs: ALternate exterior surface materiaLs of preengineered metaL may be substituted in an amount not to exceed six percent (6%) of the exterior wall surface area of each building if the following conditions appLy: (a) Used for housing or screening equipment necessary to the manufacturing operations; (b) Architecturally compatibLe with the building as a whoLe as determined by the city pLanning division; (c) Compliance with any additional screening and/ or landscaping requirements of the city; and (d) Modifications are made with prior written approval of the city planning division. Ms. Karrmann's contractor has indicated that she does not intend to have him construct a building that consists of brick, stone, concrete masonry block,'concrete, or pre-engineered metal, which are the only allowable building materials identified in the Industrial Park design standards. The elevation drawings submitted by Ms. Karrmann indicate that the proposed building will have a partial brick fa<;:ade on the front (south) side, consisting of nine courses of brick (from the ground to the bottom of the windows), plus two narrow brick columns from the ground to the eaves at the southwest and southeast corners of the building. A material commonly referred to as "Hardiplank" has been proposed for the east, west and north sides of the daycare building, and for approximately 75% of the front (south) side. Hardiplank is lap siding that is composed of Portland cement7 ground sand, cellulose fiber and certain additives (see attached specifications). The Planning Commission should determine whether this product satisfies the requirements of the Industrial Park design standards. Staff has solicited opinions on this subject from the City7s Building Official and from the City Attorney, and their comments will be conveyed to the Commission at Tuesday night's meeting. If Hardiplank is determined to be "concrete," no variance will be required. However7 if it is determined that Hardiplank is NOT an approved building material under the Industrial Park design standards, Ms. Karrmann will presumably be interested in determining whether the Planning Commission would be willing to grant a variance in this instance (if she applied for one). The options available to the Commission would seem to include: /~3 4-2- 1. A determination that the Planning Commission would probably not grant any kind of variance. . 2. A determination that the Planning Commission would probably grant a. variance and approve the building materials as proposed by the applicant. 3. A determination that the Planning Commission would probably grant a variance IF the applicant modified her construction plans so that they. deviated less from the Industrial Park design standards. (For example:q revising the plans to include more brick, such as 100% brick on the front and partial brick facades or brick architectural elements on the east and west sides. ) As shown on the attached elevation drawings, the proposed daycare would have a- residential appearance, which is much different than the appearance of a typical industrial building. A cogent argument could be made that some flexibility should be exercised with regard to the usual design elements, given the proposed use. On the. other hand, if the daycare operation ceased for any reason, the building might be difficult to resell for an industrial use. The Planning Commission should consider and discuss all of the aforementioned factors in determining whether the proposed design ~~ and the proposed building materials are appropriate for this location. ACTION REQUESTED Provide comments and guidance for the applicant and for City staff regardlng the proposed commercial daycare facility. /)es e,{fully submitted, /' / I ~' / /;.~ / '.1 1,/ / i i~U~ ( (vv'IAj/~; evin CarrotV \.. Community Development Director /7 /'1-+- \-1~ U~,- Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner Attachments: 1. Proposed Subdivision Plan 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Description of Proposed Building Materials 4. Elevation Drawings /0"'-/ ,4-3> ..-.. - ~ OJ U ~L- J C'O ~a.. -.. ---- cc OJ L- ... C'O C"I U .......~ o C'O ..JO ~c ~c ~ C'O ' to E 0. L- - L-: C'O, :::s:::: to .- '- ....... L- V) 0 ::J4- -eM E: :t:t: . C...., o ::J ....... 0 on~ .5 j - - - - C'O - ::J 10...., LL.e- OJ u c o U I I I I I ^EMpeo~ aJnlfld laa.:l ~Ov rn Q) ('I') ~ ... 0 Q) 0 <( (,) ro ...J It) c.. . Cf) ('I') c Q) c.. 0 - ~ ~ ro a.. ~ Q) Q) L.. ~ C/) .s::. ~ co o N '.'.'" .,',', . '.'. ."",. Q) ...... ro E 'x o ~ c.. c.. ro Q) ~ ro en c o +=- ro :J () ro (,) ro Q) ~ ro "'C c co Q) (,) c co ...... en i5 CD ...... o z /0(;5 11- - 'f 'l'.L6~ / / / / / / J J / / ;/ ~ ~ .. ~ tu UJ 0:= l- V) ..c ..... CD o N 3AV NO.lV3 / -Ii ... Cl:l .... ~ if - N ..; ~ a 1- I /o~~ A-.5 , i ~ ,.~. ~~~ E ...:. ...'. _..t .' .\ . ~ ....~. _ :t', ,.~-=;:... ~ ,~'- 1"'~ LAP SID.ING SHINGLE SIDING Ilblrihlllcd ,,,.: A Weyerhaeuser -11111 1I11'rald~ln'I'I':-;1. I'alll. \1.' 5511~-llihl I(51) h~5-0li II . (/lllll) (t52.l)i:I/l 11051 ) h~5-":; 12 (1'.1.\) l'.lIli!i I: ~.!.I.I~'lllld\.(ti'\\"dlli.l'UI11 VERTICAL SIDING TRIM FASCIA ....---.... '''''.~ ~ James Hardie. ',~~...~,i Siding Products SOFFIT I~/ 4-(0 A trusted name. with a proven product. Jam~~ Hardi~ has ~arn~d trust in the industry with ov~r a century of i:lxp~rience III cr~ati/19 innovative materials to protect hom~s from age and the elements. To prove the quality of our products, Jarn~s Hardi!:! oads most of its lap and pa/1~1 siding with a 50-y~ar limit!:!d transferable product warranty. Our fib~r-cem~nt ~idin9 is now on over thr~e millio/1 homes in NOrIh America, a growing testament to our dedication to producing on~ of th~ world's most durabl~ sidings. Your customers want a better siding option. Hom~owners are looking for a more substantial siding. One that provides durability and low-maintenance without sacrificing the beauty and character of wood. In the past, they've had to settle for vinyl, but now James Hardie has the ability to ~xcile consumers with dn exterior that retains its beauty for decades with very little care. Vinyl can't make that claim and neither can wood. That's why so many build~rs and r~mod~l~rs sel themselves apart by making James Hardie siding a standard part of their product offering. /O~'fj- 4-7 James Hardie siding provides lasting protection with. very little maintenance. Resists Damage From Cold. Windy Climates Holds up against the effects of temperature swings in cold wealher climates. Can be installed to withstand hurricane-force winds. .: i'~'.:~~:~ii~. . . ,. .~~ ,~21~.. ,~.. W,L'Wo.. ... . r.~~~ ~ :;,:~.It- '.~ ~ ~'::)'.. .~. From Cold. Resists Damage From Wet. Humid Climates Resists Damage From Wet, Humid Climates Will not rot or crack even in extremely damp r.Iimates. Resists Damage Flying Debris Strength and thickness provide impacl resistance against hail and flying debris caused by wind or \ ) ~,:;::I Resists Damage From Flying Dp.hris mowers. Resists Fire ~ . t. ";-;'! . VI1 j ,-;" ! fJ Resists Fire Approved for installation where non-combustible construction is required. Resists Insect Damege Resists damage from termites and other wood-eating insects. 50-Year Limited Warranty Fro m Resists Insect Damage Most products carry a 50-year limited transferable product warranty against rotting, cracking and delaminating. /0(;;,'9 4- -- g ~~~j~S~7~~~~.::if;~~~:'~~~::-~~0J:;'~~~~~~.: -"'.' :!! ~~ ~... .~-'::;;~~:::'~~~~~~~2~.;t~!~;~:~=-=?~'~';~~~~ _'-"-:- j .... ~, ..- - - -' ,~""I.,__~-....,. . : -.-_"::':':::-~= --==-- -- - ~. - ~~ ---. .--- - - - - -- - - -.... -, . - . "-~ --- -- - )0"/0 ;/--1 ~ Select Cedarmillo Smooth SPECIFICATIONS Select CedarmiIJo and Smooth Thickness: Weight: Length: Widths: ~ }. f ,~;.: : 5/16" 2.3 I ~~./s~.ft. 12' plan~s~." 1/4"c(.4",~Xp~sure l:." 6 1/4" (5" 7 1/4: (6' 81/4" (7" exposure) " ,,~.:," .91/4"(8" exposure) ..........12.(10 Hardiplank siding offers enormous advantages over conventional siding materials, with an . unsurpassed ability to stand up to th~ elements. For its strength, beauty and durability, Hardiplank lap siding is simply the best lap siding for enhancing and protecting homes. anywhere in the- world. All styles of Hardiplank siding are manufactured with our exclusive PrimePlus ™ sealer and' primer. This proprietary process ensures uniform coverage of sealer and primer,'providingan ;. ,: '"," - ,"- --.'.'_,- "X ",''''''::~ excellent surface for paints. It resists mold, fungus and mildew. even in damp - -- --t , r- Beaded Smoothlnot shown) Beaded Cedarmillo Colonial Roughsawn" Thickness: Weight: Length: Widths: Special order.: 5/16" 2.3 Ibs./sq.ft. 12' planks 8 1/4" (7' exposure) Col9nial Rouahsawn Colonial Smooth Inot shown) ~: , , , ~ t l" i Thickness: Weight: Length: Widths: 5/16' 2.3 Ibs./sq.ft. 12' planks 8" (6 3/4' exposure) . Contact your James Hardie Preferred Deale)j for pricing, lead times and availability. 11 -I 0 /0 ';7/ The Co lor PI us ™ 5 tan d a r d Coli e c t ion The ColorPlus Standard Collection is a finished product unlike anything available in the market today. Its mar-resistant surface resists scratches, and with its baked-on color process. won't peel, chip or crack. With a proprietary finishing process that assures the color stays fast. The ColorPlus Standard Collection iswarranted for 15 years. Arctic White NilVajo Whitp. ".-=:-.:': -==~~.,~-=.: :=:.-:'-:'" ~'. :--'.: ":--~'::':::~o.:": '- .~:~ :::-:-:::'::"':.::~~::-~ -..' _.~~ ....._-.-.... Sandstone Monterey Gray Seclusion Sky Gray Khaki Brown The Co I orPI US™ Stai n Collection The ColorPlus Stain Collection provides all the benefits of The Standard Collection but uses a technology that naturally replicates the look of stained wood. Available in four rustic colors. The ColorPlus Stain Collection is warranted for 10 years. ~;:;;:", . ~ ~ ~.-..;:;- .- . a..-.- .. --"<fr- - . :;:;:;;! =. ..' . -. -.., '.~ - " ..-~ ----------.-. . ?=-=-=i' ~ Natural Cedar Pewter Gray Accessories ~.'" ~._;'~-,_.... Oak Brown Chestnut Brown The ColorPlus Collection is available with a full line of matching accessories including nails. caulk. touch-up paint and metal accessories. /0701 4-1/ PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS BASIC COMPOSITION/SIZE Portland cement. ground sand. cellulose fiber. select additives and water. James Hardie siding products contain no asbestos. glass fibers or formaldehyde. APPROVALS Hardiplank lap siding. Hardipanel vertical siding and HardiShingle siding are recognized as exterior claddings in National Evaluation Service (NESI. Inc.. Report No. NER-40S (BOCA. ICBO. SBCCI); City of Los Angeles. Research Report No. 24862; Texas Department of Insurance Product Evaluation EC23. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Materials Release 1263b; California DSA Product Acceptance Number PA-019; and City of New York MEA No. 223-93-M. Hardiplank lap siding is recognized as exterior cladding in CCMC Evaluation Report 12678-R. These documents must also be consulted for additional information concerning the suitability of this product for specific applications. DURABILITY James Hardie siding products are dimensionally stable and most have a limited. transferable warranty for 50 years to resist cracking. rotting and delamination. James Hardie fiber-cement products resist damage caused by extended exposure to moisture, humidity. and salt air. FLEXURAL STRENGTH James Hardie siding and soffit products comply with ASTM Cl186. Standard Specification for Grade II, Type A, Non-Asbestos Fiber-Cement Flat Sheets. NON-COMBUSTIBILITY Hardiplank. Hardipanel and HardiShingle siding products have been evaluated in accordance with ASTM Method E-136 and may be installed where non-combustible construction is required. SURFACE BURNING CAPABILITIES When tested in accordance with ASTM test method E-84: Flame Spread 0 Fuel Contribution 0 Smoke Developed 5 THERMAL RESISTANCE (Approximate values) 5/16" th ick: 1/4" thick: R=0.15 R=0.13 Full specifications conforming to CSI guidelines can be downloaded from www.jameshardie.com or received via fax from Fax-on-Demand 1-800-9Hardie. document #2170. Please call 1-800-9HARDIE for installation instructions and safe handling information. ~ James Hardie" Siding Products 1-866-4-HARDIE www.jameshardie.com 26300 La Alameda. Suite 250 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 ~2002 James Hardie Building Products. Inc. Printed in the U.S.A. TM. ~ and @ denote trademarks owned by James Hardie Research Pty Limited ACN 066 114092. JH90016TBNO 4/02 ~~~ ~.. : .>- /0/3 11--1 'Z- w_...._... ......_-..._ ... .......... -. ... -...-......-- - - - - J--- --- - -0- . -~ . ~ ""~James Hardie- '!fir) Siding Products ".I..~. ", ' "" .. ~rcdLc:'~ U d(J.:n~ $t'y'k:s . Hardipli:jnk@ Lap Siding . Hardishinglt!'.' Siding . Hardipanel@ Vertical Siding . Harditrim@ Planks . Hardisoffit@ Paneis . CulorPlu$'.' Collection - Warranty . Caulking Tips .. Technical Information lnstallarion . Tools ,. l.if"/.:;dl..~:. :.~,.;r.:'L;.;~~'i:;UI:;~ >>' ':'.cJ','~~lt~l~C'~ :l ,:'.(:~wi.,.:.JL::; ",~~o..:.\,'c::::t:;~~in~ ~ (G..br,::I'_d:(I:J 5;j~;:;,~;,tt ,. c.L.JL;~'r i...1.}L~ L''';;' ~ ::7d:.::,::;;.y ':;'1.;11.: ({}~l:;r('i,Kt'i0n ~~'I~t"ili...:.:i-~n ,. !..jl';ldl_J~I_ t-\'J:.;;:,:u;.:~l . t",u.-Q Home >> Siding Products >> Builder >> I'roducts & Home Styles >> ColorPlus'" Collection >> warrantY m~ Builder _~['kliii[./!:l~'~I'lT_,rr.;iII~aI \' ',.>~1'" -': ':';i;~'~~i?[;~f. ".:'.' . :'. :_;.' 1.i4:t~'::;'i~.'l..:. ..: '}1i "",,: ...::.... . "" '. . . 0#, ./:;'.~~_~_..,~<~ ;t.:;;;'!::::'''' .. ,0#( ... ':'. .Il'~ '~'~'ii14'. :" .i~l . "i;ij. -:, ColorPlus™ Collection Warranty . ,,,<'i;;.::.t.~'. ':;' . .::'ji!ir 50-Year Express Limited Transferable Product Warranty 1. LIMITED WARRAN1Y COVERAGE: James Hardie Building Products, Inc. ("Hardie") wam (for installation within the U.S. and Puerto Rico) to the purchaser and all transferees prior including the first owner of the structure to which the Product is applied, and the first trar of such structure (each a "covered person") that when manufactured, the Hardie Fiber-Ce Plank or Panel Product (HARDIPLANK @ or HARDIPANEL @ , the "Product") complies with Cl186, as Grade II, Type A and was free from defects in material and manufacture. Wher for its intended purpose, properly installed and maintained according to Hardie's publishe installation instructions, the Product for a period of 50 years from the date of purchase wi remain non-combustible, (b) resist damage caused by hail or termite attacks. and (c) will crack, rot or delaminate. If during the warranty period, any Product proves to be defective, Hardie, in its sole discr shall replace the defective Product before it is installed, or, during the first year, reimburs covered person for resulting losses up to twice the retail cost of the defective portion of tt ProducL During the 2nd through the 50th year, the warranty payment shall be reduced b each year such that after the 50th year no warranty shall be applicable. If the original ret cannot be es[ablished by the covered person, the cost shall be determined by-Hardie in it and reasonable discretion. About James Harai~ I Contact Us I Site Map I Search I Disclaimer I Privacy POlicy http://www.jameshardie.com/builder/prodhome/colorplus _warranty. php 3/31/2003 /07y //-13 -- ==- j-;:;.;_. ;- - ~== i = ='- ~ ,=- - ==:-- =~ '-- - ,~- ..... """":.:;:: - -c::i- 1 ,-- I=~---J =.. - -' 1=:.:;:: ::;- - =- =?=i::J~ i = =_ :;- = I =-...., ==:~ =~ - - '=::J- i - -;-:::0= ,=- - =----'---1=~. ':::1- - i=b- !-. -~- ,-,"':::l= = -- =.....-- :-:.:;:: - ,---'I::::;~ '=1- 1= ~ -. i=!=:l-l . -- - ~ ' I-~I- '---:~ =)- - =e:::r; 1-1- 1= ....,-' . _ =;::--I~~ ':':1- F =~~=l -= - ,--l ~!- ,1- -::::;:-- .---r ='= - '9::1: '---r:::::t:::1 -:_ ::::i.~~::::J - ::::t -':::--1::) 1== =h-S........~ ~~ = :J=:erd-9B 1= = -,........d=8. =l-_ =e::::J-; -:_ 1= -:~~ -' - ~~-~~:j = --:l_L.....--;~ I, -- !~r~=,d=i3 :::::1 F"1= =-'....;--1:j ~~~5-.~ = ==L.~=---\-. = ==i:=i~-' ......... ~ _= :::J~=.1 -':'. _~........ - 1:::-;, = :- --.l _ -;::J=t::::=~ ~~~~~~. ~ == ==t' -,.......-1 =-~~:::a=i.=~ '-- i:::l::::t,'--; = -:==t =-'......J = =!::: - ::d=E:-;~ -- '-- ...:.:=J::;= = --~- ,- !- - ~ =:=1===1= I-- - -~ - ! >-=i= - ,= -, '~.....J ~~- -I i=i ,=-,.... 1=_- l=t::t - - !~:::::I ==-=,== ~ :=-:- ::::;- '--- - ---d-.~ - -== - -- ' --:::)---1=1 =- ~~~::J - = =- =>-::-D '--'- _-.: '-::- -~- I c::J ,- ::::;-- ~ --- - ::;=~' ,=- -~- . --; I=--I=q:=l =-=-=11 =- '-:=J,' = ----1 -i ::J , =:=-~--'= '- - - ....J- ~ : .- =1- == ~'- - - - : ,= =:- ~::::: - =~ - ! = -= - ; , - ~ .:::J - - =l--- :- =-, """'I -- =1 - ;= -'= ,-- -- - =~ - ..., 1= =- - - ....J-' '-- , ,= -, -:l ....,- '- - -, - '- ..., - - -- ::;- .- - -' - = 1-. - :- = i= - 9.;... - - 1= - - - 1= -'- I=c:::;- - l- =b. _- .=1 .. - = =1::: ~-:-I.c =-_ =1--+-1-;= ~~-'I-= = I ~~~= --- =,=: .-1-'= ~~~~ ~ ==_~_i= ==: = ~::)::;:i:c" -_ 1- .- =::J= ~ ,=i-- =~~~- =I=~ - =~'~ 1 I =~'- /: - W~ --, ......J~~1'=- =-.c':- ===i=1= ~~ :::J~ I -II = :::I -I-J , ;= """"1- 1=1::l=i = ........ 1=:: !-- -,=:::t:::] -< - :J--1 F ::::1- -=~=r :- ........ ,- =t::t: . - - ::::i~~-: 1= ~!- ........ =1-- =l- ;;J=- .~ 1- - -- - =,- - I- - ,= 1-= = -- ,- -- =t:- :'1 F .= 1-- =:.;.. - ,- - i- F -;.- -c:l:::..,' ~ - - .. ='-- - - , - =- - -- ,-- = - -'--- i= - -,- '- - =,-= -'- ,-- = -F - =: == - =- - -- -, = - ='== ~ 1= !::: = - - - ~ - -:::: -, = -....., - :::r-, .1 "....."-".,".".".r4'<1N' ..,':.J,j-:-1 j;:;ll1"'X~ ! ! ; I !": ~:Jj . I .' ".~._ ~II' ....-.. ; I ~~.. ~ ,:~:.:.:-~j ~... - .~.. iY~ ! ~ i,' f ~~ I ! I ~~~ *~_.J ~...-.r:j ~:J1:"'Jj ~. '-'~~ ~~:~~ -----.. ~-:__:-:-J - _t._._ II _._~.------~ -_._--.- ..:...- .- 71.tiJ~~"..: ....-..... ~...:-:-~ -.,-.. ... ~.,-:-::::; 1 ; ~:=t::~ '1~ ~t~ ~:~ ::'...-_...-::~~ . I . ~~~; ~:..:..~~ .. ...,....-~ ~:~~ :.0"1.-1:..... -..."",-.....:-'...: i: .,:",..-..-:... : , .~:~jf.( -:-::"~-'--";'., ., -, ...- ....-... . ---,- ~ i ~ I ]f :JJI.: 3Z J . -C-_UL S~~ oi=:~ ~;z: . <~Z o U.O. ~ ~.b 0C:::;z: 0<- _U~ ~>-c::: E--<< tlJOu.. ::l ....,.1 I! j ': 1 ! Ii II . , I"i" , .1 '! ! . ! rl' iT ; i 1 II i Iii II; ; i I! ! I i II i i I , I' . I ' I ~Ii K~<<KK l' . i i i I: IS ! i : II I! I~ I~ III I~ ! II i WNt1/ /0 '/$ 14-1'1 1- .. Ij i. I ; : -r ~- .. : : : ~ ... '. . . 1 '.' , . , .i ; I . I \'\\j i : 1 1 i ~ -<~\i! II :.:~ i ~ .....'.t; : , \... ; : \.J . ! ; , f j i 1- , ' j i iii ;;I ;: i IlT I I' . I ~ ill - JJ I "'~ . --0-- ..Lil S~;z ~~~ <( z - o~6 zwE-o -.c:: 0 0<;2: 8u:i ~>-~ E-o<< cnOt.L. ::J ;~. i I , ; : i ! j f ~ : : ! i , , i; ; i J ! I , .. ' ! ! ; i ! i /' i : ! i i ; : i ! i I! : i !,' I: ; : i .' '!, Ii. , ' ' I ~ ! ~ I : : .: I I K<<<'KK i : "1'1 , . ;,.i I~ ' /0 ?C, /I-/J 1 I I I I --'--1 ; // L--" ,....i o 0..,3 "'r' ;- ~ '" -~.. - (,)0':,; ~~~~ W-:r..r_;-; ~ - 0.. 'I I I ~L: ~!;.:. i-W'.;: "-"1:"", = .~l''',':'' 91- ~I .\ II ~ COT ~ c:::: o (..- c r:./'J / -' UJI r~ <:- ....lt2~ O?-:-~ OJ;:'; ~ := -=.r;- '.l..l -.:: t"'1 U--::'= :I.l / I t'b' en r I !'~ ~:i Cj'....-r. 'r--" .... ! .., . ~ . , B::AIA'~i 0:: ! Ii\:) I, tJ I T:f! ;' ! .[ I : ! : ~ i--- " ~ \, i '--l.. Ii )-, o :D \ t (1,' . .,u;' - . rry ._ . ...1 '_:..-'.J z; ,.. ~ I -,- :::\,:. u~.' E-:= vi ,0 o. -= :-1 -1.-. -'0:: r ". ~!.- ::.,= ! -,' ~., . ! ;, ~-----r . I ...-+ , li ! :~ ~ ~ .1 i ... I ,u___ -~f' ,- r. I ~Ii, ~- <I;' (-I; C/)=- I ! i\ '" i ~ '"" ,/1 - rn I ! ,; "rnl ,I CRIBI CRml CRIBI!1 II Ii ....JI 81..,3 :I:I!:: :: ~ Ulc<~~ r"I'" '/l,... ""..: -.e;:- ~s:r=:fi ......1- -.. .-1 c...i i 1:- ----. , Ii I: I,ll ,j .; I'. '.. . ~ ~I ~[:: r ~ '~ i--I-' r" 1:1: --Ioe 01:': '.1; ,. .. ,i q P I, Ii ,. Ii" C/)I 'I E-..,3 'I Zl:::~ '; .J<"I.....-,.... I' '4..~-= : r'r ~ ~ =- I: ;Z1-i~2 11- ~ . -'-1: I I: p \ \ ,..j L ~ 11f Jjj IJI ~~ ! -o-._Lu~ 5Q::;2: O~:>. l:l::;Z . <tLl6 OUE- ~tLlo OQ::Z 0<- _U:>' ::'::>-Q:: E-<< rJ:l0~ ::l .... . ! 1 ; ; ~ j i; : ' : I ~- . Ii"; i ~.! i; I ; : i i I ; II i ! ! ; . I j' I , : I 11 ! . Ii! i Ii! ; i I ! ~ 1 i ~ V1 '-i'AK/' .' ~'~': ~':'~ I! ! : j j i S : ' ~ ~ Iii i ! : II; i : : I,. J i i I I, ' ! ) Ii! i ~. ,. ~ i i j i 3 I I , I ~ ill,; ~ 1 I , .. ~<< /07' d-/~ <( o I- Zo::g =>ww Ol-Z O::ZZ <(w- <.9U~ Z w - - Z 00::0 0<(1- - U rr'\ ~>-\..J I-<(Z CJ)O~ => 0:: ~ <( u.. Ion 4- /7 10-6-20: INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGN STANDARDS: Page 1 of 4 10-6-20: INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGN STANDARDS: (A)Building Material And Design: 1. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls of buildings to be constructed shall consist of one or more of the following materials and shall receive prior approval of the city: (a) Brick: Size, type, texture, color and placement shall be approved. (b) Stone: Stone shall have a weathered face or shall be polished, fluted or broken face. (c) Concrete Masonry Block: Concrete masonry block shall be those generally described as "customized architectural concrete masonry units" or shall be broken faced brick type units with marble aggregate. All concrete masonry units shall be coated with a city approved coating. There shall be no exposed concrete block on the exterior of any building unless approved by the city. (d) Concrete: Concrete may be poured in place, tilt up -or precast; and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated, with a minimum life expectancy often (10) years. 2. Alternate Materials: Alternate exterior surface materials of preengineered metal may be substituted in an amount not to exceed six percent (6%) of the exterior wall surface area of each building if the following conditions apply: (a) Used for housing or screening equipment necessary to the manufacturing operations; (b) Architecturally compatible with the building as a whole as determined by the city planning division; (c) Compliance with any additional screening and/or landscaping requirements of the city; and (d) Modifications are made with prior written approval of the city planning division. 3. Alterations To Buildings: Any alterations to buildings shall meet all requirements of this chapter. 4. Canopies: Canopies with visible wall hangers shall not be permitted. Design of canopies shall be in keeping with the design of the building and shall be approved by the city prior to construction or alteration. 5. Roof Mounted Equipment: All rooftop equipment shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet (20') from the edge of the roof and shall be screened. Screening shall consist of either a parapet wall along the roof edge or an opaque screen constructed of the same material as the building's primary vertical exposed exterior finish. Equipment shall be painted a neutral color. The site plan shall indicate all mechanical rooftop equipment and shall include elevations. 6. Loading Docks: The design of the loading docks shall be incorporated into the overall http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmingtonl13006000000020000.htm 5/12/2003 /077' 15-/ 10-6-20: INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGN STANDARDS: Page 2 of 4 design theme of the building and constructed of materials equal to or the same as the principal building. The loading dock areas shall be landscaped and/or screened so that the visual and acoustic impacts of their function is fully contained and out of view of adjacent properties and public -streets. The required width for a landscaped yard along a local collector/industrial or local street is ten feet (10'). The architectural design shall be continuous and uninterrupted by ladders, towers, fences, and equipment. Businesses that abut County Highway 50 and/or County Highway 31 shall not construct loading docks that front these roadways. 7. Trash Containers: Trash containers or trash compactors shall not be located within twenty feet (20') of any street, sidewalk or internal pedestrianway and snail be screened by a six foot (6') masonry Wall on three (3) sides of the trash unit. 8. Coverage: Unless otherwise approved by the city, the ratio of building square footage and parking area shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total square footage of any building site within the affected property. (B)Utilities: All buildings and structures shall be served by underground utility distribution facilities. The installation of such utilities shall not change the grade or contour of the city approved grading plan for the site. (C)Building Setbacks: No building or other structure shall be erected within fifty feet (50') of the front property line; or twenty five feet (25') of the side and rear property lines. If two (2) or more lots are developed as one site, the interior common lot line shall be ignored. (D)Parking Areas: 1. Surfacing: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all parking areas, driveways and loading areas shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete pavement following the city's engineering standard plates. In the event said surfacing cannot be completed due to weather or seasonal restrictions, a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued contingent upon the extension of the security or letter of credit required under this chapter. All parking lots located in the front of buildings or adjacent to street rights of way shall be curbed. 2. Off Street Parking Spaces Required: Off street parking shall be provided to serve each site. The minimum number of parking spaces shall be the greater of: (a) One space for every six hundred (600) square feet of industrial space; and One space for every two hundred (200) square feet of office space; and One space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of storage area or (b) One space per projected employee per shift. 3. Screening: All parking areas shall be screened as required in subsection (F) of this section. http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13006000000020000.htm 5/12/2003 /oc:ao /3- Z- 10-6-20: INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGN STANDARDS: Page 3 of 4 4. Location: Parking shall not be permitted within ten feet (10') of the front property line (those facing any dedicated street), or within ten feet (10') of any side or rear property line unless otherwise approved by the city. (E)Landscaping: All open spaces shall be dustproofed, surfaced, landscaped, rockscaped or devoted to lawns. Not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the required building setback area from any dedicated street shall be landscaped with lawns, trees, shrubs and walkways of a design approved by the city planning division. Landscaping shall be installed within ninety (90) days of occupancy or substantial completion of building, whichever occurs first, weather permitting. The following landscape standards shall apply to all proposed projects within the overlay zones: 1. Street Trees: Street trees shall be planted at one canopy tree per forty feet (40') of street frontage. 2. Perimeter Parking Lots: One tree and three (3) shrubs per forty feet (40') of parking lot perimeter frontage. Plants are to be installed within ten feet (10') of the parking lot frontage area. 3. Interior Parking Lots: One planting island per twenty (20) parking spaces. One tree and three (3) shrubs are required within each planting island. The planting island shall be curbed with concrete. 4. Buffer Area: When the industrial district is adjacent to a residential district, a twenty five foot (25') buffer is required and shall include a six foot (6') high wooden fence and landscaping to screen the adjacent property. (F)Screening: 1. Storage Areas: Without prior approval of the city, no outside storage areas shall be allowed nor shall any articles, goods, materials, incinerators, storage tanks, refuse containers or like equipment be kept in the open or exposed to public view or view from adjacent buildings. If outside storage is given city approval, all materials and/or containers and equipment shall be screened from view. Required screening shall include: a) a six (6) to eight foot (8') high opaque wooden fence and landscaping; b) landscaping and berms; or c) a combination of both to fully screen the outdoor storage. 2. Structure: No accessory structures (including, but not limited to, water towers, storage tanks, processing equipment, cooling towers) or outside equipment shall be constructed, erected or placed on the affected property without prior approval of the city. If such approval is granted, such structures shall be screened from public view and the view of adjacent buildings in a manner approved by the city planning division. (G)Signs: All signs shall be of a design and material approved by the city planning division. Unless otherwise approved, wall signs must be attached to the building, and be parallel to and contiguous with its walls and not projecting above its roofline. No sign of a flashing or moving character shall be installed and no sign shall be painted on any building wall. Pole signs will not be allowed. Advertising billboards are not allowed within the overlay zone. http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13006000000020000.htm 5/12/2003 1? <- /D'8'/ 0- / 10-6-20: INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGN STANDARDS: Page 4 of 4 (General guidelines for signage available through the city planner.) (H)Maintenance: 1. Owners and occupants of any or all of a site have the duty and responsibility, at their sole cost and expense, to keep the site, including buildings, improvements and grounds I well maintained, safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing. Such maintenance includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Prompt removal of all litter, trash, refuse and wastes. (b) Provide such care as required to maintain all vegetation in a healthy and aesthetically pleasing appearance. (c) Maintain exterior lighting and mechanical facilities in good working order. (d) Maintain parking areas, driveways and roads in good repair. (e) Prompt repair of any exterior damage to any buildings and improvements. (Ord. 002- 469,2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 002-477, 7-15-2002) http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13006000000020000.htm 5/12/2003 J? _Ll. /O~d( ~ 7 137S8~3 DECLARA TION OF COVENANTS This Declaration made this 5th day of September, 1996, by Bernard D. Murphy, a single person, (Declarant) and Lexington Standard Corporation, a Minnesota corporation. (Lexington), hereinafter collectively "beclarants" . WHEREAS, Murphy is the owner of that portion of Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition described as follows, to-wit: All of Blocks 1,2 and 4 Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition according to the Plat thereof now on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder within and for said County and State; and WHEREAS; Lexington is the owner oft..~at portion of Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition described as follows, to wit: All of Block 3 Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition (hereinafter Block 3) according to the Plat thereof now on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder within and for said County and State; and WHEREAS; the above described property of said Declarants constitutes the whole of Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS; the Declarations intend that the whole of Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition(the affected property) shall be subject to this Declaration; and WHEREAS; the Covenants declared herein shall run with the affected property and each part thereof and with any interest in the affected property of any part thereof for all purposes and shall be binding upon all Owners, Lessees, Licenses, occupants, Lieners, and ~eir heirs, successors and assigns of the affected property; and WHEREAS; all parcels and lots of the affected property shall be developed in conformance with the requirements of the City Code of the City of Farmington and shall further be subject to the covenants contained herein. . 1.0 DEFINITIONS: I~ 0./ The term "Declarants" shall mean Bernard D. Murphy, a single person, his heirs, successors and assigns and Lexington Standard Corporation, its successors and assigns. Except as to Lexingtons rights as the owner of Block 3, which rights Lexington retains, Declarants hereby appoint Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Farmington, Minnesota its successors or assigns, as the agent and attorney-in-fact to act and to perform any act, function or duty of the Declarants hereunder, and Declarants agree that any person or entity may rely upon the acts of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Farmington. Minnesota its successors or assigns, as if they are the acts of the Declarants. This appointment is irrevocable for the term and duration of the existence of the Declaration of Covenants as herein set forth. Further, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Farmington, Minnesota shall have the exclusive and /CR"3 c- / unlimited right to assign and transfer its powers, rights and duties hereunder as the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of F annington, Minnesota shall direct. 2.0 PERMITTED USES: -All building sites within the affected property shall be used, subject to City Zoning Ordinances, solely for processing, research, light industrial, light manufacturing, warehousing and distribution purposes and services ancillary to such uses, subject to applicable ordinances. 3.0 PRECLUDED USES: No restaurant, gasoline service station, motor hotel, mini storage facility, financial institution or retail use will be permitted. No use shall be permitted which in the sole judgment of Declarant, is incompatible with existing and proposed uses within the affected property or is offensive by reason of odors, fumes, dust, smoke, noise, pollution or which is hazardous by reason of excessive danger of fire or explosion. Approval by Declarant of a particular use shall be conclusive evidence of compliance with this provision. 4.0 APPROVAL OF PLANS: 4.01 SUBMITTAL Prior to construction or alteration of any building or other structure, two complete sets of building and landscaping plans shall be submitted to Declarant for approval. No building, structure, or other improvement shall be constructed, altered or placed upon the affected property until the location, design, plans and specifications for such (including landscaping) shall have been first approved by Declarant. If Declarant fails to approve or deny plans submitted to it within 90 days of receipt, it shall be presumed that such plans as submitted are approved. 4.02 NOTICE AND COMMENT Prior to approving building and landscaping plans Declarant shall make reasonable effort to: I) notify other owners of the affected property of such proposed construction and use 2) provide copies of proposed site and landscape plans with such notice 3) mail or deliver such notice to allow a reasonable time for comments (either written or oral) to be received prior to determination. Such comments in respect to the proposed development shall be received and considered in such approval process. Failure of such owners to receive notice shall not invalidate or affect, in any manner, Declarant's determination in respect to the construction, alteration or use approval as stated in 4.01. 5.0 BUILDING MATERIAL AND DESIGN: 5.01 EXTERIOR WALLS: Exterior Walls of buildings to be constructed on the following described lots, to wit: Block I Lots I and 2 Block 2 Lot I Block 3 Lot I Block 4 Lot 1 shall consist of one or more of the following materials: 2 /CJ~'-/ C. - L BRICK shall be of a size, type, texture, color and placement to be approved by Declarants. STONE shall have a weathered face or shall be polished, fluted or broken face to be approved by Declarants. CONCRETE MASONRY BLOCK shall be those generally described as "Customized Architectural Concrete Masonry Units" or shall be broken faced brick-type units with marble aggregate; in either case to be approved by Declarants. All concrete masonry units shall be coated with a coating approved by Declarants. There shall be no exposed concrete block on the exterior of any building unless approved by Declarants. GLASS CONCRETE may be poured in place, tilt-up or precast and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated in a manner to be approved by Declarants and with a minimum life expectancy of lO years. ANCILLARY SURFACE MATERIALS Alternate exterior surface materials of preengineered metal may be substituted in up to 6% of the exterior wall surface area of each building based upon the following criteria: a. That such alternate exterior material and the construction of such areas shall be used for housing ancillary equipment necessary for the manufacturing operations conducted thereon and therein. b. That such alternate material and area so enclosed shall be architecturally compatible with the building as a whole. c. That developer shall comply with any additional screening and/or landscaping requirements required by Declarants. d. That upon agreement in respect to the use of alternate materials, screening and landscaping, no further modifications shall be made by the developer without prior written approval of Declarants. Such use of alternate materials and interpretation of and compliance in respect to the above stated criteria shall be within the sole discretion of Declarants, their successors and assigns. 5.02 CANOPIES: No canopies with visible wall hangers shall be permitted. Design of canopies shall be in keeping with the design of the building and shall be approved by Declarant prior to construction or alteration. 3 /0Ci55 ~-3 5.03 ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT: Roof mounted equipment shall be located or screened as may be required by Declarant to minimize visibility from the street or surrounding buildings. 5.04 LOADING DOCKS: All loading dock designs and locations must be approved by Declarant before construction or alteration. 5.05 COVERAGE: Unless otherwise approved by Declarant, the ratio of building square footage and parking area shall not exceed 65% of the total square footage of any building site within the affected property. 5.06 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES: Building and structures located in the Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition shall be served by underground utility distribution facilities. The installation of such utilities shall not change the grade or contour of the land adjacent thereto. 6.0 BUILDING SETBACKS: No building or other structure shall be erected nearer than 50 feet to the front property line; nearer than 25 feet to any side property line; or nearer than 25 feet to any rear property line. If two or more lots are developed as one site, the interior common lot line shall be ignored for all purposes under this Declaration 7.0 PARKING: 7.01 SURF ACING Prior to occupancy ofbuildirtgs constructed in the industrial park, all parking areas, driveways and loading areas shall be surfaced with asphalt pavement using MNDOT guidelines. In the event said surfacing cannot be completed prior to occupancy due to weather or seasonal restrictions then occupancy of newly constructed facilities may be had upon escrowing of funds for or adequate assurances of completion acceptable to Declarant. 7.02 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: Off street parking shall be provided to serve each site. The minimum number of parking spaces shall be the greater of: 1. a. One space for every 600 sq. ft. of Industrial Space; and b. One space for every 200 sq. ft. of office space; and c. One space for each 2000 sq. ft. to storage area or 2. One space per projected employee per shift 7.03 SCREENING: All parking areas shall be screened in a manner approved by the Declarant. 7.04 LOCATION: Parking will not be permitted Within 35 feet of the front property line (those facing any dedicated street), within 10 feet of any side property line or within 10 feet of any rear property line unless otherwise approved by Declarant. - 8.0 ALTERATION TO BUILDINGS: Any alterations to buildings shall meet all requirements of these covenants and the City Code. 4 /C>1fb c-tf 9.0 LANDSCAPING: All open spaces shall be dustproofed, surfaced, landscaped, rockscaped or devoted to lawns. Not less than two-thirds of the required building setback area from any dedicated street shall be landscaped lawns, trees, shrubs and walkways of a design approved by the Declarants. Landscaping as approved by Declarant shall be installed within 90 days of occupancy or substantial completion of building, whichever occurs. first, weather permitting. 10.0 SCREENING 10.01 STORAGE Without prior approval of Declarant no outside storage areas shall be maintained nor shall articles, goods, materials, incinerators, storage tanks, refuse containers or like equipment be kept in the open or exposed to public view or view from adjacent buildings. In the event that approval is granted, all materials shall be screened from view. Screening as used in this paragraph means a landscaping plan approved by Declarant. 10.02 STRUCTURE No ancillary structures (including but not limited to water towers, storage tanks, processing equipment, cooling towers) or outside equipment shall be constructed, erected or placed on the affected property without prior approval of Declarant. In the event that such approval is granted, such structures shall be screened from public view and the view of adjacent buildings in a manner approved by the Declarant. 11.0 SIGNS All signs shall be of a design and material approved by Declarant. Unless otherwise approved by Declarant, all signs must be attached to a building, and be parallel to and contiguous with its walls and not projecting above its roof line. No sign of a flashing or moving character shall be installed and no sign shall be painted on any building wall. (General guidelines for signage - available at Declarant's office or City Planner.) 12.0 MAINTENANCE Owners and occupants of any part of any site have the duty and responsibility, at their sole cost and expense, to keep the site, including buildings, improvements and grounds, in a well maintained, safe, clean and attractive condition. Such maintenance includes but is not limited to the following: a. Promptly removing all litter, trash, refuse and wastes. b. Lawn mowing. c. Pruning of trees and shrubs. d. Watering e. Maintaining exterior lighting and mechanical facilities in working order. f. Maintaining lawn and garden areas alive. g. Maintaining parkin& areas, driveways and roads in good repair. h. Promptly repairing exterior damage to improvements. 12.01 ENFORCEMENT If, in the opinion of the Declarant, any owner or occupant has failed to fulfill any of the above duties or other maintenance responsibilities, the Declarant will give owner or occupant written notice of such failure. Owner or occupant has ten (10) days after mailing of written notice to perform duties 5 /0<=6) ~-S- and maintenance responsibilities required. Upon failure of owner or occupant to perfonn duties and responsibilities within such time period. the Declarant shall have the right and power to proceed by court action to have such covenants enforced or enter onto the premises and perfonn the duties and responsibilities without any liability for damages or for wrongful entry or trespass. The owner or occupant shall be liable for the cost of work and shall promptly reimburse the Declarant for such costs. if owner or occupant fails to reimburse the Declarant within thirty (30) days after receipt of statement for such work. then said indebtedness shall be a debt against the property owner and occupant. This debt. bearing interest at the maximum rate allowed by law. not to exceed 12%. shall constitute a lien against the property on which the work was performed until fully paid. 13.0 TIME LIMIT FOR CONSTRUCTIONIRIGHT OF REPURCHASE If owner fails to commence construction of a building upon a building site within one (I) year from the date of the original deed transfer to owner. the Declarant his heirs, successors, assigns or attorneys-in-fact shall have the option to repurchase the site as follows: a. The repurchase price shall be 90% of sale price and shall be paid in cash at the time of closing. b. The option to repurchase is deemed exercised by written notice provided to Owner within a one hundred eighty (180) day period beginning one (1) year from the date of Declarant deed. c. The closing shall be thirty (30) days from the date of mailing of said written notice at which time Owner shall deliver marketable title and its warranty deed as directed by Declarant. "Commencement of Construction of a Building" js satisfied when all of the following are completed: a. Plans approved by Declarant as set forth in Section 4 hereof. b. Owner obtained building permits from the appropriate governmental authority authorizing the construction of a building and improvements as approved by Declarant. c. Owner entered into a construction contract with a contractor licensed to do business in Minnesota. d. Owner has expended at least the sum ofTen Thousand Dollars ($10,000.) pursuant to such construction contract. 14.0 APPROVALS: Only written approvals by Declarant shall be effective. Written approval by Declarant of a particular use or action shall be conclusive evidence of compliance with this Declaration to the extent any use or action so approved is not in violation of any law, ordinance or governmental regulation. Declarant shall not be liable for damages to anyone submitting plans to it for approval or seeking any approval under this Declaration or to any owner, lessee or other interest affected by this Declaration by reason of mistake in judgment, negligence or nonfeasance arising out of or in connection with the approval or disapproval or failure to approve any matter or plan. Each person 6 /O~15 C-{p who seeks such approval agrees, by so seeking, and every owner or lessee of any said property agrees, by acquiring title thereto or interest therein, that he will not bring any action, proceeding or suit against Declarants alleging such damages. . 15.0 TERMINATION. MODIFICATION AND DECLARANTS RIGHTS: lS.Jll Declarant shall have the sole right and power at all times to terminate or modify this Declaration with respect to any portion of the affected property which Declarant owns. lS..D1 If at any time Declarant ceases to exist or fails or refuses to act for a period of more than ninety (90) days after having been notified of failure to act on any request or file for record his resignation, a successor Declarant may be appointed. 16.0 ENFORCEMENT: The restrictions contained in this Declaration may be enforced at law or in equity by the Declarant or by the owner of any portion of the affected property. If Declarant fails to act to enforce within thirty (30) days after having been requested to do so by any owner of any portion of the affected property. Declarant shall not have liability at law or in equity to any person or entity for the failure to enforce any of the restrictions contained in this Declaration. In the event that Declarant ceases to exist, or files for record his resignation as Declarant, any owner of any portion of the affected property may enforce this Declaration. 17.0 DURATION: All of the covenants, easements, restrictions and powers herein contained shall run with and bind the subject property and shall i.nure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the owners of the respective tracts, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns for the initial term of thirty (30)years from the date of this instrument. 18.0 EFFECT OF INVALIDATION In the event that any provision or portions of any provision of this Declaration is held to be invalid by any Court, the invalidity of such provision or portion or portions of such provision shall not affect the remaining provisions or portion or portions of provisions of this Declaration and shall continue in full force and effect. 19.0 WAIVER OF RIGHTS: The failure of Declarant, or any owner to enforce any covenant herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the right to do so thereafter nor of the right to enforce any other restriction. 20.0 INSPECTION: Declarant may from time to time at any reasonable hour or hours, enter and inspect any of the affected property to ascertain compliance with this Declaration. 7 /o'Tf7' (! - 7 21.0 ADDITION OF TERRITORY AND RIGHT TO RE-SUBDIVIDE: 21.01 ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES Declarant may from time to time during the term of this Declaration add to the affected property.. 21.02 SUBDIVISION OF PARCELS BY THIRD PARTIES At the time of purchase of a tract or parcel of land from Declarant or Declarants. such tract or parcel shall be considered as a single building site for all purposes hereunder. Re-subdivision of such tract or parcel shall not be permitted without the prior approval by Declarant. 21.03LIMIT A TION OF SUBDIVISION OF PARCELS BY DECLARANT The Declarant may subdivide lots within the development so that no lot or part thereof shall be less than one (1) acre (43,560 square feet) in size and have no less than 150 foot adjacent road frontage. Lexington Standard Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation <---- jJ f2. hI- Date I / r-{ ;;.~'1~ Date c; - /:;2 '~b Date by Richard D. Hanson, President bY~~ ~ Bryce Kilene, Vice President tl.J( ACCEPT ANCE OF APPOINTMENT: The Housing and redevelopment Authority of the City of Farmington, State of Minnesota, in accordance with and pursuant to Paragraph 1.0 of the Declaration of Covenants herein above-stated, hereby acknowledges and accepts the appointment as agent and attorney-in-fact to act on behalf of Declarants in respect to the above-stated Declaration of Covenants. William Fitch HRA Chairperson 4~~~ ~,d1-~;/~ Gerald A. Henricks HRA Executive Director 8 /090 c!- - f STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) Subscribed and sworn before me this 11.-+11 Bernard D. Murphy, a single person owner. .:;j.UkU1 ~LUl Notary Public day of ~t{,,,-, , I 996, by Stamp: ~..,.;., SUSAN J. MIU.EF I '.:Ii NOTAFlY puaUC-MI~~..:;SOTA ~ ..~. . MY COMMI6SION E.XPIF:S '.".IJf) · ST ATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this &+-/1 day of \Sp (JTiJJ'l j.-( 1\ ' 1996, by William Fitch and Gerald A. Henricks, the Chairperson and Executive Director respectively of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Farmington, a public body corporate under the Laws of the State of Mi.nnesota, on behalf of the corporation. e'-'" SUSAN J. MILLER i __.,' NOTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA .....~:~"i MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1-31-1lO ~ S.LxiLUl I{ - ll~f ,I; A ~ Notary Public Stamp: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this /2. "'-/1" day of 51r fJ ..,.. t /11/3 e /2. , 1996, by Richard D. Hanson and Bryce Kilene, the President and Vice President respectively, of the Lexington Standard Corporation, a Minnesota corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota and on behalf of the Lexington Standard Corporation. ~i:- {1~'~ Stamp: 8 MMLYCI.a.1IMIACIK ~ MDt 'AIff PUaIO- ..IIIOTA WMl.I~JaI CDUIIrt ..,r .. -....._11.- THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Gerald A. Henricks Executive Director ' Housing and Redevelopment Authority 325 Oak Street Farmington. Minnesota 55024 (612)463-7111 9 /09/ c- 1 City Council/Planning CommissionIHRA Workshop Minutes April 30, 2003 Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Absent: Also Present: Mayor Ristow, Councilmembers Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg Dirk Rotty, Ben Barker, Bob Heman, Chaz Johnson, Todd Larson Todd Arey, Yvonne Flaherty Joel Jamnik, Ed Shukle, Kevin Carroll, Robin Roland, Cynthia Muller Paul Hardt, Nick Roberts Dale Pettis, Jeff Thelen, Jan Karrmann, Larry White, Michelle Leonard Present: Industrial Park Lot Split The meeting was held to discuss the splitting of a lot in the industrial park into three lots. One of the lots is being discussed for a daycare. Council first took a poll to see where they stood. Councilmember Fitch was in favor ofthe concept, as well as Councilmember Cordes, however there should be conditions placed on the type of building materials used. The Planning Commission would be willing to look at a lot split, and decide on a conditional use permit. Attorney Jamnik stated all three bodies needed to be on the same page. A simple majority is required of each body. A no vote would end the project. Staff stated the lot in question is in the 2nd Addition ofthe industrial park. There is park/open space to the north and a pipeline easement through the middle, which does not allow for structures. By splitting this area into three lots, there would be a 50-foot easement along the border of each lot. Lot 3 would have a future road on the east side, and the building would face east. This lot would include an extension to 208th Street for access until the road to the east is built. It is easier to sell smaller lots. Council asked about bringing in utilities and if the pipeline has been abandoned. The process is not that far along to review utilities and the pipeline has not been abandoned. Council stated within five years there have been no serious inquiries regarding the lot, and questioned how dividing this into three lots would make people buy it. Staffhas received inquiries about smaller lots. Once the lots are split, they would be available to advertise. Council then asked if there was additional cost for utilities to be run to three lots rather than one. Staff stated PIC had a similar issue and needed rerouting of the sanitary sewer. The HRA allowed additional funds through TIP for the project. Council expressed some concern that a permanent access from lot 3 to 208th Street would prohibit the city from imposing an assessment against the lot for the cost ofthe future road on the east side of the lot. The HRA felt the access to 208th Street would be temporary and future access would be from the east. The temporary driveway is too close to the intersection. This would be made clear when the lot is sold. /09c:? D- / City CouncillPlanning CommissionIHRA Workshop April 30, 2003 Page 2 The Planning Commission has dealt with lot 2. They would like a consensus if the lot split is approved. The city needs to decide if they should wait for a tenant for one large lot, or split the lot, and take the tenant for lot 2. The HRA asked if there were any drainage issues by splitting the lots. Staff stated the drainage would be addressed when the lots are split. Drainage costs have been dealt with and assessments would be paid by the developer of each lot. Mayor Ristow stated he has no problem with the lot split as long as architectural designs are met for the industrial park. The Planning Commission asked if the siding for the proposed daycare is concrete. Mayor Ristow stated according to the building official it is lap siding. Councilmember Soderberg stated the siding proposed did not fit the definition of tip-up siding or poured concrete. When the design standards were set, this material was not anticipated. The HRA agreed to the lot split with the contingency that access to lot 3 be changed from 208th Street to the east once the road to the east is built. Staff stated the lots are priced at $1.50/sq. ft. and include all assessments with the exclusion of County Road 31. As to when the road to the east will be built, depends on when the Murphy property is sold. The Planning Commission asked regarding the property for the daycare, what the building inspectors thought of the material. If it does not meet the design standards, the Planning Commission would have to approve a variance in order for Ms. Karrmann to be able to use HardiPlank. Attorney Jamnik stated the role of the building inspectors was to determine if the material requested matched the list of materials in the design standards. The quality of the material was not considered, just if it matched the list. The material did not exist when the list was made. A variance can be granted. Attorney J amnik also stated that considering the lot split does not mean an agreement has been reached to deviate from other standards. Chair Rotty stated the Planning Commission needed to determine whether a daycare is a reasonable use in the industrial park. If they do not think it is appropriate, Ms. Karrmann needs to be advised. Commissioner Heman felt it was a good location for a daycare. He also thought the building materials could meet the requirements as the requested siding is poured and tipped up on site. He is in favor of the project. Commissioner Johnson agreed. The daycare could be utilized by industrial park employees. He agreed to consider the requested siding, but wanted more input from Council regarding the building materials. Commissioner Barker stated there might be a better location, but Ms. Karrmann is trying to keep her business in Farmington and he felt it could be a benefit to the industrial park. Commissioner Larson stated he is not against the daycare being in the industrial park. However, the requested siding does not meet the original intent ofthe industrial park. Chair Rotty stated the Planning Commission did support the Conditional Use Permit, however they did not reach a full consensus on the building materials. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the daycare is not approved, does this prohibit other businesses from in house daycare? Attorney Jamnik stated the daycare would be defined as a separate or incidental use. To have daycare listed in the code as a conditional use avoids this. Ms. Jan Karrmann stated she has put several years of research into this project. There is not enough daycare in Farmington, and why should residents go out oftown? There are two daycare centers in the city and they both are at maximum capacity. Industrial park businesses felt this would be a valuable asset to their employees. The industrial park is a great location. She does /09'3 D - 2- City Council/Planning CommissionIHRA Workshop April 30, 2003 Page 3 not want to construct a pole barn. Her building will look as good as any other building out there. Councilmember Fitch stated as far as design standards, the city has turned down other businesses that would not comply with those standards, and asked Ms. Karrmann if it would be a hardship for her to comply. Ms. Karrmann replied it would, as she might not be able to buy as much playground equipment, kitchen equipment, etc. Any additional equipment would have to be purchased later. She felt each case should be dealt with individually. This is not an industrial application. Mr. Larry White stated the siding is 90% cement and sand, and therefore considered a concrete product. They could build a building out of concrete block and paint it to meet the standards, but it would not look as attractive. They would like the building to have a more warm feeling to kids. The siding is warranted for 50 years. The building could'be converted to light industrial use in the future if needed. Mr. Dale Pettis stated he is concerned about traffic, but is for the daycare. He would like to see 208th Street extended. Mr. Jeff Thelen asked if 3M were here with a daycare, would it be allowed? He listed several businesses that were turned down. He asked how these businesses could be turned down and the city still consider a daycare. The city did not want the property used for a city garage but wanted to save room for an industrial use. He does not see the logic in allowing a daycare. Mr. Thelen then stated there are covenants written to allow a maximum of 10% steel covering. He asked if the city or HRA was hoarding property for their own use on 3rd and Spruce Street and saving it for a City Hall? Staff stated the City Hall Task Force has targeted that property for a new City Hall and is awaiting Council's decision. The HRA has a letter of understanding with Vinge Tile on 2 lots on Hwy 50. Mr. Thelen agreed that Vinge would be a good fit for the industrial park. HRA Chair Arey stated the HRA owns the lot at 3rd and Spruce Street and under staff recommendation they are not marketing it due to a possible new City Hall. Councilmember Cordes stated the siding is not an acceptable use. Attorney Jamnik stated if the Planning Commission feels the siding is acceptable, the Planning Commission can recommend a change to the ordinance. Hardi-Plank is not a listed acceptable use and the building official says it does not meet the design standards. Councilmember Soderberg stated it is a poured cast product, and he has no problem with it. Councilmember Fitch stated it is fine for residential use, but high standards have been set for the industrial park. Other businesses have been turned down that did not meet the standards. The question for the Planning Commission is does it meet current standards of the industrial park? Chair Rotty recommended a text amendment to the ordinance. Staff stated the covenants were adopted during the first phase of the industrial park. During the second phase the covenants became part of the ordinance. Council requested staff investigate the covenants and decide if the ordinance should be changed. Council agreed to divide the lot. Councilmembers Soderberg, Fogarty, and Fitch reached a consensus that daycare should remain as a conditional use in the industrial park. Councilmember Fitch stated the conditional uses should be reviewed for the future. Staff stated the requested building materials do not meet design standards for the industrial park. If Ms. Karrmann would like to appeal this, it would need to go to the Planning Commission. /09'1 1) - .s City Council/Planning Commission/HRA Workshop April 30, 2003 Page 4 Blaha Property The HRA felt the best development opportunity for 3rd and Spruce Street would be to market the lot with the Blaha property. Mr. Blaha is willing to sell the property for $265,000. He will not sign a right of first refusal with the city. Council has agreed to decide on whether to move forward with the proposed City Hall project within 45 days. Councilmember Fitch suggested if the property is used for a City Hall, the HRA should buy the property. The meeting adjourned at 11 :20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, $~/~ ?Y7~-u Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant /095' 0- L} City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminJrton.mn.us MEMORANDUM To: From: Re: Date: Ms. Jan Karrmann (via fax to 651-642-4103) Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director Design Standards Determination (Hardiplank) May 7, 2003 Dear Ms. Karrmann, This Memorandum will confirm information that was provided to you during the course of the joint City Council/Planning Commission/HRA meeting that was held at the Farmington Maintenance Facility on the evening of April 30, 2003. At that time, I indicated to you that one of your proposed building materials ("Hardiplank") is not an approved or allowable exterior wall material under the Farmington Industrial Park Design Standards, which are found in Section 10- 6-19 [attached] of the City Code. In particular, the City's position is that: a. Hardiplank is neither brick nor stone nor concrete masonry block. b. Although it contains Portland cement, Hardiplank is not "concrete." c. Even ifHardiplank is considered concrete, it is not "poured in place," "tilt up" or "precast," which are the only three allowable varieties of concrete. Section 10-3-4 [attached] of the City Code provides a procedure for appealing a determination of the zoning officer. There is a $150 fee for the filing of such an appeal. If you wish to appeal, and to have your appeal considered by the Planning Commission (sitting as the Board of Adjustment) at the next Planning Commission meeting on May 13th, your written notice of appeal and your filing fee will have to be received at City Hall by 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 9th. If you have any questions, please contact me at 651-463-1860. Thank you. /09~ E-j City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Appeal of a Zoning Officer Decision Regarding Approved Building Materials in the Industrial Park DATE: May 13, 2003 BACKGROUND Ms. Jan Karrmann is working with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to purchase land in the Farmington Industrial Park to construct a commercial daycare facility. One component of the proposed facility is the type of building that would be constructed on the site. Ms. Karrmann is proposing to use Hardiplank in the construction, which is a type of siding. Kevin Carroll, acting as the Zoning Officer for the City, has determined that Hardiplank is not an approved building material in the Industrial Park Zoning District (see attached list of approved materials). Mr. Carroll has provided his determination in a memo dated May 7, 2003. The letter is included with this memo. Ms. Karrmann has submitted a letter (dated May 9, 2003) to the Planning Commission appealing the decision. The process for an appeal is found in Section 10-3-4 of the City Code: 10-3-4: APPEALS: An appeal from a ruling of the zoning offker may be taken by the property owner or agent within thirty (30) days after the order utWzing the following procedure: (A) The property owner or agent shall fHe with the zoning offker a notke of appeal stating the specifk grounds upon whkh the appeal is made. (B) The zoning offker shall transmit the appeal to the board of adjustment for study and recommendation at its next regular meeting. (e) The board of adjustment shall make its decision within sixty (60) days and a copy of the motion shall be maHed to the applkant by the zoning offker. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) /09'/ ;=-1 ACTION REQUESTED Consider the appeal and determine whether Hardiplank meets the design standards for the Industrial Park Zoning District. Respectfully submitted, Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner /c>n- r- 2- Thelen Cabinet Company 21075 Eaton Avenue. Farmington. MN 55024 . Telephone: (651) 463-3442 . FAX: (651) 463-8331 Jim Atkinson City of Fannington Farmington, MN. 55024 May 21 2003 Dear Jim. I would like to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission made on May 13thconceming allowing Hardiplank as an allowed building product in the Farmington Industrial Park. I know that was not the intent ofHRA back in October 1990. .. I know that, because I was personally involved in that decision. It was stated at the May 13th meeting. It is The City staffs job to not only determine what City Code says, but, what is meant by the language in the ordinance. lY'~- Jeff Thc1en President /O~ G- I POWDER COATING PERFORMANCE IND. COATINGS, INC. P.O. BOX 127 FARMrNGTON, MN. 55024-0127 PHONE 651-463-3388 FAX 651-463-3556 MAY 19,2003 SUBJECT: BUILDING STRUCTURE IND. PARK DEAR CITY COUNCIL, WHEN MY BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK WE HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE COVENANTS THAT WAS IN FORCED AT THAT TIME. CERTAIN TYPE OF MATERIALS HAD TO BE USED DEPENDING ON WHERE THE SITE WAS LOCATED IN THE PARK. THE AREAS CLOSE TO HWY 50 WAS LIMITED TO A MORE ESTHETIC LOOK THAT THE LOTS LOCATED IN THE REAR OF THE PARK. I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THE 2ND ADDITION WAS ADDED TO THE PARK SOME OF THIS WAS CHANGED TO ELIMINATE ANY METAL BUILDINGS BEING CONSTRUCTED. MY GUESS THIS DONE TO UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF THE OF THE BUILDING CODES TO MAKE IT COMPATIBLE TO EACH BUILDER. I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO ANY CHANGE IN THE BUILDING CODES THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS TO EFFECT THE VALUE OF MY INVESTMENT IN THE PARK. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DAY CARE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK USING HARDY BOARD FOR THE OUTSIDE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. I AM NOT SURE OF WHAT ALL THIS IS MADE OF BUT I FEEL THAT MORE STUDY SHOULD BE MADE TO INSURE THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING CODES THAT WAS INSTITUTED BE UP HELD TO KEEP THE VALUE OF THE BUILDINGS THAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. I DO NOT OPPOSE A DA YCARE CENTER TO BE LOCATED IN THE PARKAS LONG AS THE CHILDREN IS PROTECTED IN A SAFE ENVIRONMpNT FROM PARK TRAFFIC. IF SPRINKLERS ARE REQUIRED IN ONE BUILDING IT ., SHOULD BE IN EVERY BUILDING. THANK YOU J CE INDUSTRIAL COATINGS TO PROTECT AND BEAUTIFY //e:JO G - L dJ T Powder Coating Company Honorable Jerry Ristow Mayor City of Farmington Farmington, MN 55024 May 19, 2003 Mayor Ristow, I am writing this letter to express my reservations with the proposed day care facility within the Farmington Industrial Park. Unfortunately, I am not able to attend this evening's council meeting to voice my concerns in person. I have asked Jeff Thelen, who plans to speak on this issue this evening, to deliver this letter to you in the public comment section of tonight's agenda. I have two broad areas of concerns regarding the proposed day care center. Let me briefly explain each. One area of concern is the appropriateness of a day care facility in an industrial park. Increased traffic levels in to the industrial park are a concern, especially during our busy shipping times (6-8 AM and 4-6 PM) which I am afraid will coincide with the day care's busy time for child drop off and pick up. I am concerned about not only the traffic in the park, but the ability for the extra volume of traffic to be able to safely enter and exit the park on Eaton Ave. The ability to enter Hwy 50 from Eaton Ave has been an issue for many of us for the last few years, and the added volume of traffic from the day care will only make it more difficult. I have concerns about things, such as odors and noises, which are generally acceptable in an industrial environment, but may not be so acceptable to the parents and children utilizing the day care facility. I can see the potential for tension between businesses on these types of issues in the future. The second area of concern is the proposed materials of construction. The high quality standard that guided the buildings in the industrial park is important to me. My building is the biggest asset I own. The value of my building is in part determined by its location and the quality of the other buildings in the park. While I am not an architect, I am comfortable in saying that the proposed building materials are not the same as the pre-cast concrete used in my building. It is of lesser value. I am concerned that, should the day care prove not to be successful, the park will have a building for sale of lesser quality construction and with a unique design that will make it difficult to remarket. While all buildings carry some remarket risk, it seems to me that the day care facility's risk would be far greater than the other buildings in the park. It does have the potential effect of lowering the value of my building. That would not only hurt me, but the city as well, in that lower industrial building values would also mean less property tax revenue for the city. 21020 EATON AVENUE · FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55024 PHONE 651-463-4664. FAX 651-463-4627 E-Mail: jitpowdr@aol.com · Web Site: www.jitpowdercoating.com /10/ (};,-3 This day care proposal has only been brought to my attention in the last three weeks. Yet neighboring business owners tell me that I, or other owners in the park, must act by Friday to appeal the decision to allow the day care development to go forward as currently proposed. That places me in a difficult position. I would have preferred to have been engaged in the planning process earlier rather than having to be in the reactionary position of filing appeals, thus delaying an owner's pursuit of starting up their business. A day care in Farmington would be a wonderful addition to the community. It is something that JIT Powder Coating supports. But I strongly believe that there are more appropriate places for a day care facility other than the industrial park, such as in the downtown area or in the proposed commercial development area. I would be supportive of additional city incentives to help the day care locate in those alternative areas. I ask that the Council take my concerns under advisement and consider a delay in proceeding with the current proposal until we can alLhave a better understanding of the ramifications of the decisior: to pro~eed. Sincerely, ~=~~~e~ President /.10:;2. G-ql City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Response to Citizen Comments -- DATE: June 2, 2003 INTRODUCTION During the "Citizen Comments" portion of the May 19th City Council meeting, Mr. Jeff Thelen offered comments regarding various aspects of a development project that has been proposed by local resident Jan Karrmann. Ms. Karrmann has appeared before the Planning Commission and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority on several occasions to discuss her desire to acquire property in the Farmington Industrial Park and open a day care facility that would serve Industrial Park employees and parents who live in nearby residential areas. DISCUSSION Most of Mr. Thelen's comments addressed a recent decision by the Planning Commission regarding an exterior building material that Ms. Karrmann had proposed to use for her day care facility. The material in question, which is called "Hardiplank," is a type of durable, low-maintenance lap siding that includes Portland cement. The Planning Commission determined (at its May 13th meeting) that Hardiplank is "concrete." Concrete is an approved exterior wall material under the Industrial Park Design Standards that appear in the City Code. A few days after the last City Council meeting, Mr. Thelen filed an appeal regarding the aforementioned Planning Commission decision (see attached letter from him dated May 21, 2003). Due to publication and notice requirements, Mr. Thelen's appeal cannot be considered by the City Council until its next meeting on June 16th. The pros and cons of Hardiplank will presumably be discussed in detail at that time. Other comments made by Mr. Thelen dealt with the fact that the topic of exterior building materials is addressed not only in the City Code, but also in covenants that were adopted when the development of Phase II of the Industrial Park began in 1996 (the property that Ms. Karrmann wants to acquire is in Phase II). Mr. Thelen was familiar with the concept of covenants, because an earlier set of covenants had been adopted when Phase I of the Industrial Park began around 1990 (Mr. Thelen's business is located in Phase I). Mr. Thelen indicated a belief that insufficient attention has been devoted to the 1996 covenants in connection with Ms. Karrmann's proposal. 1/03 /-1- / At some point between 1996 and the present, the design standards that appeared in the 1996 "Phase II Covenants" were incorporated into the City Code, presumably to make them more readily accessible to the general public. Relevant portions of each appear below: 1996 Industrial Park Phase II 2003 [City Code] Industrial Park Design "Declaration of Covenants" Standards 10-6-20 Industrial Park Design Standards 5.0 Building Material And Design: (A) Building Material And Design: 5.01 Exterior Walls: Exterior walls of buildings to 1. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls of buildings to be be constructed.. .shall consist of one or more of constructed shall consist of one or more of the the following materials: following materials and shall receive prior approval of the city: Brick shall be of a size, type, texture, color and placement to be approved by Declarants. (a) Brick: Size, type, texture, color and placement shall be approved. Stone shall have a weathered face or shall be polished, fluted or broken face to be approved (b) Stone: Stone shall have a weathered face by Declarants. or shall be polished, fluted or broken face. Concrete Masonrv Block shall be those (c) Concrete Masonry Block: Concrete generally described as "Customized masonry block shall be those generally Architectural Concrete Masonry Units" or shall described as "customized architectural be broken faced brick-type units with marble concrete masonry units" or shall be broken aggregate; in either case to be approved by faced brick type units with marble aggregate. Declarants. All concrete masonry units shall be All concrete masonry units shall be coated with coated with coating approved by Declarants a city approved coating. There shall be no There shall be no exposed concrete block on exposed concrete block on the exterior of any the exterior of any building unless approved by building unless approved by the city. Declarants. Glass Concrete may be poured in place, tilt up or precast and shall be finished in stone, textured (d) Concrete: Concrete may be poured in or coated in a manner to be approved by place, tilt up or precast; and shall be finished in Declarants and with a minimum life expectancy stone, textured or coated, with a minimum life of 10 years. expectancy of ten (10) years. Although the HRA has not finalized any type of contractual agreement with Ms. Karrman regarding the sale of Industrial Park property, the combination of brick and Hardiplank that Ms. Karrmann originally proposed to use has been previously discussed with and approved (in concept) by the HRA. The HRA's consideration of this topic focused on the design standards that currently appear in the City Code (right hand column, above). The 1996 covenants specifically provide that "..all parcels and lots [in Phase II] shall be developed in conformance with the requirements of the City Code of the City of Farmington." Although the "exterior building material" sections of the 1996 covenants and the current City Code are very similar, the HRA members could address Mr. Thelen's concerns by expressly revisiting their prior approval of the proposed building materials in the specific context of the 1996 covenants. This 2 //0<1 1-/ - 2- subject will therefore be placed on the agenda for the next HRA meeting. (The Planning Commission does not need to revisit its "Hardiplank decision," in part because that decision is being appealed, and in part because that decision was properly based upon the City Code rather than the covenants. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to interpret or enforce a contractual document such as the 1996 Declaration of Covenants.) It is admittedly confusing and duplicative to have two similar but not identical sets of standards that govern what can and cannot be done with industrial park parcels. City staff recommends that the City Council authorize or direct City staff and/or the City Attorney to develop options for eliminating, minimizing or resolving such complications. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Carroll Community Development Director 3 //os 1-1-:> City of Fanning ton 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 A Proud Past - A Promising Future Committed to Providing High Quality, Timely and Responsive Service to All of our Customers AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY June 9, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approve Agenda 3. Consent Agenda a. Bills b. April 30, 2003 Minutes (Joint City Council/Planning CommissionIHRA meeting) c. May 12, 2003 Minutes . 4. Public Hearings a. None 5. Unfinished Business a. Vacant 3rd Street Lot ("McVicker Property"); 3rd & Spruce Street Site Meetings continue to be held regarding the recommendations of the City Hall Task Force. The last such meeting took place as part of a City Council workshop that occurred on June 4th. The City Council is unwilling to make any final decisions until more is known about environmental conditions on the Blaha property"which would have to be acquired in order to create a site large to build a new City Hall located at or near the comer of3rd Street and Spruce Street. At its meeting on June 2nd, the City Council formally authorized Peer Environmental to conduct a Phase II Investigation of the Blaha property (see attached City Council memo). Soil borings were taken a few days ago, and lab results are expected by June 13th. A report will be provided to the City Council at its next meeting on June 16th, after which further discussions will presumably take place regarding City Hall options. The fate of the HRA's McVicker property and the HRA's 3rd & Spruce Street property will continue to remain in limbo until the City Hall "siting" issue is resolved. b. Possible Expansion oj Industrial Park The City's Engineering Division is continuing to work on the Feasibility Study regarding the possible extension of 208th Street through the Devney property. Completion later this summer is anticipated. c. Vinge Tile & Stone Mr. Vinge has erected a "future home of' sign on the lots that are the subject of the Contract for Private Development that was signed at the last HRA meeting. We are awaiting the arrival of building plans for I/~ ...:r - / the future home of Mr. Vinge's company. d. Karrmann Daycare Project At the April 30th joint City Council/Planning Commission/HRA meeting, City staff made a determination that Hardiplank is not an allowable exterior building material under the City Code's Industrial Park Design Standards. Staff did so in the interest of finally moving that issue toward some type of formal and final resolution. Ms. Karrmann requested, and was provided with, information about the process for appealing that staff decision. She subsequently prepared and filed an appeal, which was heard by the Planning Commission on May 13th. The Planning Commission unanimously upheld her appeal, thereby essentially determining that Hardiplank is "concrete" (as that term is used in the design standards). Industrial Park property owner Jeff Thelen (Thelen Cabinets) has appealed the Planning Commission's decision (see attached City Council memo). His appeal will be heard at the June 16th City Council meeting. Ifhis appeal is denied by the Council, Hardiplank will continue to be considered an approved exterior material in the Industrial Park for anyone who might want to use it. Ifhis appeal is sustained by the Council, neither Ms. Karrmann nor anyone else will be allowed to use Hardiplank on the exterior of a building in the Industrial Park unless a variance is granted by the Planning Commission. It is my understanding that Ms. Karrmann does not presently intend to seek a variance if the City Council sustains Mr. Thelen's appeal. In that event, she apparently intends to switch to an exterior material that is allowed under Industrial Park Design Standards, namely rough-faced concrete masonry blocks with a coating of paint (see the e-mail from Ms. Karrmann's builder, Larry White, dated June 5, 2003, which is included with the attached staffmemo to the Planning Commission). At the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on June 10th, Ms. Karrmann will be seeking the issuance ofa Conditional Use Permit that would allow her to use Hardiplank if the Council approves it OR concrete blocks ifthe Council disallows the use of Hardiplank. At the same Planning Commission meeting on June 101h, the Commissioners will consider the proposed preliminary and final plat for the "subdivided" 9.3 acre lot in the Industrial Park, and City staffs related request for a lot frontage variance for one of the three new lots that would be created by the new plat. (The minimum lot frontage is typically 150 feet, but we're requesting a 50 foot variance to allow 100 feet of frontage on 208th Street to provide a temporary access to the "back lot" until a new road is built on the east side of that lot.) If the variance is granted, and if the Planning Commission recommends approval ofthe plat, the plat will then be presented to the City Council for review and approval at its meeting on June 16th. Ifthe plat is approved, the HRA will then be in a position to enter into contractual agreements for the sale of the newly-created lots. There is an issue that the HRA should address prior to the Planning Commission and City Council actions referred to in the preceding paragraph. In 1996, a Declaration of Covenants was adopted that affects properties located in the Second Phase of the Industrial Park (see attached). The covenants include design standards that are virtually identical to the design standards that now appear in the City Code. In fact, it is my understanding that the wording of the City Code standards was taken directly from the covenants. During the HRA's prior discussions regarding exterior building materials, the design standards were discussed in the specific context oJthe City Code. It has been recently suggested that the HRA should have also discussed the same exterior building materials in the specific context oj the 1996 covenants. //0/ -;r - 2- All of the exterior building materials (and coatings) allowable under the design standards in the covenants must still be "approved by Declarants." In the covenants, the original Declarants (Bernard D. Murphy and Lexington Standard Corporation) appointed the HRA "as the agent and attorney-in-fact to act and to perform any act, function or duty of the Declarants hereunder." Accordingly, the appropriate course of action would be for the HRA to: (a) adopt a motion that expressly approves or disapproves, in the specific context of the 1996 Declaration of Covenants, the exterior building materials and coating(s) specified in Ms. Karrmann's "Option 1" (combination of brick and Hardiplank on the front and 100% Hardiplank on the remaining sides, including coating) AND (b) adopt a separate motion that expressly approves or disapproves, in the specific context of the 1996 Declaration of Covenants, the exterior building materials_and coating(s) specified in Ms. Karrmann's "Option 2" (painted architectural cOllcrete block on all exterior walls). The action suggested above would seem to fulfill the HRA's initial "building materials review/approval" responsibilities under the covenants in question. In additional, the HRA should consider adopting a motion that expressly indicates that Ms. Karrmann's proposed use is or is not a permitted use under Section 2.U'ofthe 1996 Declaration of Covenants. If that motion indicates that the use in question is a permitted use, it should specify that the proposed day care facility is a permitted use and/or is being approved by the HRA because it will provide "services ancillary" to the other uses identified in Section 2.0. If Ms. Karrmann receives the various approvals that she needs from the HRA and from the Planning Commission during the month of June, the HRA can consider entering in to a Contract for Private Development with her at its July 14th meeting if the HRA has a lot of the desired size available to sell by that time. e. Exchange Bank Building/Larson Building/Riste Building I have continued to contact Xcel Energy periodically to inquire about its progress toward completing the easement or license agreement that Mr. Hosmer Brown needs in order to obtain access to the rear doors of his buildings. See attached e-mails. I recently, and reluctantly, went "over the head" of my initial Xcel contact (Ms. Ablan) in an effort to expedite this matter. Various City staff mem,bers have recently been assisting a couple who have expressed an interest in renting the "Great Hall" on the second floor of the Exchange Bank Building as a site for banquets and other large gatherings. They might also rent the upper level of the adjacent Larson building for a kitchen and additional seating. See the attached e-mail dated May 21,2003. f Misc. Industrial Park Issues There was discussion at the last BRA meeting regarding a particular Code enforcement issue in the Industrial Park, and regarding unfulfilled contractual commitments from two Industrial Park property owners to construct buildings on lots that they purchased. With regard to the former, the City Attorney indicated at the last HRA meeting that code enforcement within the Industrial Park is a City Council and/or City staffmatter rather than an HRA matter. City staff members are discussing and exploring options that might address the outdoor storage issue in question. A progress report will be provided at the HRA's July meeting. With regard to the other topic, additional time will be needed to gather //0'1r :r - 3> information from the affected property owners regarding their intentions, and to then get clarification from the City Attorney regarding the relative merits of the HRA's alternative courses of action. If things progress as anticipated, more information on this topic will be available next month. 6. New Business None. 7. Executive Director's Report A verbal update may be provided at the meeting regarding ongoing or anticipated matters involving housing and/or economic development (other than those referred to above). 8. Adjourn //09 :::z:- - i- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ciofarmington.mn.us TO: 1/ A1 c..-. City Planning Commission v r FROM: Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Operate a Commercial Daycare in an IP (Industrial Park) Zoning District Applicant: Jan Karrmann DATE: June 10, 2003 INTRODUCTION Ms. Jan Karrmann has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a daycare in the Farmington Industrial Park. The property is zoned IP, Industrial Park. Planning Division Review Applicant: Jan Karrmann 18614 Egret Way Farmington, MN 55024 Attachments: 1. Site Plan 2. Letter from Community Development Director - dated May 7, 2003 .- 3. Memo from Larry White 4. Industrial Park Design Standards Location of Property: Portion of Lot 1, Farmington Industrial Park Phase II Surrounding Land Uses: Industrial Uses to the south, west, and east. Wetland to the north. Existing Zoning: IP (Industrial Park) Comprehensive Plan: Industrial Current Land Use: Vacant Proposed Land Use: Commercial Daycare ///0 3 -- I DISCUSSION According to the City Code, Commercial Daycare is conditionally allowed in the Industrial Park Zoning District. The Code provides the following criteria that must be met in order for the Planning Commission to approve a conditional use permit: 1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use provisions and all general regulations of this title. 2. The proposed use shall not involve any eLement or cause any conditions that may be dangerous, injurious or noxious to any other property or persons and shall comply with the applicable performance standards. . 3. The proposed use shall be constructed, designed, sited, oriented and landscaped to produce harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties. 4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is consistent with the environment of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to. minimize traffic congestion in the neighborhood. 6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this title and shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Design Standards Section 10-6-20 of the City Code requires that buildings located in the Industrial Park zoning district comply with certain design standards (see attached). Included in the design standards are certain requirements related to the exterior finish of the building. According to the applicant, a combination of brick and cement fiberboard (Hardiplank or equivalent) would be used on the front of the building, with 100% cement fiberboard on the other three sides. At this time, the proposed materials are in compliance with the design standards. The following is a brief history of the issues regarding approved building materials relating to the applicant's proposal. Background - Exterior Building Materials In a letter dated May 7, 2003, Community Development Director Kevin Carroll, acting as the City Zoning Officer, determined that cement fiberboard (Hardiplank) did not comply with the approved building materials provided in the City Code (see attached letter). The applicant appealed the Community Development Director's decision to the Planning Commission on May 13, 2003. The Planning Commission overturned the decision, thus allowing cement fiberboard as an approved building material in the Industrial Park Zoning District. After the May 13, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Jeff Thelen, property owner in the Industrial Park, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to overturn the Community Development Director's decision. A public hearing on 2 "\ -- 2- //// '-J that appeal is scheduled for the June 16, 2003 City Council meeting. If the Council upholds the Planning Commission decision, the applicant may proceed using cement fiberboard on the proposed building. If, however, the Council overturns the Planning Commission decision, the applicant would not be allowed to utilize cement fiberboard. Given the uncertainty of the pending appeal, the applicant has submitted two (2) options regarding the exterior finish of the building. The request, provided in the attached email from Larry White, is included with this memo. The first option would utilize cement fiberboard on the majority of the building, with brick on a portion of the front facade of the building. This is the preferred option and will be utilized if the Planning Commission decision is upheld by the City Council. The second option would use painted architectural concrete block on the entire exterior of the building. This option will be used only if the Council overturns the Planning Commission decision, thereby eliminating cement fiberboard as an approved building material in the Industrial Park Zoning District. The City Attorney has advised that the Planning Commission may approve both options with the conditional use permit. This would eliminate the need to amend the conditional use permit in the future based on the outcome of the appeal by Mr. Thelen. Both options are included below as a condition of approval. Setbacks According to the City Code, the required front setback is 50 feet and the side and rear setbacks are 25 feet. As shown on the attached site plan, the proposed structure would comply with these requirements. Parking The City Code does not address the parking requirement for commercial daycare facilities. Section 10-6-19 (D) addresses the parking required in the Industrial Park zoning district, but does not provide an appropriate requirement for daycare facilities. Given the type and size of the proposed use and its similarity to other uses that have specified parking requirements in the Code, Staff believes that the parking provided on the site plan (31 spaces) is appropriate. Landscaping Section 10-6-19 (E) of the City Code provides landscaping requirements in the Industrial Park zoning district. As shown on the attached site plan, landscaping is provided to screen the building and play area from the adjacent property to the west. Other landscaping is provided along the front of the building and near the parking lot. According to the Code, Planning Commission approval of the landscaping is not required. Planning Staff is responsible for approving all landscaping. 3 I//~ -:J - 3 ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Conditional Use Permit contingent upon the following: 1. A sign permit shall be required for any~signage on the site. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements included in Section 10-6-19 of the City Code regarding Industrial Park Design Standards. 3. The applicant shall utilize one of the following options regarding exterior building materials: Option 1 - Building front (south elevation) -- Brick up to the window sills and the two front corners with baLance to be cement fiber board, HardiPlankor HardiPanel (simulated stucco texture) products (see pLans as previousLy submitted). HardiPlank will be supplied with a factory finish coating or the HardiPanel products will receive a field applied paint coating. All other sides and rear - 100% percent cement fiber board, HardiPlank or HardiPanel (simulated stucco texture) products. HardiPlank will be supplied with a factory finish coating or the HardiPanel products will receive a field applied paint coating. Option 2 - Painted architectural concrete block (rock face style) on all exterior walls. 4. The City-initiated re-platting of Lot 2, Block 1 of the Farmington Industrial Park Phase 2 shall be approved by the City Council. Respectfully Submitted, q"-~ Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner 4 /1/3 :r-Lj- lOa- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminlrton.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator fr. FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Soil Testing Results - 3Td & Spruce Street Area (including Blaha site) DATE: June 16, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City Council recently authorized Peer Engineering, Inc. to conduct a Phase II Investigation in order to determine if any environmental problems exist that might impact the future development or use ofthe property located along Spruce Street between 2nd Street and 3Td Street. DISCUSSION There is a ~ block a rea located near the center 0 f downtown Farminron that has redevelopment potential. The property in question is located between 2nd Street and 3T Street, and between Spruce Street and the alley that bisects the city block in question. The eastern portion of this ~ block area is owned by the Farmington HRA, and the western portion is owned by Francis and Penelope Blaha. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment [ESA] regarding t he Blaha property was conducted by Peer Environmental, Inc. in February of 2002, at the request of a party who was (at that time) exploring the possibility of acquiring the property from Mr. and Ms. Blaha. The Phase I report identified possible sources of pollution or contamination, based on a review of historical and administrative records, but no soil or water testing was done, and no determinations were made regarding the actual existence of contamination on the site. A Phase II Investigation is designed to obtain more specific information than a Phase I ESA. In the interest of determining the condition of the Blaha property, the City Council recently authorized City staff to retain Peer Environmental, Inc. to conduct a Phase II Investigation of the Blaha property. Mr. Blaha participated by giving Peer access to his property so that soil and water samples could be collected. The field tests (soil borings, etc.) were conducted during the last week in May. The collected soil and water samples were then sent to a lab for analysis. I have been advised that Peer's written report will be completed on or around Friday, June 13th. This may be a day too late for inclusion in the Council packet, but copies of the report will be available for distribution and discussion at Monday night's Council meeting. I have arranged for a representative of Peer to be present at that meeting to explain Peer's findings and to answer questions. I did obtain a preliminary verbal report from Ken Larsen, Vice President of Peer, on Wednesday, June 11 th. At that time, Mr. Larsen indicated that four of the five soil borings disclosed no evidence of soil or water contamination. One of the five soil borings produced a soil sample and a water sample that each disclosed the presence of "diesel range organics" [DRO]. However, Mr. Larsen indicated that the level or concentration ofDRO was very low, and that he therefore did not anticipate that any state or federal regulatory authority would require that any extra or special precautions be taken in connection with any future redevelopment of the property. Mr. Larsen, or another Peer representative, will be prepared to provide more information in this regard at Monday night's meeting. ACTION REQUESTED This is primarily an informational item. However, the Council may wish to use this information to provide further direction to City staff and/or to the HRA regarding future discussions with Mr. and Ms. Blaha about the possible acquisition oftheir property by the HRA. 2 II l88JlS PJ8 m L;.. U5 ~ ~ C/) -- .:::. '.:::. .:::. ot;. " . ~ <:So <:So ~ ~ '" '" '" 1'-.... I'-.. a.r, a.r, t\j LOCO <0 t\j 0\ c:. "1', ....., "I' . 0 "" "" I'-.. t\j 'J} "bS ff1l'O L 10); City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminJrton.mn.us TO: M C '1 b C' Ad . . t{.). ayor, ounCI mem ers, lty mlD1strator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Vermilllion River Presentation DATE: June 16, 2003 INTRODUCTIONI DISCUSSION Mr. Brian Watson of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District will be in attendance at the invitation of the Mayor to give the Council a presentation regarding the Vermillion River. Mr. Watson's presentation was an agenda item at a previous Vermillion River Watershed Planning Commission meeting. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED For Council information. Respectfully Submitted, ~w,Y11~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public W orks/City Engineer attachment cc: file 11// IOe,. I CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF REVENUES AS OF MAY 31, 2003 41.67 % Year Complete $ $ % $ % GENERAL FUND Property Taxes 3,188,070 - 10,058 0.32 5,521 0.21 Licenses/Permits 1,033,700 107,904 623,215 60.29 521,369 44.80 Fines 82,500 8,276 24,965 30.26 22,518 27.29 Intergovernment Revenue 876,486 553 75,344 8.60 78,728 9.64 Charges for Service 329,779 28,511 80.311 24.35 104,590 32.56 Miscellaneous 330.500 20,292 104,435 31,60 125,329 37.92 Transfers 225.000 18 500 92.500 41.11 143 542 41.67 Total General Fund 6 066.035 184 036 1 010828 16.66 1.001 597 17.70 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating Fund 27.000 837 5,841 21.63 7,240 29.87 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,050 329 3,262 40.52 2,145 26.65 Park Improvement Fund 152,500 7,443 32,080 21.04 20,258 5.18 Recreation Operating Fund 186,700 5,886 14,643 7.84 78,735 37.66 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 243,300 397 92,368 37.96 105,651 48.58 Liquor Operations 2,410,500 264,006 997,841 41.40 878,609 36.61 Sewer 1 ,298,000 101 ,866 412,382 31.77 738,848 47.81 Solid Waste 1,358,500 92,469 392,230 28.87 318,559 25.32 Storm Water 270,000 16,215 106,426 39.42 76,754 12.54 Water 1,790.000 113.063 498 324 27.84 533 026 30.29 Total Revenues 13,810,585 786,547 3.566 225 25.82 3761422 26.70 CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES AS OF MAY 31,2003 41,67 % Year Comolete GENERAL FUND $ $ $ % $ % Legislative 61,120 6,748 33,524 54.85 23,472 Administration 418,660 31,283 193,076 46.12 134,090 Human Resources 191,820 12,982 51,503 26.85 33,476 MIS 92,330 9,024 45,596 49.38 12,306 Elections 10,870 - 0.00 13 Communications 76,350 3,277 19,982 26.17 22,399 Finance 372,730 28,858 159,602 42.82 160,300 Planning/Zoning 155,360 12,509 58,278 37.51 61,389 Building Inspection 316,330 30,386 133,649 42.25 105,691 Community Development 87,350 9,693 42,490 48.64 29,975 Police Administration 456,300 37,648 230,402 50.49 143,756 Patrol Services 1,120,280 100,789 445,820 39.80 375,146 Investigation Services 171,980 11,909 68,510 39.84 30,195 School Liason Officer 80,830 5,354 33,959 42.01 30,281 Emergency Management 1,400 17 612 43.71 68 Fire 371,000 21,379 103,402 27.87 91,394 Rescue 47,690 678 16,142 33.85 9,403 Engineering 259,430 23,579 109,828 42.33 99,315 G.I.S. 12,820 26 2,999 23.39 275 Streets 419,200 39,890 154,063 36.75 113,408 Snow Removal 105,640 4,854 45,290 42.87 37,066 Signal Maint 95,600 7,642 31,009 32.44 37,197 Fleet Maint - - - 0,00 44,129 Park Maint 244,162 39,914 143,721 58.86 104,691 Forestry 110,000 218 10,897 9.91 11,938 Building Maint 105,300 11,036 47,862 45.45 37,063 Recreation Programs 256,850 30,506 139,159 54.18 81,552 Outdoor Ice 27,640 39 3,802 13.76 5,256 Transfers Out 100,000 - - 0.00 - 33.16 37.87 25.81 21.68 0.06 33.80 42.26 43.92 38.96 34.66 36.85 39.04 20.03 45.16 4.86 27.37 25.04 40.57 2.64 30.83 43.61 43.45 37.39 50.82 11.60 35.13 28.55 20.31 0.00 Total General Fund 5,769.042 480.238 2.325 177 40.30 1.835 244 34.72 SPECIAL REVENUE HRA Operating 88,840 6,587 38,551 43.39 22,791 43.70 Police Forfeitures Fund 8,050 405 1,992 24.75 6,521 81.01 Park Improvement Fund 134,500 25,712 33,625 25.00 37,500 32.11 Senior Center 108,020 9,265 49,976 46.27 20,038 18.46 Swimming Pool 124,560 22,626 29,206 23,45 16,525 13.74 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Ice Arena 273,900 9,567 97,146 35.47 103,309 43,46 Liquor Operations 2,247,750 174,350 917,415 40.81 862,541 39.17 Sewer 1,263,767 139,328 553,197 43.77 494,210 41.85 Solid Waste 1,363,631 95,851 455,824 33.43 488,438 40.18 Storm Water 242,939 15,903 67,934 27.96 81,074 34.16 Water Utility 1 104.503 74.476 406.887 36.84 323 328 21.43 Total Exoenditures 12,729,502 1,054,308 4,976,930 39.10 4,291,519 34.96 /oj 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 { t Lee Smick, AICP City Planner '01) V FROM: SUBJECT: Reconvening of MUSA Review Committee DATE: June 16, 2003 INTRODUCTION Based upon Resolution No. R9l-01 and the attached memo dated October 15, 2001, the City Council approved the expansion of MUSA for five properties while also requiring that the MUSA Review Committee reconvene in 12 months to review additional areas for possible MUSA designation. Staff is presenting this information in order to determine the Council's interest in reconvening the MUSA Review Committee. This issue also meets the requirements in Performance Goal #1 for managing the City's growth to insure quality and diverse development and future transportation routes. DISCUSSION The MUSA Review Committee was created in June of 2000 after the Metropolitan Council allocated 610 acres of MUSA to the City for the period through 2005, and because of the growing number of requests by property owners/developers to gain MUSA for their properties. The process included receiving applications from property owners/developers and gathering questionnaires completed by the applicants. Initially, there were 12 applicants in the process. The Committee then proposed criteria and weighted them to determine which properties most closely met the criteria. Some of the applicants were eliminated because owners removed their property from the process and/or some of the properties did not meet the criteria. The Committee made recommendations for MUSA designation to the City Council after meeting monthly for a year. The attached memos dated February 20, 2001 and October 15, 2001 explain the process and approval of the MUSA in detail. Planning staff recently had a conversation with Farmington's Metropolitan Council Sector Representative, Michael King, concerning the allotment of MUSA to the City of Farmington. He stated that the City would be able to utilize the remaining 212.33 acres of MUSA that was originally allotted to the City for the period from 2000 and 2005. The exempt properties shown in the table below were approved for MUSA on October 2, 2000. The exempt properties represented land that was necessary for public facilities, quasi-public and other institutional uses such as the Meadowview Elementary School site and Farmington Lutheran Church. Property was also exempted from the MUSA review process within the Industrial/Business Park or other industrial/commercial areas to promote tax base as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. And finally, the Middle Creek property was exempted from the MUSA review process because it was a previously approved Planned Unit Development; approved before the MUSA Review Committee was established. The SeedINewland Communities site was the only applying property that was designated for MUSA. The following table identifies the MUSA designated properties. Exempt Properties Total of 610 Acres SchoollNordseth 29.47 Farmington Lutheran 14.7 Middle Creek PUD 72.7 Devney/lnd Park 30.8 Remainin2 Acres 462.33 Applyin2 Properties AllenlNeilan Bill Adelman (in City) SeedlNewland Communities 250 Flemainin2l\cres 212.33 Additionally, Mr. King stated that because the Metropolitan Council may have misinterpreted the sizing capacity on "the high side" for the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Metropolitan Council would entertain further requests for MUSA beyond the City's 212.33 acres if the proposed MUSA designation areas were well planned. During the period from October 15, 2001 to May 2002, Planning staff worked diligently to complete the Zoning and Subdivision Code to comply with Resolution No. R88-00 (see attached memo dated October 2, 2000). In light of concerns that were expressed by the Council regarding the rapid pace of residential development in Farmington, Planning staff determined that postponement of the MUSA Review Committee was practical. However, in recent months the City has been receiving a number of requests for MUSA expansion to various properties in the City. Additionally, staff has been preparing a lot inventory that will be presented to the Council at an upcoming meeting to determine if the Council would consider additional land for growth to meet the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan objectives. Therefore, staff is requesting that the City Council determine if reconvening the MUSA Review Committee is reasonable at this time. ACTION FlEQUESTED Consider reconvening the MUSA Review Committee as recommended in Resolution No. R91-01 dated October 15, 2001, and provide direction to staff regarding the desired timetable for the MUSA review process. 2 Respectfull y submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner 3 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us /00.- TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator ~ ~ \ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: 2005 MUSA Review Committee Recommendation DATE: October 15,2001 INTRODUCTION The MUSA Review Committee held its final meeting on September 12, 2001 and forwarded a recommendation for the 2005 MUSA to be designated this year. DISCUSSION The MUSA Review Committee has met on a monthly basis for a number of months. After reviewing all of the parcels that had been seeking MUSA designation, the MUSA Review Committee recommended the following: 1. That 250 acres of additional MUSA be designated in the southern portion of the Seed/Newland Orderly Annexation Area to promote and expedite the extension of 19Sth Street. 2. The previously approved exceptions to the MUSA Review process are also approved. (These include the designation of MUSA for the new ISD 192 Elementary School, the Farmington Lutheran Church, the southern portion of the Middle Creek PUD, and the remaining portion of the Industrial Park.) 3. The remainder of the 2005 MUSA will be banked and considered for designation in the future. 4. The designation of only a portion of the available 610 MUSA acres will allow for planned and orderly growth in Farmington. 5. A MUSA Review Committee will reconvene in 12 months to review additional areas for possible MUSA designation. This recommendation of the committee passed unanimously. The Planning Commission reviewed this recommendation at their October 9, 2001 meeting and recommended approval with a unanimous vote. 105 RESOLUTION NO. R91-01 APPROVING DESIGNATION OF 2005 MUSA 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 15th day of October, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch None Member Strachan introduced and Member Soderberg seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended City Council approval of the 2005 MUSA Review Committee recommendations for the designation of the 2005 MUSA at its meeting held on the 9th day of October, 2001; and WHEREAS; the City Council reviewed the 2005 MUSA Review Committee recommendations for the designation of the 2005 MUSA; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2005 MUSA Review Committee recommendations for the designation of the 2005 MUSA be approved with the following conditions: 1. That 250 acres of additional MUSA be designated in the southern portion of the SeedlNewland Orderly Annexation Area to promote and expedite the extension of 195th Street to TH 3. 2. The previously approved exceptions to the MUSA Review process are also approved. (These include the designation of MUSA for the new ISD 192 Elementary School, the Farmington Lutheran Church, the southern portion of the Middle Creek PUD, and the remaining portion of the Industrial Park.) 3. The remainder of the 2005 MUSA will be banked and considered for designation in the future. 4. The designation of only a portion of the available 610 MUSA acres will allow for planned and orderly growth in Farmington. 5. A MUSA Review Committee will reconvene in 12 months to review additional areas for possible MUSA designation. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 15th day of October, 2001. / ..;.~ Attested to the ~ day of October, 2001. l2.,(~uQ~ Mayor SEAL ...... 0 I 0 ...... I 0 ,.... ('I') ('I') ...... Cii 0 ,.... ,.... ,.... c:o to ('I') 0 ('I') "'C 'V 0 ...... cri ~ N c:i r-..: N- LO N Q) to N - l- N ...... ,.... ('I') 'V to ...... ro ...... 'V N "'C a. ::> "t:l Ql 1ii.c: -fr j 0 0 -- 0 c:o c:o ~5 c :::l Cii '0 ~ E 0 0 E 0 () '" '" Ql-" C .... 0 0 ._ III ~a. CD Cii .;:: c:o N C u; 0 c:i ::l 'V cri 0 "t:l ('I') .= U) T""" C 0 roo o.N .c: Jj C Cl 0 0 J: ( "'0 Ii) Q) ::) > E 0 ::l ~ L.. '5 0 ('I') ,.... 0. Ql to N ('I') LO 0. :a: 0 <( 0 N "t:l Ql ,.... :a: 0 ('I') ~ ('I') ('I') <0 0 N -J ,.... ('I') 3: 0 'V ,.... to c:o 0 0 cri 'V N 0> -J 'V ...... N N ('I') 1Il Q) E "'C C ::::J Q) .......E c: - ro ro ~E Ul '- 0 C 1Il .- 0 fI) .!!:! ~ Q) ::> ..l<: Ol e ()() Cl) ~ 'W ... t- o.. '- .5: "'C Q) Q) :J ro Q) u u a.Ul ...J ..l<: a.. Cl <C -C <C O-e c Q) "'C Ul Ol c c ro Ol '- 0 Q) ~ ro- o..z 0 '- C Q) C E :: .5 'C,() _ L.-._ 'ij) - 0 c: - Q) c: a::::: ,5: Q) ii> <{ '; z Q)z E 8 - "'C _ "' E=O ~ ro E c: <{"'C E Q)~ '-"'C ..Q,! Q) X 0 ro .- Q) - Cl) Q) Cl) woo u.::2: Cl~a: <( i:C 00 a: <{ co () ICJ~ Council Minutes (Regular) October 15, 2001 Page 2 MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Community Development/Fire Department c) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation d) Authorized Disposal of City Property - Administration e) Approved Facilities - Change Order 1 - Engineering f) Received Information Quarterly Building Permit Report - Community Development g) Acknowledged Quarterly Customer Service Report - Administration h) Set November 5,2001 Public Hearing Various Licenses and Permits- Administration i) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Strachan noted in the Customer Service Report for April, May, and June, every respondent said staff was courteous and helpful. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. f.~\ *~ AWARD OF CONTRACT PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) MUSA Review Committee Recommendation - Community Development The MUSA Review Committee held its final meeting on September 12, 2001 and forwarded a recommendation for the 2005 MUSA to be designated this year. The committee was comprised of Mayor Ristow, Planning Commission Chair Dirk Rotty, Parks and Recreation Chair Dawn Johnson, School Board Member Bob Heman, and Community Development Director Dave Olson. Their recommendations are as follows: 1. That 250 acres of additional MUSA be designated in the southern portion of the SeedlNewland orderly Annexation Area to promote and expedite the extension of 195th Street. 2. The previously approved exceptions to the MUSA Review process, are also approved including the designation of MUSA for the new ISD 192 Elementary School, the Farmington Lutheran Church, the southern portion of the Middle Creek PUD, and the remaining portion of the Industrial Park. 3. The remainder of the 2005 MUSA will be banked and considered for designation in the future. There are 212 acres left from the 610 acres after the 250 acres to the SeedlNewland property and after the exceptions are approved, that will be held in the bank and considered for future designation. 4. The designation of only a portion of the available 610 MUSA acres will allow for planned and orderly growth in Farmington. Council Minutes (Regular) October 15,2001 Page 3 5. A MUSA Review Committee will reconvene in 12 months to review additional areas for possible MUSA designation. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R91-01 approving the above recommendations of the MUSA Review Committee. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Consider Resolution - Livable Communities Act Participation - Community Development By participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account the City agrees to establish affordable and life cycle housing goals. Participation in the program allows the City to be eligible for possible funding for projects under the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, and the Local Housing Inc~ntives Account. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R92-01 authorizing continued participation in the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account for 2002. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Speed Humps Information - Engineering Staff forwarded to Council information regarding speed humps as a traffic calming device. If more discussion is needed a workshop could be held. Collector streets, which are wider, are not recommended for speed humps. Staff will bring a proposed workshop date to the next Council meeting. Costs and examples of proposed streets for speed humps will be brought to the workshop. A policy regarding speed humps could be developed at the workshop. d) Dakota County 2002-2006 CIP - Administration A draft 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program was received from Dakota County. An East-West corridor link is crucial to Farmington. A portion of this corridor, 195th Street, is included in the CIP. e) Letter from Charter Communications -Administration A letter was received from Charter Communications regarding changes in channel lineup. f) AMM 2002 Policy Adoption Meeting - Administration The AMM Annual Meeting is November 1,2001. City Administrator Shukle will be attending and recommended Council also attend. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Embers Avenue Traffic Issues - Engineering Staff conducted traffic surveys on Embers A venue at two locations: between 187th Street West and 186th Street West, and between Embry Avenue and Ea~lewood Trail. The average speed ranged between 26 mph and 28 mph. The 85t percentile speed, which is the speed 85% of the cars are driving or lower City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us fOe TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator (U-' Lee Smick, AICP f\ n Planning Coordinatorlfk' FROM: SUBJECT: 2005 MUSA Review Committee - Executive Summary DATE: February 20,2001 INTRODUCTION The following information describes the proposed function, process and schedule for the 2005 MUSA Review Committee, Acceptance of the methodology of this Executive Summary is requested by the City Council, Planing Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Independent School District #192 School Board. BACKGROUND The City Council approved the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Expansion Criteria on October 2, 2000 upon approval of the 2005 MUSA Designation Postponement Period. The 2005 MUSA Review Committee is proposed to be formed to act as a canvassing board performing within a legislative process to recommend to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council the designation of MUSA acres to properties petitioned by the owner. Committee Membership The voting portion of the Committee would comprise the Mayor, Planning Commission Chair, Parks & Recreation Chair, ISD #192 School Board member along with the City's Community Development Director. This Committee will recommend whether to grant 2005 MUSA designation to requesting properties, City staff will serve as ex-officio non-voting members and include the City Administrator, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Chief of Police, Parks & Recreation Director and Planning staff in providing technical resources to the Committee during the review and evaluation process. Staffs role in the initial Committee was limited to determining the relative importance of Council approved 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria and preparing a Calculation Spreadsheet for the voting Committee. The voting Committee is charged with the task of evaluating 12 properties within the City limits and potentially 4 other properties currently being considered for annexation to determine the feasibility of designating MUSA to these properties, The Committee will work within the boundaries of the legislative process evaluating and recommending to the Planning Commission and City Council which properties best meet the requirements for MUSA designation, The Committee is limited to allocating 610 acres (less the acreage utilized for the approved exceptions) of MUS A identified as the 2005 MUSA Expansion in Table 4.1 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria The voting Committee would utilize the following criteria to evaluate the properties for possible designation of MUSA: 1. Proximity of property to transportation corridors (Le. 195th Street between Akin Road and TH 3, 20gth Street between CSAH 31 and TH 3, etc.) to promote construction of transportation corridors as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Proximity to existing infrastructure and whether it is economically feasible to connect to existing and/or planned infrastructure identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 3, Proximity to the central area of City to promote the connection of the northern and southern portions of the City. 4. Feasibility of providing municipal services (police, fire, public works, or parks) to the proposed property. 5, Other criteria that may be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff suggestion: Development must occur within 5-year time frame. 6, Variety of land uses proposed by developer (Le. Low, LowlMedium, Medium and High Density Residential, Business, Industrial, etc.) that supports the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 7, MUSA expansion areas should generally follow section lines, natural drainage ways and sanitary sewer districts, Methodology for Assigning Weights to the Criteria As previously discussed, City staff is recommending relative weights to be assigned to each criteria and preparing a Calculation Spreadsheet for the voting members of the Committee. The final score that will determine if a property will receive MUSA will be a composite of the fixed weight percentage multiplied by a points variable. In preparing the 2005 MUSA Review Committee Calculation Spreadsheet, the Committee determined that the list of criteria should be weighted in order of priority on a percentage scale. The variable points assigned to each property would be in the range of 1 to 5; thereby creating a composite score that takes into account the Committee's perception of the property's importance for MUSA designation and multiplied by the assigned weight for each criteria. The attached table shows a sampling of the MUSA Property Rating System for two fictional properties. In the table, Property A was assigned points depending on the criteria calculating to 29.5. Property B acquired the same number of total points (29.5) but were scored differently because of the weights assigned to the points. In the case of Property A, the final score totaled to 4.1 and the score for Property B was 4.325 thereby ranking Property B at a higher level of importance for receiving MUSA designation, This sampling shows that points assigned may calculate to the same number, however because of the assigned weights and how they scored for each weight assists the review committee in achieving a qualitatively distinct, but statistically valid outcome to the final scores. 2 The following discusses each criteria and the rationale for weighting the criteria as shown in the calculation spreadsheet. 1. Proximity of property to transportation corridors (i.e. 1951h Street between Akin Road and TH 3, 20Sth Street between CSAH 31 and TH 3, etc,) to promote construction of transportation corridors as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The Committee determined a weight of 0.20 of a total of 1.0 for this criteria because the property under consideration should have immediate or future access to the City's transportation system. The property owner should also illustrate the ability to connect to the City's transportation system via proposed transportation corridors and the willingness to participate in the cost of constructing these corridors. 2. Proximity to existing infrastructure and whether it is economically feasible to connect to existing and/or planned infrastructure identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The Committee determined a weight of 0.20 noting that to make the property developable, access to existing and/or planned infrastructure was crucial to the viability of the development. 3. Proximity to the central area of City to promote the connection of the northern and southern portions of the City. The Committee determined a weight of 0,15 because the central area of the City, even though some parts lie outside of the City limit line, should be considered a valuable location transportation corridors, commerce and open space. The connection of transportation routes (195th Street, 1 sl Street, 20Slh, etc.) could increase traffic flows throughout the City and the region. Areas for commerce could be expanded north of the Downtown Business District. Housing and open space areas could be more centrally localized to the City. Finally, the accumulation of properties to the west of Trunk Highway 3 could assist in formalizing the City's boundaries. 4. Feasibility of providing municipal services (police, fire, public works, or parks) to the proposed property. The Committee weighted the criteria at 0.15 because the property under consideration will need to be provided with police, fire, public works services and park facilities. 5 Other criteria that may be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff suggestion: Development occurs within 5-year time frame. The Committee weighted the criteria at 0.15 because of the importance of developing the property in a timely manner. This eliminates the possibility of wasting valuable MUSA acreage to properties that are not prepared to be developed and/or avoid land speculation that would unnecessarily drive housing costs to higher levels, 6. Variety of land uses proposed by developer (i.e. Low, Low/Medium, Medium and High Density Residential, Business, Industrial, etc.) that supports the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The Committee weighted the criteria at 0.10 identifying the need to vary the types of land uses on a property to provide for lifecycle housing while supporting the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The 3 criteria was weighted at a lesser degree because the properties seeking MUSA designation should comply with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, 7. MUSA expansion areas should generally follow section lines, natural drainage ways and sanitary sewer districts. The Committee weighted the criteria at 0.05 noting that this was given the least priority due to fact that not all properties can follow section lines, natural drainage ways or sanitary sewer districts. However, the criteria still remains important to formalizing the City's boundaries and utilizing existing or proposed infrastructure in the sanitary sewer districts. Methodology for Revisions to the 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria At the October 2, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council approved various criteria for determining if a property met the requirements of receiving MUSA. Given the importance of ensuring appropriate criteria in the MUSA evaluation process, the 2005 MUSA Review Committee reviewed the criteria in greater detail and determined that revisions were needed. The following illustrates revisions made to the original list and the justification in removing or adding criteria. Removal of Criteria from the 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria List Criteria #3: Property within the IndustriaVBusiness Park or other industrial/commercial areas to promote tax base as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The criteria was removed from the original list because Industrial Park expansion has been identified as an exception to the 2005 MUSA Postponement Period. The exception was approved by the City Council on October 2,2000. There are two lots remaining in the Industrial Park. The HRA has authorized negotiations to begin with the property owner of the next planned phase of the Industrial Park and the HRA will need assurance that MUSA will be available if an agreement is reached to purchase the property and the financing for the expansion is approved. Secondly, the criteria was removed because the proposed Business Park currently has 125.65 acres within the MUSA. This provides for an adequate surplus of acreage in this category to 2005. Additionally, the southern portion of the proposed Business Park outside of the current MUSA is landlocked until development occurs along CSAH 50 or CSAH 31 is extended to CR 72. Plans for an extension of CSAH 31 have not been discussed by the County and would most likely be beyond the 2005 timeframe. Finally, Table 4,1 shows that business park acres have not been allocated for MUSA Expansion until after 2015. This allocation may change to 2010 by either shifting the allocation or utilizing unanticipated growth acreages as the need for business park acres increases, however, this will not occur before 2005 because of the adequate supply of business park acreage. Criteria #5: Property that provides location for necessary public facilities - public, quasi-public and other institutional uses. The criteria was removed from the original list because the public facilities were included as exceptions to the MUSA Expansion, The exceptions include non-profit and other governmental uses. In this case, the new elementary school for the Farmington School District needed assurance that MUSA would be available for construction to commence in a timely manner on their site. Additionally, Farmington Lutheran Church is a part of this exception category because of its institutional use status. 4 Criteria #9: Property cannot be considered for MUSA designation until an annexation petition has been filed and approved by the Council and filed with the State Planning Agency. The criteria was removed because the Committee determined a property must be within the City limits at the time of MUSA designation, Additions to 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria Criteria #5 Development must occur within 5-year timeframe, The Planning Commission and City Council determined that it was important that any property owner receiving MUSA be prepared to develop the property within a 5-year timeframe. This eliminates the possibility of wasting valuable MUSA acreage to properties that are not prepared to be developed and/or avoid land speculation that would unnecessarily drive housing costs to higher levels. Additionally, the 5-year development timeframe allows the City to track the number of housing units through proposed development plans, giving the City a better perspective on future growth trends in 5-year increments. Methodology for Revisions to the Property Owners List In reviewing the properties on the original list of petitioners, the following were added for MUSA designation consideration for the various reasons. Additions to the Propertv Owners List Additions to the list include property owners that have recently petitioned for MUSA designation include the following: H - Dave Finnegan (East of Akin Road and south of Autumn Glen) - This property was added after the property owner filed a request to receive MUSA on the property. A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation. I - Molly Murphy (North of the Farmington Middle School Campus) - This property was added after the property owner filed a request to receive MUSA on the property, A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation. J - Babe Murphy (Within City limits, north of Molly Murphy Property) - This property was added after the property owner filed a request to receive MUSA on the property. A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation. L - Dakota County Highway Shop (South of CSAH 50) - This property was part of the MUSA swap with Bristol Square and Glenview Townhomes. Approximately 5 acres was removed from the Dakota County property for the MUSA swap. Therefore, the property has been included in the list of properties to be considered for MUSA designation. P - Michael Devney (East of the Prairie Waterway along CR 72) This property was added after the property owner filed an annexation petition for the property. A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation. 5 Scheduling The following is a tentative schedule for the MUSA Review Process: Presentation and acceptance of 2005 MUSA Review Committee methodology at City Council February 19,2001 Presentation and acceptance of 2005 MUSA Review Committee methodology at Planning Commission February 27,2001 Presentation of 2005 MUSA Review Committee methodology at Parks & Recreation Commission March 7, 2001 Meeting of 2005 MUSA Review Committee to Designate MUSA April 30 - May 4, 2001 The week long meeting of the 2005 MUSA Review Committee will take place between April 30 and May 4, 2001. During this time the committee will review the petitioned properties and utilize the MUSA Calculation Spreadsheet to determine the final score for each property. Each committee member will score the property separately and final tabulations will be averaged for a final score. ACTION REOUESTED Consider acceptance of the Executive Summary, methodology and schedule for the 2005 MUSA Review Committee and forward any recommendations to the Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission. Respectfully submitted, g~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator 6 SAMPLE MUSA PROPERTY RATING SYSTEM Property A Points Score 3 0.6 4 0.8 5 0.75 4 0.6 5 0.75 3.5 0.35 5 0.25 29.5 4.1 Criteria 1. Proximity to Transportation Corridor 2. Proximity to Existing Infrastructure 3, Proximity to Central Area 4. Feasibility of Providing Municipal Service 5. Development Occurs within 5 Years 6. Variety of Land Uses 7. Section Lines Total Weight 0.20 0.20 0.15. 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.05 1.00 Property B Points Score 5 1 5 1 3 0.45 3.5 0.525 5 0.75 4 0.4 4 0.2 29.5 4.325 2005 MUSA Request Environmental Features Ii! ,!I I ~ ~ I o ~~ . ~ a( ~~! 0.// ~ ::: ' (r 0- ~ I ~~ l ~~ =~\\I _~) ~u1 ~~ .j,:fI. '00 I~ utI: .~ ~ ~\ ~( ~' be' ~ ~ ~I:"Wi 1 1 ~I~ I ~ ~~\~~ ~ ~: .~ 114 , ~~~~~i1i ;?r~ HiM ~~ .lr'..~.~. ~.~...,~,.,';r 1 ~ , n ~ 1\ ~ ~ ,u,--, \fV R ~ h I\... ri' r:t18q ~~q -~ ~ )~ i ~~~.i~JLJ~ ~/\\'~~~~ I _\ ~ g ~m~ ~ I I //;;;;1;, ~~I r--. \'::: n ~\ J a. j) ~~~b I / r 6ffiE[ffi~~~.t . ~ ,b;~~ 1'---+ \ 0~!~ t-. i .~~ . -',j' i I~r I \ ~ ."'-- ~ l~ ii :w'~ -IS~,~ ~ (~ I I In i I '1 rF'J IT...... . T\ I """'ml,I,I,I,i,~[Yj' i l ~..I $i ',' ,u.e; IV] i I Il_-.JJP., ..L 2?8,. TH STW ~ -i' I~"" I ,~ ~'^~. ~~.!! .k I' ~t8 ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~!~ f: ~~ __ ~^ Il ,i In h - ~~fjjijj~1ffi :. "4': -f ~~ r U Hili' j' I~~ c:=)~~ IIII / dl "-1'---... ' -----I \ L:: I- . flliIlHIilIlIl~ n r' /': ] t\ .. ""- "" J -# r-- e ~0Jliil~1IIllIl lJ uvr ! \ '" ---....-: rx f f Ilsl V".) " A'~ ~ ~ ^.;..t\A-..,~ ,. lit 0 ~ ~ ~~i ~ o,J.E C I ~I ~~ ~ - (~ I{ rr _ I ~ i i i h~ n I ;:1J-1f' i Ij)' II: i~ ~TI f-- ' jeo N~~1' fh~~ '~. ~' o@ h-n I I~ A CR II (') ~ hrt c:::Y ~ ffi!IlIlIl fIffIHJ1E o <> ~i:Jj .'1 L ffiffl >t s:: :II ~ ~ \ i"~ \ i I} /\/ City Boundary I ~ Existing MUSA Boundary D Properties Requesting MUSA D City Parcel Map [iii] National Wetland Inventory D FEMA Flood Plains - - -- - Annexation Boundary 0,5 I Scale o 0,5 1 Miles I N W*E s . "-' o ~ c:: ~ ..c::g:i ~ ~ c >, 0 " ~ o ~ ~ a " e ~ ;j € g ~ ,~Q) C':J C: c.. .". u~ct ~ rn :;: 0:: " ~ 's e 0: o " u~ ~ ... " .. '> Q.l " .. c::~ <( .. en ,!a ;:;J ... ~= '0 U Q;j ;::u >, ..c:: e- ::I ~ b "0 ~ c:: .. 00 " c:: c:: ii: " ~ a :J:: ..c:: OQ o N C: o " ~ e :J::,j; c:: a ..... c:: os e a:; " < iii uJ " c:: os ~ ~ .~ ~ .~ II e Ul 0 U a c:: os 8 a:; " < t:: " .0 (2 co .. " ii ii: < .@ i ! .~ 8~ e o 2 r.X <) '" '" 0' ~ 0.. e o <) ~ Ul e il '" 00 ~ 0.. e o ~ <) e Ul il '" vi N ~ 0:: " " ~ <) e Ul il or.. r-: - ~ 0:: e ~ eX <) " or> N 0' N ~ c:: e ~ 0 ~ ~ il or> ""': - ~ NO:: " " ~ <) e Ul il 00 -c N ~ 0:: e ~ ~ <) " or> o ~ 0:: Q co M M = 0 (; " 'E o u c:: o .~ t:: o c.. ~ ~ 9 ~ 's ." e 0.. .-: e ::I t; 2 ~ ..::: .5 00 .5 t; '" uJ 9 ~ 5 ." e 0.. N :!l .,,; :!l .,,; " e < E E " u 9 ~ .5 ." e 0.. ~ ~ ~ ~ .E .c 8 " c:: c.. Ul '" 0 c; 0: "'ii .~ .s ~ ~ .~ E ~ ~ '<l.u ~ ~ g 5 ';= ~ .~ 8 3 .~ B ~ l~' Q: ~ U c ~ '~]:S ,_e .~ c::.~ U 0 '- E ti'~ a .~ oS.5 g ~ 0 8 ~ o ::I .,.: vi u 8 M :!l .,,; ;:: .,,; .. " c.. o a:; > " a >, .0 '<l " ~ o c.. e 0.. ~ " ::s '<l c:: os -' "-' o ?;, .~ os > -c In co .,,; ~ <) rn~ .~ g i5 ~ C .>1 $ t; .~ JlUl ~ ~ .2$ ~ U '<l on :; " o c:: ~ 'f ~ a ~ E .( a r-:~ " " > .;; <) e >, os 8 .g 'E ~ u '0 ..c:: c.. ilor> ~'O ~ 5 <( 8 f- ." 8 ~ >, " ~ c .~ > 0 " >, u Cl .;; os ~ Ul -;; ct ~ ~ " '~ " " ..c:: 0 ';; 0 <) ~ ~ '" ::E ~ uJ 0:: 0.. " e 0 .. .;: >, ~ <) " '@ Ul ..c:: " e 0 0.. ~ U os c:: "-' " '" c:: 0 ';; .g 0 ~ ~ -c .". ~ " os 0:: " L1J " c:: c:: < " C: c.. " :c " ~ (; .~ 8 c:: ~ u 0 a:; ~ e Ul 0.. '<l 0 il <( I- " - Of> iii ->< - ~ e ::I 0:: z L1J >. " ..c:: ..c:: " e-I~ ~ u ::I '" cr. ~ - e '- u " 0 '" .0 ..c:: 0 " :; '" co 0 ~ Ul 0.. :;;: ?;, e c:: c.. " 0 8 0 ..c:: ~ cr. U Ul " >, ~ 0 " u ~ " ->< 'n " ..c:: Cl "" ~ :i 0.. ..J -0 ..c:: 0 " 0 ~ ~ (; '<l <) " " ~ Ul -;: e z ;; il ~ U ;; 0 "-' 0 ~ ~ 0:: ~ " ~ .e e u 0 c:: ~ u " :s ~ e Ul .0 " il co .~ 8 'n ..:. >.~ ~ ..c:: .". ~ e- o:: ::I :::E os :c 't: .. Q co :!l :!l In ;:: '" 2 ';; M M .... co .t: ~ .,,; .,,; .,,; .,,; .,,; .,,; .,,; u .. ~ " c.. " 00- 0 u c:: :i a:; .E 'c 8 > ~ (; " ; c.. " .~ " Ul Cl '<l a -; o::~ >, ~ os .E oj " " c.. " > .0 c: is > 0 u .u oS ~ 8 ." :.:i .;; u 2 .c ~ ~ c u ~ >, c: e c:: ::I .0 0 $ " c.. .g .g ..::: os ~ '<l .u .]j e 'c ~ '" .5 e 00 " 3 g '" c:: 0.. e t:: < c:: '~ 0 .. '" '" 0 00 :a u '" ~ ~ .~ 51- .~ E " " ~ c:: E .:; ~ ~ >, ::s .2 ~ 'E ~ E! '>a e " U 'n ;E ~ c: " 0.. '<l c:: '<l <) .0 I- uJ U .~ c: " "-' '<l :s os '<l "" ..c:: c.. 9 9 9 0 ; -' :; .. il or> g .~ .~ "-' c: ~ ~ ~ c:: 0 0 '~ ~ "-' 5 5 5 U .~ .. ii 0 :E ::I ~ a '" 8 .;; .;; ;; .~ .. .!!l <) " gj ...l ::I " U .~ E e e e ..c:: e 0 e <( 8 " (5 f- 0.. 0.. 0.. ..... 8 ~ > <( ::! '~ 0 ::I 0 .-: N M .,.: vi u 8 -c r f- e 2005 MUSA DESIGNATION QUESTIONNAIRE City of Farmington, Minnesota Applicant: Address: Phone: Property Location: Number of Acres requested for MUSA: The 2005 MUSA Review Committee will review your answers to the following questions in determining possible MUSA designation to your property. 1. Do you own the property that you are requesting for MUSA designation? Yes No 2. Are you familiar with the City's 2020 Land Use Plan and does your proposal follow the City's plan? Yes No 3. Do you have a use determined for the property? Yes No If yes, what is the use? 4. Do you have a schematic plan prepared for the property? Yes No 5. Do you have a Developer/Builder prepared to develop the property? Yes No If yes, who are they? 6. When are you planning to develop the property? 7. Are you willing to extend infrastructure (sewer, water, storm sewer, roadways, etc.) to your property? Yes No 8. If you received MUSA designation for your property, when would you start the platting process for the proposed project? 9. If you received MUSA designation for your property and were unable to develop the property within the prescribed five-year time frame, would you be willing to give up your MUSA designation until the next round of MUSA designation was available? Yes No Please expand. Signature of Applicant Date Council Minutes (Regular) February 20, 2001 Page 2 e) Received Information MN Department of Health - Testing Results - Engineering f) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Wetland Health Evaluation Program - Dakota County Ms. Diane Rouse, a representative of Dakota County's Wetland Health Evaluation Program presented to Council the results of last year's study. In 1999 and 2000 there were nine program volunteers from Farmington. She presented the City with the National Association of Counties Achievement A ward for participating in the Wetland Health Evaluation Program. b) ~ 2000 Fiscal Review - Finance A preliminary review of 2000 General Fund Revenues and Expenditures was presented to Council. Revenues for 2000 exceeded budget by $171,144, primarily due to building permit activity in the last two months of the year which exceeded all expectations. Expenditures for 2000 were under budget by $68,675 or 1.6%. The preliminary review indicated an increase to the General Fund Balance of $338,283 as compared to a budget increase of $98,464. This increase will bring the Fund Balance to 31 % of Operating Expenditures for the coming year. Councilmember Strachan commented he has been on the Council for five years, and to be at 31 % is a credit to a lot of people. The workforce works lean and smart to get the work done. He thanked staff and all employees for their good work. 2005 MUSA Allocation Process Update - Community Development The 2005 MUSA Review Committee is proposed to act as a canvassing board performing within a legislative process to recommend to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council the designation of MUSA acres to properties petitioned by the owner. MUSA is areas of land where City sewer is available. The voting portion of the Committee would be comprised of the Mayor, Planning Commission Chair, Parks and Recreation Chair, ISD #192 School Board member along with the City's Community Development Director. This Committee will recommend whether to grant 2005 MUSA designation to requesting properties. The voting committee will be evaluating 12 properties within the City limits and potentially 4 other properties currently being considered for annexation to determine the feasibility of designating MUSA to these properties. The Committee is limited to allocating 610 acres. City staff is recommending relative weights be assigned to each criteria and preparing a calculation spreadsheet for the voting members of the committee. The fmal score that will determine if a property will receive MUSA will be a composite of the fixed weight percentage multiplied by a points variable. The variable points Council Minutes (Regular) February 20, 2001 Page 3 assigned to each property would be in the range of 1 to 5; thereby creating a composite score that takes into account the committee's perception of the property's importance for MUSA designation and multiplied by the assigned weight for each criteria. The criteria and rationale for weighting the criteria was discussed. Additions to the list include property owners that have recently petitioned for MUSA designation: Dave Finnegan (East of Akin Road and south of Autumn Glen) Molly Murphy (North of the Farmington Middle School Campus) Babe Murphy (within City limits, north of Molly Murphy Property) Dakota County Highway Shop (South of CSAH 50) Michael Devney (East of the Prairie Waterway along CR72) After presentation and acceptance of the 2005 MUSA Review Committee methodology by the City Council, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission, a meeting of the committee to designate MUS A will be held April 30 - May 4, 2001. MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg accepting the Executive Summary, methodology and schedule for the 2005 MUSA Review Committee. Any recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Housing Affordability Legislation - 2001 Legislative Initiatives - Community Development The Builders Association of Minnesota and the Minnesota Association of Realtors have recently introduced a legislative agenda dealing primarily with City fees that they cite as barriers to the development of affordable housing in the state. The legislative agenda contains the following suggestions: A requirement that Enterprise Funds or Special Revenue Accounts be established for all development and building fees with no general fund crossover. A requirement for detailed reporting to the state regarding fee revenue that was both collected and expended. A mandatory 10-day turn around on building permit applications. Special assessment appeals waivers for developments would be prohibited. A Plan Check fee would not be allowed for subsequent plan reviews unless there are substantial modifications to the plan for the original application. Staff will continue to monitor the legislative issues that have been introduced and keep the Council apprised of any pending bills that may come before the legislature. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us lOb TO: Mayor and City Council City Administrator~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Proposed MUSA Expansion - Zoning Ordinance Update DATE: October 2, 2000 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission and City Council held a joint workshop on the issue of postponing MUSA designation on Wednesday, August 30, 2000. The Planning Commission considered it again at their September 12,2000 meeting. DISCUSSION Recently there has been considerable discussion on a number of issues associated with the proposed 2005 MUSA expansion as well as the need to update the City's Zoning Ordinance to make it consistent with the recently approved Comprehensive Plan. The memo dated August 30, 2000 to the City Council and Planning Commission outlined the issues to be considered. The following five action items were discussed: 1) Determine the level of support for the recommended technical requirements associated with MUSA Expansion Criteria. 2) Determine the level of support relative to the requirements that properties must be annexed prior to MUSA designation. 3) Determine the level of support of a shift of MUSA acres from the Low Density Residential designation to the Medium Density designation. 4) Determine the level of support for a 2005 MUSA Designation Postponement Period of 10 months (or 12 months as suggested at the meeting) to allow for the City Zoning and Subdivision ordinances to be updated to be consistent with the approved 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 5) Determine the level of support relative to the proposed exceptions to the 2005 MUSA Designation Postponement Period as identified. The Planning Commission recommended the following on the above five action items: 1) The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed MUSA Expansion Criteria with two minor modifications. A copy of the criteria with the modifications is attached. 2) The Planning Commission recommended support of the policy requiring that properties be annexed to the City prior to receiving consideration of MUSA designation. 3) The Planning Commission recommended the completion of an evaluation of all property owner MUSA requests based on the approved criteria before determining their support for a shift of MUSA acres from Low Density to Medium Density Residential designation. 4) The Planning Commission recommended a postponement of up to 12 months for the designation of 2005 MUSA Acres totaling 610 acres with the following exceptions. This is to allow for the update of the City's Zoning Ordinance 5) The Planning Commission recommended exceptions to the 12 month MUSA postponement period to include non-profit and other governmental uses including school sites, Industrial Park Expansion, and completion of previously approved Planned Unit Developments. (This only impacts the Middle Creek Estates PUD). There was also considerable discussion regarding the possibility of pursuing a dual track to include the completion of the Zoning Code Update and a determination of which properties should be included in the 2005 MUSA. The actual designation of this MUSA would not take place until the Zoning Code Update has been completed. The Planning Commission indicated support for this approach to this issue. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Adopt the proposed MUSA expansion criteria as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Consider the attached resolution to. adopt the above listed recommendations in regards to additional MUSA designation postponement and criteria. Respectfully ~ ~ David L. Olson Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. R88-00 2005 MUSA EXPANSION POSTPONEMENT Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in Council Chambers of said City on the 2nd day of October, 2000 at 7 :00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan Verch Member Soderberg introduced and Member Strachan seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington prepared a Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of Farmington in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council approved the City of Farmington's Comprehensive Plan on March 22, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan on May 15, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended criteria for the consideration of future MUSA designation of available undesignated MUSA acres; and, WHEREAS, the designation of MUS A and extension of public infrastructure and services to developable properties is significantly affected by the proposed use of the subject properties; and, WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is required to amend it's Zoning Ordinance regulating the -use and development ofland within the City to be consistent with the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby elects to postpone the designation of additional MUSA except for non-profit and government facilities including schools, churches, industrial park expansion, and previously approved Planned Unit Developments for a period not to exceed twelve months from the date of this resolution. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 2nd day of October, 2000. ~CJ...:;t::::; Attested to theS-#; day of October, 2000 Mayor SEAL Proposed MUSA Expansion Criteria City have developed the following proposed criteria that may be used in determining where MUSA expansions should occur: 1. Proximity of property to transportation corridors (i.e. 19Sth Street between .Akin Road and TH 3, 20Sth Street between CSAH 31 and TH 3, etc.) to promote construction of transportation corridors as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Proximity to existing infrastructure and whether it is economically feasible to connect to existing and/or planned infrastructure, identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 3. Property within the IndustriallBusiness Park or other industrial/commercial areas to promote tax base and employment opportunities as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 4. Proximity to the central area of City (east of Pilot Knob Road and west of Trunk Highway 3) to promote the connection of the northern and southern portions of the City. 5. Property that provides location for necessary public facilities - public, quasi-public and other institutional uses. 6. Feasibility of providing municipal services (police, fire, public works, or parks) to the proposed property. 7. Variety of land uses proposed by developer (Le. Low, Low/Medium, Medium and High Density Residential, Business, Industrial, etc.) that supports the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 8. MUSA expansion areas should generally follow section lines, natural drainage ways and sanitary sewer districts. 9. Property cannot be considered for MUSA designation until an annexation petition has been filed and approved by the Council and filed with the State Planning Agency. 10. Other criteria that may be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. Council Minutes (Regular) October 2, 2000 Page 6 Council agreed to revisit the issue at a later time if amendments are needed. r I I fb) Consider MUSA Postponement Policy and Criteria There has been considerable discussion on a number of issues associated with the proposed 2005 MUSA expansion as well as the need to update the City's Zoning Ordinance to make it consistent with the recently approved Comprehensive Plan. The following action items were discussed by the City Council and Planning Commission: 1. Determine the level of support for the recommended technical requirements associated with MUSA Expansion Criteria. 2. Determine the level of support relative to the requirements that properties must be annexed prior to MUSA designation. 3. Determine the level of support of a shift of MUSA acres from the Low Density Residential designation to the Medium Density designation. 4. Determine the level of support for a 2005 MUSA Designation Postponement Period of 10 months or 12 months to allow for the City Zoning and Subdivision ordinances to be updated to be consistent with the approved 2020 Comprehensive Plan. 5. Determine the level of support relative to the proposed exceptions to the 2005 MUSA Designation Postponement Period as identified. The Planning Commission recommended the following regarding the above items: 1. Adoption of the proposed MUSA Expansion Criteria with two minor modifications. 2. Support of the policy requiring that properties be annexed to the City prior to receiving consideration of MUSA designation. 3. The completion of an evaluation of all property owner MUSA requests based on the approved criteria before determining their support for a shift of MUSA acres from Low Density to Medium Density Residential designation. 4. A postponement of up to 12 months for the designation of2005 MUSA acres totaling 610 acres with the following exceptions. This is to allow for the update of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 5. Exceptions to the 12 month MUSA postponement period to include non- profit and other governmental uses including school sites, Industrial Park expansion, and completion of previously approved Planned Unit Developments. Councilmember Cordes clarified that houses will still be built, but no new areas will be developed unless already designated. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan adopting RESOLUTION R88-00 adopting the above listed recommendations in regards to additional MUSA designation postponement and criteria. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. JOe 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 Administrator7,< Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner vAV TO: SUBJECT: Meadow Creek 3rd Addition Final Plat DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION Warren Israelson of Progress Land Company proposes to plat 80 single-family residential lots in the third phase of Meadow Creek. The proposed subdivision is located east of Prairie Creek and north of Autumn Glen in the northeast comer of the City of Farmington. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on April 7, 2003. Plannin2 Division Review Applicants: Warren Israelson Progress Land Company 6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100 Savage,~ 55378 952-226-3200 Attachmen ts: Final Plat Location of Property: Located in the northeastern portion of the City of Farmington. Area Bounded By: Single-family residential to the west, proposed single-family residential to the north, open space to the east and single-family residential to the south. Existing Zoning: R-l - Single-Family Residential Surrounding Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential to the north and south, R-1 PUD to the west and Empire Township to the east. Existing Conditions: The property consists of vacant farmland and includes a man- made waterway that is utilized as an outlet for Lake Julia and runs southeasterly along the northern boundary of the Third Addition. Lot Coverage and Sizes: The maximum lot coverage for an R-1 single-family zone is 30%. The minimum lot size for the development is 10,000 sq. ft. The minimum lot width is 75 feet measured at the front yard setback. Topography: The property is relatively flat. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to plat 80 single-family lots in the third phase of Meadow Creek. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on April 7, 2003. Since that time, the plat has been modified to include an additional 12 lots that were originally platted as one (1) outlot in the 2nd addition of Meadow Creek. The individual lots were not platted in the 2nd addition due to the uncertainty of the design of the Lake Julia waterway. Now that the design of the waterway has been clarified, the additional 12 lots may be platted. These 12 lots would be treated similarly to lots 1-5 of block 1 in the 3rd addition in that no building permits would be issued until construction of the waterway is complete. As shown on the plat, the block number for the 12 Lots is not labeled. The 12 Lots would be considered 'Block 4' and should be labeled as such on the plat. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the Final plat on June 10, 2003 and unanimously recommended approval. ACTION REQUESTED Consider the attached resolution approving the Meadow Creek 3rd Addition Final Plat contingent on the following: 1. Lots 1-12 located north of 18ih Street, west of Dunbury Avenue shall be labeled Block 4 2. No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1-5 of Block 1 and Lots 1-12 of Block 4 until construction of the waterway is complete. 3. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. 4. Any engineering issues shall be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division shall be granted. Respectfully submitted, C} ~ tit:=- Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner cc: Progress Land Company RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF FINAL PLAT MEADOW CREEK 3rd ADDITION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of June, 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 Meadow Creek 3rd Addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the preliminary plat on the 11th day of March, 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. Lots 1-12 located north of I 87th Street, west of Dunbury Avenue shall be labeled Block 4 2. No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1-5 of Block 1 and Lots 1-12 of Block 4 until construction of the waterway is complete. 3. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. 4. Any engineering issues be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division needs to be granted. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of June, 2003. Mayor Attested to the day of ,2003. City Administrator . ~3'~a~ g if~~ S'3 0 no nO :: l Q Q"14 ~ ~ !lI)~ ~ g' ~[e~ ~jH I 'Ii g .. e. ~ ~Q.~~ =- Q~QO 0- :::>g.-.n ~ 5 ~ .~ 0 p. :rCIJQ..::J n [~. s: ~;o" ~" I ::u CD :r 0- CD ., I i 0.3- 0'< R~ r~ :r !=~ Q ~. " .. " ~ ~. g2' ,,3 c m -<".a ~~ ~ .. ,,- !! 5'3' g:;: ,..m ~ o' II a :;: II o e.~ q '" II o o a !!l l/) :T Cll Cll ...... o ~ ::J ~ O-g> o it ~ ~ g~ "0 ~a. .. 0 , :;: ;;' I .... ~ Ul o o o' g .....~ CD Ul o -l\ o o ~ o tN l/) :T Cll Cll ...... III iI: S' , : o :i D o "- "' "- '\J 0. ~ a '" o e !? o ~~ ;::0 3' " ".. m ~ a' 0::> ",3 JB i,O'C <;3 ClII ~::::a 0- ".. ",!t o . Cl ::> l:;Cl. ~3 ~~ ,.. m Cl. o o o c 3 .. a z c 3 rT !l o o c " q '" l! .. c ~ I ,. c 9-. 0- .~ o o ,.. o o b' c " '" iI: S' Ii o o Ill;! R.. ~g-. 0.. ~:: 0" _II :::; 00 ",- 5~ "0 Cl - rTl'J g ;:: H~ "'8 g,::e ~~ d'" ~~ ... "\ !'1 w c CD 5' ~ ~ I:~ I ::l ,-to r :0:. ':::1 W i~i I " ::: .1: JlilJ m ~ " :z: I ~~ Q .!l.r;.... ~:-s:~t~~~.;. ~ f~g , ::l. S' i.llS' _~o m~i~ '" if o ~ ~O!!l ~;:;~ "H g" ~.t:i nO'll g~st :~- g;;'; ~::~ g," S: ~ il'e 1~ - ~1It? \ t'l!l. \ I q "-"- ,___.--.-4. .. " ~. q ~~ ao A oa ::-<- .. - ~ a ,,:;: c A .. - g ~ " a ti ~ " ~l gg j) ~ a.~ o -'"' r~ ~[ ~i o & A " o " 5' ;;' ." 1\)[ gfl !-" iI: ~ 8 ::e o '" .... \:1 UI ~ o z '" ::' a. ~ <-.. o :r " .. o ." li' x- o 0- o o c " q UI i ~ '" :3 o '" f rT A A " " Cl a: Cl " " " o --z-- f:fi,~~;':Ut; CUE;-E:-,.: SE:.CO:\i!) .4[)[)fJ!()lt: 8 ll' ; I 10'f. . :I i~.q . "6' PfU..fEifE Cf:EE.~: \ FOUfiTf:' ADD!:'TON I _L 8 z . .. " " ::1: ,"Q ;pb ~ . " c ~ vrl..l.U.l l!l " .. {~:f ~'....:l ~~~~.-' ;11 ::~ :1: ::~ :e. ::: ::, -. ,,~ ..' ,.-'} , !') :"..,.' ." . --\ :c. ::: :i: ::! ~i~ :1: ;": :;: ff1 tf~ :.; . . .:~i. I i I . . "f CII lil Vl" ~ ~ S_ ",Bj o~ .,,). l..I ~ 9 '- .' i'", ::: :) , . ...;: '. is Q :i! I\) ii$ .. r} II....::... ,."} Co> ~ .. en ~ ~ "f l>I ~(.) Ql ~ ~ SO"D~'40 [ (j) 1802.63 ....'.-(05t line of the Southeast Quorter of Section 'J. Township r ,.f. Range 20 v c il c o a ~ ~ i ~ ~ .. [ '" o S' '" ~. 2" 03 -A "'~ C &~ .... ilCl ~~ ~o "'~ ~! .. 0Cl. o ~[ g~ ,:<A ,-3 '-A o . 5' Q iii' fj ~~ ~a .. 0. OUl 0- c a ~ii o g,- oSirS- :;~ii~~ a-:i g ; ~ .Q'~:'''O 0 ~~.2~a: [5~a~ g !~~~ 01:) g ... :;:~oo- n,...o.....::r "E.;R.:; ~ ~"2.5.n Ul s.~s:~~ ~gn~~ ,..Q.~.. ~ :r ,.... 0 ...... gS~5g o....Q.--a. III ~g~"2. g~~~.~ ~~~g3. 5~El ~:Ea~ ~s~.g Q~g~ " ~ '< f;~ afi ~f:-<~ a.a~~ B'< 0 CD ~"D:Ii Q. ; Q":J 0 a.~o:::l ~. Q. ~ g: ~5'~iii' , ~ " ::l :T1) - ~~ [5!. ad ~.~ c Vl::J-"~ ~"Q~ Cl Q 2"0...... a:g~ , A Cl. W~.[~ g;2.~~ :I~1t...... 0> 5':r ~[cno ~ 0- ~s:;~ 1./)".....2 coo::! ~~g~ -R-ifs: ~o--~ 0" 1Jc.--- c.:;,-' gg-3 Uj' o-<g'E.. ~5'3~ itt g ii;' ~Q!;O ..~ A ~"tJ:r f i!. ;a s- 0" f ~:: .s- ~ ~ ~ I~l 3 .. "'0 9. o "- ~ a.W j:: ~~ o 0" -~ iI: ~ oS a '" A g :; nVJ ~ :;: : ~ ~ :t ~~-<o!f~ ~ e.-" s' "' 5=S rt Q Q.~ q ~ ~ g. 2.e, ;:;> 3 S' '" 0- ," ll- :r A iJ ~ n A ::l. ~ 5' .. " g " 5' '" o a 3 3 ~. o' " ~ o .. a o x- " o !. II Cl. og Cl. rT m 0- iJ iI: S' " : o o ;; Cl 3 5' ~. ~ 2" ~ ~ " 00- 0_ c ~ " .. a n Cl ~ ::: a: 0 Q~ -<5 o!. -.. Cl. g''g 3" ~~ o ~ ?m il:3 5'(D "- Q:r !r ~g. ',< A .. 0 0_ o Vl A ~ o' " E p 0> !" ;:; S. " ~ o ;; 5' ~ .. Cl Ii: ~ o ~ o .. ~ o' Cl .. ;;' , :3 ~5' 0<9- '-'0 .? a s: A iI: S' , m .. o o Vl ;; c 1: ~ a 0. ~ :;: m ;:; 5' " ~ ~ o o 3 " Cl ~ '" 0'- ~f) Cl iI: S- " .. .. a o a ji; o ~ g, " [ " Cl 3 5' "' o " !a a 3 c , i!: " !l n o -il o i! o' ." ,. o .. o o c .. .. Cl. 5' ~ .. ~ A .. .. , iO o 0- A .. .0' " .. 0. rT '< rT II .. .a' " A Cl. ~ ,. o ~ 0- .. .. , o " " Cl < A Cl. 3 " :;: ;;' '" o o '"' :;: A .. '" c !l 3' -~ Cl. :; ~. I 3 c " o -c !l o o il ~ !a. O'N ?o o 0'"' " rT rT'< A :r g. a .. Cl Ii: o ~ " ~ !a o " o " 0. " ~ ~ c o a o q o Cl c , ~ g, o' 'l q o o 3 " Cl " '<' . '" 00 "0 '"' 0-' m 0- [~ a '" a 1i. o o 3 " Cl ~ o' g ~ o o 3 -g " ::< :r Cl .. o Cl c .. .. " :;: 11 .. ~ A .. .. " iO 3 m ~ S' '" '7 .. ~ o '"' Cl. ~ a ;:;:z '<0 b'g h ~:~ ~ C' l iI::Z ,<0 Q~ b ;:~ o. , .... x !. '" ~~ 00 0-< Lp g: ~ o. " " ~ " o 3 s. '" 0" .' iI: 5' " A ~ o o o " ~ o < .. Cl. o o c " '" a g 5' II I ~ " i' 8 !-' ~ ,. <" S' ;0 '" m :r Cl. A .~ ~~ ,,, A ~?J O:>J ~.~ .. A " ~ ..' ",- ~~ _U1 ~~ lOA ~~ ~ Cl. ~ a o o c ~ o o c , '" ;:; S' a o 0" '" o o !-" "'0 5' ~. " ~ o :r ~, i4 iI: ~ ~ " Cl " !\ o :;; o !\ iI: S' " II .. o o '" 8 !-" iO 0", .. . . ;":; I,".. r!i "~," .g 00 0-< 3" 3c ~. rT 1~.~. ~ .. o o c " '" :.,i,," :.: -~.. " ::~) .1: o c:: ..., ,... o ..., .,., s:;t ,.. " b'[ 3'g '8,5" "", '< . 5" ~~ , 3 Cl.. " iI:- 5'~ "Cl .... .. 00 -0 a,.. g~ ij!. oll. a'" a'a. .?[ gO' 0-0 A3 ~: :r 0-' ~.. 0,,- .a~ o aa ~ OUl 00 as' J '<lO' i ii ~ "if .. a: .. a '" o o !-' ~ ::e Cl ~ A " :'-- iil a !!. ~ ? " a a: A a a -a '" Cl I: ~ lQ tl lQ t..i 'i f"'J if 5':; ,,- s. i:: ~~ ~:7 "A ~~ -s ';:S N ;n- O) ~~ t..I 'g~ :- ~~ Ql g, ":;r.s":r j I"'~ u i ~ ~ 8 ~ 1:..5 a a.! ~!. o ~ ~ ~:;: J !a.l ~: ~ ! it~ " a: :r ro S -o~o !'J agO" '" ",,, a ~~ .. iP b ~ a ~a. ~~ 0 g ;:3 CQ. "0 I.u g ~Q ::c ~ i; s R Q.. P Q ~ " Cl "iI: ~ ~~ " 00 ::: Q.:::IE a [0 Q a'~ 2 1I;Jli; -g S::t ~. ;~ ? l: il; ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ g ~ g .. .." m :r "0" :;: ~ g .. .. = g ~ ~.. s:~ lot iii'~ ~ Y.. Q. in ~g 0- ~~ g- ~g ClCl. ~. ~.~ i: ~ 9-. "- 0 OCl ~ aQ' i4 '<~ ~ " .. .g -g"C ~ -a ~ o~ o '" 0 ~ aQ' ~ g'" -;c n. :i~" '. f:j ~i I!! ~ ",='i.:':.! ,3--Lh,:.:, "'"-:""'.-:::" ", ,:~,*;" ',:: t\;O ~~ ." :.. ~e.l ~d _AA Q ~l g'''n , -0 -<~3 oQ1!t l!~ g-~;~ ~::~ ~'.s 3 fll !o/i ~ COt? "0 o~ j ~~ !I~ ".! g- o i-:3 ii'q !g, 1-1 -Vl _0 ..c . S ;n. .!! AO ~~ ~ ~ o o ~ c; fg ~ ~ ..... ~ > o o ..... --l ....... o 2: :~~ ~~ ::e ll.;::it -0 ~"~ ill '" -g~~ q~~ ~.3'1Il n~ l!.if~ 5'~~ sO:< -c .. 0 '" &>~ ~ ;'82 -<~ ~ 2..3 :i! o li'~~ &. ~\Q "1;) o ~~~ ~ ~: a ;; ~&~ >os:g Q ......It Q. " " l'J s:~ ~'" l!2. '"'0 o' or:: s-~ 06 o ~::e ~g q.... . .... r::'" s'~ ":u ~~ p~ ~ o '" ~Q&> g~ 3 c 3 ag ~ a-,,::< 8 :.. ~ s- ~ :~"r ~ rroQ ~ .~ C Q ~. lJ) i:::1 ~ 5'St a "0 '" .. '" .. 0 ~~ 3 ~ ~.S .g. .? Cl_ -.. 0" -a i 0" ~~ o' CD ? E. 3~ !it ~ fre :~ o 0", -II 5'0 .. 0 3 &-g 0" ~':< S' '" il; '" :3 o 1'- o o o o it S' '" 0- 5' " ~ o il. m Cl. " ~ IOF City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator r. r. Ilfi/ FROM: Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary and Final Plat - Replat of Industrial Park Phase II - Lot 2 Block 1 DATE: June 16,2003 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 of 9.37 acres and is owned by the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). PLANNING DIVISION REVIEW Area Bounded By: Wetland to the north, 20Sth 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 of the 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 20Sth Street. According to the Zoning Code, properties must have at least 150 feet of frontage in / / '/<0 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 FINAL PLAT DOCUMENT The attached survey depicts the detailed lot configuration for the proposed lot split. Due to a recent fire in the surveyor's office that destroyed the majority of his current projects, the actual final plat is not available at this time. If the plat is available for the meeting on Monday night, then the Council may act on the plat. If the plat is not available, the Council may table action until such time as the plat is re-created. 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, ~~~ ~- Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner /1'19 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF FINAL PLAT REPLAT 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 16th day of June, 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-p1at of Lot 2 Block 1 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 needs to be granted. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of June, 2003. Mayor Attested to the day of ,2003. City Administrator //50 ~~.' .1 ~. DELMAR HI SCHWANZ ~ANU IllIIVI1\'OIl$. ItlC R"yl"",.,,, UnlJtI ~ .... ul Ih. iii". J' M'nn..",. 14750 SOU'!'~ ?GaeAT TRAil ROSEMOUNT. M,NNESO fA 55068 651'<423-1188 SURVEYOR'S CERTlflC/.lE 473. 10 I r------------__ - --- - - -- - ------ -----------------~ I I I I I I 50 I I I I I I I I I I , I , , W I , LJ I I W I I )> I CD :0 r f\) I o""J W I 0 0 Ul I ... I )> m ---f . I ... I 0 Q) . I r Ul Ul , :0 ru I I UI I m ~ I I en , I .. .. I .. .. I I ... .. ru I , .. .. .- I '" 0 '" I '" ...-- , CD I , I I '" ~ I I '" '" I '" :r: , 438.32 '" / I , I I - - - -- --------/ I ----------------- (J) ... -- - - - - --- - , ~ I 394.46 I I , :n I I , I I I rn I I I , m I I , --i I I I I I I I ru I I , :E I LJ I I I I I I Ul )> I I II m I I I i ~ IJ , I .U) I I I , 0 , , --i I , I I I )> m , , ./ I , , I 0 r , , I JJ , I I I , I I m lU , I OJ , I I I (f) , , r , , I I , I 0 ~ I , , I ~ I I , 0 I ... I , , I , ^ I , , Ul I I I U1 I I , I I I , ~ I I , , I , , I I I , I W I I I I I , I LJ I I I I ~):> I , , I I I Ul:IJ , I I , I n I I , I I I I , )>m I , , I , I or I I I , , :IJ I I I , I I , mw ..... , 0) (J) I , , I , , en 0 n I , I . }> I ~-----, I , lt1 r / , fl:l I , 114.02 , .... I , I / , H ,- I I Z Z I n ... I ::J: 0 , I 0 / I , ~ II I , , I I , m !--------------------_______________J 0 50 II m 406.92 m -f I hereby cerUly Ihallhll lurvey, plan, or repo~ WII p;lIpared '>~ me or under m~ dlrecl lupervillon and Ihal I am a duly Regillered land SIJrve~or under Itl.. Ilwa ollhe S'a'e 01 Minnelola. "- ~ "'-.; Oaled U",lmar :", 8chwlnz :)i"I1.lola Rf,II"allon No. d82fi City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /03 TO: Mayor, Council Members and City Administrator~( FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director RE: Public Park, Trails and Open Space Dedication Ordinance DATE: June 16,2003 INTRODUCTION The City of Farmingt(;m has an existing ordinance that pertains to dedicating land for parks, trails and open space. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission submitted a draft ordinance to the Farmington Planning Commission (Planning Commission) for a public hearing that repealed the existing Park Dedication Ordinance and created a new Public Park, Trails and Open Space Dedication Ordinance (Ordinance). DISCUSSION The Farmington Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at its May 13, 2003 meeting. At this meeting there were few if any comments made about the Ordinance. The Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing to its June 10, 2003 meeting in order for staff to solicit further input from developers on the proposed new Ordinance. Steve Juetten from Newland Communities was the only developer that responded to the request for input. I met with Mr. Juetten on Monday, June 2, 2003 to discuss questions that he had in regards to the Ordinance. Based on the discussion with Mr. Juetten, a revised Ordinance that reflected one of Mr. Juetten's comments was brought back to the Planning Commission as a recommended change. This proposed change deleted language related to conditions to be met prior to deeding the land to the City. These conditions, grading and seeding the park, will actually be addressed in the park development fee section (Section Q). The proposed Park, Open Space and Trail Ordinance has several new requirements. The significant new requirements include the following: . 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 of the cost to develop the new park that is based on an average park development cost of $30,000.00 an acre In addition to these new requirements, attached to this memo is a description of other changes that are being proposed from the existing Ordinance to the new Ordinance (Exhibit A). /1501 Legal review ofthe proposed Ordinance has been completed by City Attorney, Joel Jamnik. BUDGET IMPACT I would also like to provide two examples of how the new proposed Ordinance would compare to the existing Ordinance. The two examples are attached. In Example A, a developer is planning on developing a parcel of land that has gross acreage of 160 acres. The City determines that it would like to have a 10 acre park and the remaining park dedication requirement would be taken as cash-in-lieu of land. In this development there are going to be a total of one mile of trails. Three fourths of the trail is shown on the City's trail plan. Under a hypothetical scenario, the density for the development and the land required to be dedicated for parks could be broken out in the following manner: . 52 acres at 8 units per acre at 14% . 40 acres at 3.2 units per acre at 12% . 20 acres at 11 units per acre at 15% TOTAL 7.28 acres 4.8 acres 3.0 acres 15.08 acres In Example B, a developer is planning on developing a parcel of land that has gross acreage of 80 acres. The City would like to take 4 acres in park dedication and the remaining acreage would be taken as cash-in-lieu. Within the development, there will be a total of a half mile of trail. The entire trail is shown on the trail plan. Under a hypothetical scenario, the density for the development and the land required to be dedicated for parks could be broken out in the following manner: . 16 acres at 3.1 units per acre at 12% . 30 acres at 6.6 units per acre at 13% . 10 acres at 14 units per acre at 16% TOTAL 1.9 acres 3.9 acres 1.6 acres 7.4 acres As you can see from the examples, under the new proposed Ordinance, the developer dedicates less land but contributes funding towards the costs to develop the park and trails in the development rather than the City entirely paying the park and trail development costs from the park dedication cash-in-lieu fees. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the new Public Park, Trails and Open Space Dedication Ordinance and have it published. ?f?~Y:!J:lJ; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director //.53 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 11-4-9, IMPOSING PARKLAND AND TRAIL DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 9 of the Farmington City Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read: 11-4-9 PUBLIC PARK, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION. (A) Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of providing for the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the public through the orderly development of recreation areas and the conservation of natural resources and scenic beauty in the City of Farmington. The City Council finds that the dedication requirements of this Ordinance are necessary to meet the minimum needs for parks, trails, wetlands and open space resulting from development of the uses subject to this Ordinance. (B) Land Dedication ReQuired for Parks, Trails and Open Space. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358, Subd. 2b provides that municipal subdivision regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space, and that the municipality may alternatively accept an equivalent amount in cash. In every plat, re-plat or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses or any combination thereof, or where a waiver of platting is granted (but excluding simple lot line adjustments which do not create additional lots), or when required by Paragraph C below, a reasonable portion of such land shall be set aside and dedicated by the owner or developer to the general public for parks, trails or public open space, or an equivalent amount in cash shall be paid to the City. For purposes of this Ordinance, the term "developer" includes all owners, developers or subdividers who have an interest in or control over the land to be subdivided. It is hereby found and declared that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 2b, it is reasonable to require dedication of an amount of land equal in value to that percentage of the undeveloped land set forth in Paragraph C below. It is also found that the primary users of neighborhood parks live in close proximity to the park. Said land shall be suitable for public use as parks, trails, and open space or for one of those purposes, as shall be determined in the sole discretion of the City, and the City shall not be required to accept land which will not be useab1e for parks, trails or open space or which would require extensive expenditures on the /IS'; part of the City to make them useable. The City will not give park dedication credit for floodplains, wetlands, stormwater ponding areas, or for required sidewalks or walkways within road right of ways. All land dedicated for parks, trails, and/or open space shall be designed to incorporate natural features as much as possible such as river, streams, wildlife habitats, woodlands, and ponding areas. This dedication shall be in addition to the land dedicated for streets, alleys, storm water ponds or other public purposes. (C) Dedication Formula for Parks Land. Trails and Open Space. The amount of land required to be dedicated by a developer for park, trail or open space shall be based upon the net area (gross area minus area required for public streets and storm water detention pond areas) of the land to be subdivided which could be developed for residential, commercial, industrial or other non-residential purposes, shall be determined at the time of preliminary plat approval, and shall be calculated as follows: (1) Residential Development. Dwelling Units/Acre 0-2.5 2.6-5.0 5.1-7.5 7.6-10.0 10.1-12.5 12.6-16.0 Land to be Dedicated for Parks, Trails and Open Space 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% For each additional 2.5 units over 16/acre, add .25%. If a lot which was a platted lot before the effective date of this Ordinance is split into two (2) lots, the land to be dedicated shall be five percent (5%) of the original lot. (2) Industrial Development. In industrial developments, five percent (5%) of the gross area included in the land to be subdivided shall be dedicated for parks, trails and open space. (3) Commercial Development. The park, trail and open space dedication requirement of the land to be subdivided for a commercial, light industrial and/or non-residential subdivision or development shall be five percent (5%) of the gross area included in the land to be subdivided. (4) Mobile Home Park Development. The park, trail and open space dedication requirement for a mobile home park shall be based on the same requirements as Paragraph C (1) and shall be determined prior to the developer receiving approval of the site plan for such development. (D) Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. Land dedicated under this Ordinance shall reasonably conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Advisory Commission shall recommend to the City Council to adopt as part ofthe Comprehensive Plan the location ofland for future parks, trails and open spaces /15S in the City. If the Comprehensive Plan for the parcel ofland to be subdivided calls for public property in excess of that required by Paragraph C, the Planning Commission and City Council shall, before approval or disapproval of the preliminary plat, consider the Comprehensive Plan and determine whether to take the necessary steps to acquire, by purchase or condemnation, all or part ofthe additional public property as called for by the Comprehensive Plan. If the City's Trail Master Plan shows a trail within a development, it must be dedicated by the owner. (E) Cash in Lieu of Land. The City shall have the option to require cash contributions in lieu of accepting dedication of land or, if the City Council determines that land is needed in the development, but in a lesser amount than the required proportionate share, the Council may require payment of cash in lieu ofland dedication based on a pro-rata share of the land dedication that otherwise would be required. Contributions of cash in lieu ofland shall be placed in a special reserve park fund which shall be held and used by the City to acquire land for, or to improve, parks, playgrounds, trails or public open space. (F) Timin2. The requirements of this Ordinance for dedication of land or for contribution of cash in lieu of land shall apply at the time of final plat approval, replat, minor subdivision, or waiver of platting, and shall apply to any plat, rep1at, subdivision, waiver of platting, or development which receives final approval after the effective date of this Ordinance. (G) When Cash Shall Be Reauired. The City shall require a cash payment in lieu of park, trail and open space dedication whenever the proposed dedication of land for public use is not suitable for the intended use, is too small for practical maintenance, or whenever cash payment would be more beneficial to the development of the overall park system than dedication of the land within the property to be developed. (H) Determination of Cash Payment. If the City elects to accept a cash payment in lieu of land for park, trails or open space dedication for a residential, industrial, commercial, or other non-residential development, the developer shall pay to the City the appraised fair market value of the land (at the time of final plat approval) that would otherwise be dedicated for park, trail and open space under Section 1310: 1303. The total amount of cash payment in lieu of land owed to the City shall be determined by taking the total number of acres owed multiplied by the per acre appraised fair market value of the total development. If the development already benefits in some way from previous improvements such as streets, utilities or other improvements at the time of the final plat, these improvements will be included in determining the appraised fair market value of the land. The appraised fair market value ofthe land shall be determined by a qualified licensed appraiser and shall meet the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The appraiser shall be mutually selected by the City and the developer. The appraisal fee shall be paid by the developer. (1) Combination of Land and Cash Dedication. If the City accepts land for park, trails or open space dedication in less than the amount required by Paragraph (C), the developer shall pay to the City the appraised fair market value of the land in excess of the percentage of land required to be dedicated. The appraised value of the excess land shall be determined by the method specified in Paragraph (H). /15~ (J) More Dedication. Ifthe City requires park, trails or open space dedication in excess of the amount ofland required by Paragraph (C), the City shall pay to the developer the fair market value ofthe land in excess of the percentage ofland required to be dedicated. The fair market value of the excess land shall be determined by the method specified in Paragraph (H). (K) Dedication Process. Prior to the dedication of the required property, the developer shall provide the City with evidence of title in a form acceptable to the City Attorney or a title insurance policy insuring the City's interest in the property. In any dedication of required land, the developer must have good and marketable title to the land, free and clear of any mortgages, liens, encumbrances or assessments, except easements or minor imperfections of title acceptable to the City. (L) Modification of Requirements. The dedication requirements based on the development's proportional share ofthe City park system are presumptively appropriate. A developer may request a deviation from the presumptive requirements based upon the anticipated impact of that particular subdivision. The request must be made to the City Council as part of an application for final plat approval. The City Council, after consideration of the request, may modify or reduce the requirements of this ordinance. (M) Trail Construction. When the City's Trail Master Plan identifies a trail or trails to be constructed in the land to be subdivided, the developer_shall be required to pay for the construction ofthe trail improvements. The construction specifications of trails shall be determined by the City Engineer and Parks and Recreation Director. Whenever possible, trails shall connect with existing trails and/or sidewalks. The City's Planning Division, Parks and Recreation Department and Engineering Department shall determine when it is feasible for trails to be constructed to encircle ponding or wetland areas. (N) Review bv Parks and Recreation Director. The City's Planning Division shall transmit a copy of all development plans involving land to be dedicated for parks, trails and open space to the Parks and Recreation Director who shall report back to the Planning Division on the appropriateness of any proposed park, trail and open space dedication. (0) Credit for Private Open Space. Where a private open space for park, recreation or trail purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision and such space is to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents ofthe subdivision, a credit of up to twenty-five (25) percent of the requirements of Section (C) may be given, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) That such land area is not occupied by non-recreational buildings and is available for the use of all residents ofthe proposed subdivision. (2) That required setbacks shall not be included in the computation of such private open space. (3) That the use ofthe private open space is restricted for park, recreational and trail purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land in favor of the //57 future owners of the property within the tract and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the City Council. (4) That the proposed private open space is of an appropriate size, shape, location, topography and usability for park, recreational and trail purposes or contains unique natural features that are important to be preserved. (5) That the proposed private open space reduces the demand for public recreational facilities to serve the development. (P) Park Tree Requirements. The subdivider or developer shall preserve all existing trees to the greatest extent possible during the grading process on the land that is to be dedicated for a park, trail or open space. In cases where a significant tree or trees are lost during the grading process on the land that is to be dedicated for parks, trails or open space, the developer shall be required to replace each significant tree lost with two new trees that are at least two inches in caliper. LQl Park Development Required or Alternative Fee. Where land is required to be dedicated for parks, trails or open space the developer shall improve the park land with minimum improvements specified or agreed to by the City, or an equivalent park development fee shall be paid by the developer to assist in funding the development of a park which will serve the new subdivision. The minimum improvements or park development fee will be based on an average cost of $30,000.00 per acre to develop a park. If the City determines to require a fee in lieu of the minimum improvements, the developer will be charged $15,000.00 of the costs to develop each acre of park and the City will pay the remaining costs to develop the park. The park development fee will be adjusted annually for inflation based on the National Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index starting January 1, 2004. The park development fee shall be deposited in a special reserve park fund and shall only be used for the development of the park, trails and open space dedicated in the land to be subdivided. In cases where cash in lieu of land is taken, the park development fee shall be deposited in the special park reserve fund and shall be used in the development or improvement of other public parks, trails or open space that are located in the closest proximity to the development. The City shall allow the developer to either pay the entire park development fee at the time of final plat filing or to pay the park development fee on a per unit basis at the time that a building permit is issued for each unit to be constructed in the development, provided that all park development fees shall be paid within five (5) years of approval of the final plat. (R) Initial Development of Land Dedicated for Parks and Trails. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission shall determine the schedule for developing land dedicated for new parks and trails. (S) Infrastructure. The developer shall bring utilities a reasonable distance inside the property line of the future park, as determined by the City Engineer, and shall cap them off at no cost to the City. Utilities shall include gas, storm sewer, water, electricity and sanitary sewer. The location where such utilities are to be brought into the future park shall be determined by the City Engineer and Parks and Recreation Director. I /.s'~ (T) Park and Trail Access. All land dedicated for parks shall have at least one hundred and fifty (150) feet of street frontage on at least one side. All trails shall have at least a twenty (20) foot wide access where the trail connects to a street or sidewalk. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this Farmington. day of , 2003, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald G. Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: Edward J. Shukle, City Administrator 1/.5'9 G) (,) c ca c .- ~ o 'a G) U) o c. e D. 'a C ca C) c <e:;; '!: .)( :Sw J: '- ~.g c o U) 'i: ca C. E o (.) c o :t:i ca .!:! 'a G) C ~ '- ca D. ~ (.) o - - (,) ca c. E .... ~.E a.o>- ::J E 10 Q) '0 a. ~ Q) .... (/) _(/)o~ ,o::J,o.... 3Q)CIO 0.0]1 a. ~ .9 t: .~ ~.!!3 ~]i 10 C '> X a.Q):>Q) '> E Q) 0 :> >-c_ 10 0> (/) a..!: c ::J (/) Q) .~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ::J 0 ~ ~a ~ .E .E C o Q)U .c ::J - .... C- O ~ C 0 Q) (.) "Em ::JE .0 .!: m Q) 'u .... c:;::; 10 C C Q) It=~~ Q)-Q) = >-.c 10- l3 a.'O (.) 0 ::J - (/) '0 >-- Q) :t: :g e:::u(.) G) (,) c ca c ~ o ~ G) Z 'a G) U) o c. e D. '00~.Q.Q)~2'O Q) Q)_ a.Q)= Q) Coo :; ~ ~"CJ:: c.a.e 0 '0 .0 (.) 3 .9 ::J .Q '; .~ _ (/)100'O~Q)-a. _ . '> ,,>..... 10 Q)- S :> Q) .~ Q) Q) .... .c Q) ....... - a. '0 Q) 10 .....c~o 8.~'O Q)..... Q) .E--Oo:C:;.cc~ >-.!: lB 0 CD Q) 0 - Q) Q) IO~Eo>'03:~E~ a.....a.0Q),o :>0. OIOOO'Oc~.QOIO _ a._('I) Q) lOu<(_.... ....3:~w.c;;: ~~ 8.Q)Q)'OI-O~.....Q)o o Coo . Q)I- (/)'0_ CD Q) Q) (;) t: 5 g ~ o::J >.c.cglO . .... Q)-I- a.1Ot: Q) 10_ '08- Q)3:lulO=o.lB Q)-..... O>Q) 0. a._ Q) E .c~lB~coQ)o=>- -;Q)EQ)IOO=lu>-1O Q) '0 a. > a.o a.'O 10 a. .: 0 0 10 0 0 0 C 0. '0 5-:::: CD f6 CD q CD 'IOE- lu m q) Q)(/)> >LO> .c....E e:::8~5~~~~~g.:;::; G) (,) c ca c .- ~ o - c e '- ::J (.) E ~ 'I- ==-ca G) '- .f.g -'a C G) G)- E ~ c. .- .2"g G)'a > U) G) ._ C'a ~ C i.!!! Q. .... C .E 00>Q) Q)Uc........ .c ::J .- 0 0 -l::;EE~ C(/)O ". oc(.)"OIO(/) cg>-Q)a.t: ~ ~gjo~ 5;m~~-g 0> .o:s; . "0 ]1 :E ro Q).... t: :; ~ .!a .u 10 0 .... x c~ a.(.) ~Q) ~ Q) 3: ::JQ) 3: .9 It=Q)Q):=Q)(/) Q)=cccc .c Q) .- 0> Q) - 1Oa.>- = ~ .!: E l3 -1O(/)Q) (.) 0 0 (.) 10 > ::J-(/) .co 'Oz.(;)E~a Q) .- 0 0 ::J E e::: u (.) .::: a.. .. lu'OQ) Q) C~3:a.Q)= .ccG)IOQ)OlO>- q) - .- E lu C 0 (.) 10 .~ '0 .!a ~ > 10 0 '5 a. ~ - o 10 a.0Q).......- 1ij~a;coq,o~~o .c _ > 10 CD LO Q) :t: g. '0 .... ~ G) C > ~.o Q) .... .Q .Elft'tJoQ) 000Q).... ... '0 >--- a. ~a.!~olO'Oluc.... a. 10 - (/)- a.Q) a.0 10 Q) C 10 Q) '0 .: 0'::: Q) .9 > G).o 53 5-CD a.:;O- lue:;(/)IOOQ)>::JQ) a. a..... '0; C 3: :: ~ Q) ~ o E 0 Q) 10 .... VI ~ Q) -Q) .- :f..... Q) 10 Q) ..... 10 .... _0 a.3:.c-.... >O'-cqo__CQ) Q)a.EQ)OCDIO(/)Q)> '00')( EO >.c 3: E 0 ~ CD 0 8-q~; g 8-"5 -;6;~CDgQ)f6<(CDO Q)'O_>w.c-..lli>c .: 0 en Q) -0 I- - .... ~ Q) ::J-G)'O .010 E c:T (;) en Q) (;) t: ~ a. t: >- Q)0.2.c01O(.)....101O e::: (.) ul- (.) a.1O.E a. a. Q) (.) C 10 C 'E o - C ~ .... ::J (.) Q) .c - .!: '0 Q) (/) (/) ~ '0 '0 10 - o Z - ~ '- ca c. 'I- '- .- G) -J: G)- G) l! u. C - G) C ~:;;- ~J!C c.U).!!! o .- C - ::J ca G)G).c >.- - G)- c C ~.c '- U) ca ca Q. (,) C o 'ii) (/) .!!l 'E '(5 EQ)"= 0.c'O U::f6 ~.E ~ ~ Q) (ij 'S; ~ a. ~ ~ ~ c:;::;C .Q Q) Q) 10== Q)Q)- 5 .!: 2 Q) E C e::: .... Q) 'O~E CQ)a. 10'00 ~ CD (ijro6; a..~'O ~ C 10 C 'E o - C Q) .... .... ::J (.) Q) .c - .!: '0 Q) (/) (/) ~ '0 '0 10 - o Z - C Q) .... .... ::J (.) Q) .c - .!: '0 Q) (/) (/) ~ '0 '0 10 - o z 'a- C .- ca I! G)..Jt- .cG)'a _.cc '- - ca .go~ '- ~c~ .- G) ... - E '- ~ c..g .- 0 C t-Q)G) > .~ ~C) - (.) 10 a. .~ ~ C o C 0> C 5 'c C C Q) 2 '0 .... 52 .o(/) ~g (.) Q) f6= ~.9 ~ 5 2:;::; .a 10 Q)~ .c - (/) Q) (.) ::J '0 ~ '0 0 E C ~ C (/) 10 .... .... ~:= >-~o ....10_ Q) ~ -g 'c Q) E 10 ::J .c .- ~ > E 16 .~ -luE.cQ) 0_0-.... cQ)(.)cQ) ._ '0 Q) 0 .c Z. == = 'ii) ~ ..lli=3:>-l3Q) .... .o-.o.....c 10 .- 10 a. 3: a. .!a = Q) E Q) > (/)._~ 'O"Q)::JQ)IOQ) = 0Q)Q).c0.~ Ol::;(/)-Q)_ o>(/)m(/)_C (/)Q)....~~O Q) .c (.) 10 .- .::: :2 - .!: .!: a"Q) ~~-g.~<u~ a. ~ m 15 .sa en o c- .- C z. .;;; .- Q) U .- Q):!: .c:;::; _ ::J 10 '0 0 ~Q)= Q) C 1ft 3: .- VI EQ);.g 0(/)1:0 (;) ~8.c en J!! e 10 10 'c a. ~ ,910 Q) 0 (/)(/).cE Q)'O- .- C Q) Q) :!:1O'O.c :s z.'ii) ~ o>'u .!: 10 C 'C Q) (.) 'C '0 g -g .o~101O mQ)ii)~ .c ..::c (ij (/)~Q)a. lulO]5Q) a. 3: 10"" >- 0..:c2:t: CDQ)O.aU 6;~lQQ)Q) o(/)~=:;= Q) (.) C 10 C 'E o Q) (.) C 10 C '5 o - C ~ .... ::J (.) Q) .c - .!: '0 Q) (/) (/) Q) .... '0 '0 10 - o Z e ::J - (,) ::J '- - U) I! 'I- C - ~ '- ca D. Q).9 '0 'ii) ~ 0 ~~~ 5=(;) Q) :2 10 0>3:.9 J!!- c8~ e-'"' -0Q) "Q)N2 ~(;)g (;)m= ....-10 01Ol::; j-g~ 0<uQ) LO~.c .........3: _ <Ua.~~ (/) .... <u m ~ ~ ~ --Q)'O <( '0 =:;'ii) ~ C 10 C 'E o - C ~ .... ::J (.) Q) .c - .!: '0 Q) (/) (/) ~ '0 '0 10 - o Z U) U) G) (,) (,) <e 'f! t- 'a C ca ~ '- ca D. / I te,o CI) C.) c ca c .- 'E o 'tJ CI) t/) o a. 2 0. 'tJ C ca C) c <(:;; '!:: .)( .e w .s::. ... >< 0 w""" C o t/) 'C ca a. E o o c o ; ca .~ 'tJ CI) C ~ ... ca 0. 15 c:: 15 "'"- Q) g 5 m:5 '5:2Eo. ~:g.c::~ Q) Cll .2 > ~.~ j ~ .c:::!::: - >- ~~~'S ::lQ)....._ 0. ..... '5 0 o"Og-; ~~Cll(;j U ~ ~ 8 Q) :5 'cu Q) .c::.o.o.c:: (;-0-0; _ c:: c:: Ul -.!2.!2Cll ~~~~~ u(ij(iju(ij Cll 0. 0..C:: 0. ~~ "0'- - c::u~"O OQ)_Q) ~:5~ Ul .0 "0 ..... .~ "Oc::Clla. c:: Cll E 0. .!2 8'!::: Cll 15C::~~ C::CllQ)- oc::.c::c:: :2'5::0 :go ~~ CllQ)OUl Q).c::"Q)Cll .!::: _ >.0 ::lC::Q)"O c:r'- "0 c:: "0 ~~Q).!2c:: >-.!::: :5 Ul .!2 Cll ::l 0 lfi Q) Eg-u:5 ~.....>-x_ .- Ul ~ Q) 0 U:;:;_Q)Q) Q)Cll15:5~ ~j~'O~ >- Cll ..... ESQ) ffi:t:::"O.o :5c::Q)>- o Q) Cll "O~c::E Cl)j~.!!3"O"'" C.)Q)~~ffio co"O"O-m ~ E ~ .~ -o~ ~ .- Q) Cll ..... .- ~ 'E .~ a. ~ =is 5- OQ).c::::l"O ~ g>~ Cll-e, -.....0 Q)::l CO.....O.c::O !-:5-I-E ...Ul c:: _ _O)"OQ)-o..... -.c::~Ulc::Q)c:: o .~ .- ~ Cll .c:: 0 ~ 5- a.:; =a5 :ai ~~5(ij"Oc:: U .!!! "0 o..~ ~ Q)16Q)~::l"O :5.c::~ogc:: -~.oECll8 ~ o o - - C.) ca a. E CI) C.) c ca c 'E o := CI) z 'tJ CI) t/) o a. 2 0. E ~ c o ; ca_ C.) c :c CI) CI) E c ! ~ .- ... = ca cr 0. CI) CI)~ ... o ::E '#. .....0) Q) 15 ~ S.~ 15 - c:: .c:: _ >- c:: 0 Cll _UQ)"OQ)ClloC::C: ::l.c::C::"Oo. Q) c:: .::. I- Cll'oo ~.......... OUl o)Cll.....'5Cll~ c::c::",;c::_S"O_Ul ~ 8 ~;g m 0 ~~ ~ 5 _0 E .c:: Q) _Ul .~ :::; = ,.... 0.......0 -c::... --Ul.QS..... C::Q) Q Q) ~ 15 Q)Q)Q)EcEI- '0 8 > "0 .c:: Q) (;j o..Ul c:: Q) Q) '00 :t::: c:: 0 ~ Cll .c:: "0 Cll Q) ~ 0 "Q) .- ~-~_C::""'u>u Q),S! ~ m ~ ~'O~~ = >- Q) .c:: ~ .- (;j Q) - Cll.c::UlCll~O.c::c:: lfio.-~""'CllU-O U 0 .~ Q) ~ 0. Q) .~ c:: ::l-Ul C::Q):5Ja~ ~~=:532.c:: ......- 0 c::u~'O:.coS~~ Q) .Ul c:: 1;) c~~ -g Cll .;;; U '0> .!2~Q)=Q)UlC:: Q) :5 Cll .c:: .- 0 .c:: .~ E .::. ~ ~ .1;;_- - I- 0 Q) .- Cll U ~Ul.:::5~'::'"O Cll -~ _ _ ._ ..... Q) .2 :E::" c:: 0 :s S "0 "OUQ)c::C::c::"O ~Q)EOQ)Q)C:: o .c:: ~ U :2 .~ .!2 ::~0.2~0)0) Q) .- Ul (;j Cll "0 .~ o.UlQ)c::_C::~ 0='!:::8CllCllUl - Cll::l .c::...J.- Q) .::. c:r - 16 ~Ul~~"EjUl "OCll -Q) Ul Q)c::~""'Ea.."E.!!3 .c::~.c::So.""'CllC:: -0-.....0~~Q) Ul.c::"OQ)"Q)!aoE Q)Ulc::o.>",- .!::: Ul Cll .Q Q) ~ ~ ::l .- Q) "0 _ :t::: .- c:r_C::> .-"O::l Q)CllCllQ)Q)~Q)c:r C::=C:"O=I-b~ O):t::: oc::"O -32~ "0.- U Q) .0 c:: Ul"OQ) ::l c:: > Q) Cll '0, .0 0) Ul = c:: .- c:: ~;g~g Ul .c:: ~ ~ c:: Cll -._ 0_....."0 ~OOQ) ::l_....."O :g~~"O "E E .~ ffi 80.0)- .Q "0 g> ~ ~ ffi'~ Cll Q) ...J~" . U"O ..~.!!3 Q)Q)Em~ =:5~ E '0 0 ~-E ~ 0- Cll'S ?f:.>-=~c:r OCll~OQ) N 0._ _ ..... ~Ul"E U-Q) Q) ~ E .c::Eo. -Q).Q >->Q) .00> c:: ..... Q) Q) 0."0 "OE= ..... .- ::l ::l c:-- .oCllQ) 15c:::5 'o'E 0 C::.- - ~ ~ 0 ~ o.'~ Q)Q)~~ .c::.c::.......... --CllCll lfi~ 0.0. UCllQ)Q) -5E:5:5 ~.9.9'O c:: "0 ...; Q) 0 Q).15 c:: o :5 ~ '00 .~ Q) c:: Q) 16 c:: c:: -. ~ -- _~"Ou ::l.c::c:: ~~~~ ~"OQ)~ g~Q)[ .....=E CllCll2~u~ Cll~- _-"OUl.~tiO: ~~CllQ) o.Ul"O 1~~~c::-.....-Ul"Q)~.Qbc0~~ "O~~ c::.o.,...cQ)Cll--$:~""'C:: .Q)Q)Q)::lQ) Q)UlCll~ o.!2Q)~-a.:5"O~_O::lQ)""'::l~o."O ~ > c:: Q)O C::Ul~"OOo.~c:r .....Q) ~!e >-J~.o~~:"E~~U~(ij~~S.c:: Q) 0. .oClla.OCll~cCllQ)Cll~Ulo.::lO"O; ~~8~~.~C::2Ulo~5SU~""'~-ffi~ .c::ECllE-"O =~c::~>:5~Q)~S~"EEQ) - 0. o.c::Q)Cll~Q)Q)CllO_Q).c::Ul~-COQ)Ul -.!!3UlQ)::lCll.c::.c::-o. U_ -Q):E::"C::~.,...0 Oc:: .....u -Uluob"Oo.o--=88.~- '#.Q)~Cllg!~I~~~~oo2~i""'E~Ul I() Q)E 00. ~ -0 .~ _Ul U -0 Cll ...... > c:: c:: 0. Ul 0 - Q) N 0"0 Cll > ~ 8 Cll c:: Q) O::l .'- Ul ~ O~"O~C::=C::Q).oc::-"'" -CllUl..... UlQ)8n ::l~ _ -O.....o.CllQ)~Uc::O'"OQ)~ ~ - c:r - '5 Ul oJ "0 Q) ._ a. ..... .:: 0 0. c:: Ul Cll ::l _Cll o.Q)Cllc::-.o~Ul16Q)""'Q)"O"OuCllCllO-"O ::l.....~om15~"OQ)~:5s'OsSQ)Q)~n~Q).....15 -c::(iju.....c::_.....~_"OUl~.w.c::.c::a~~_c:: ~go.O)Cll~~-EoQ)Q)Q)>--- o.Ul-g "OCllQ)~-g16-0~8Q)UlUUlO.c::tQ):5'O~=~1iiCll Q)U ~ Q) Q) ~ - 0 -Cll::l.c::Q) .....-J.Q.!2.....Q)..... ::l_0'.c::0'.c::.0.::.--..... U ~ ._ U Ul Q) Ul 5 :t::: e ~ . 0. ..... co . U <"O~S~~::lN=M~o.~o.~~.9oSI()~ .!!! .- ca ... t- Q)Q)O .c:::5"O -_0 O)Cll- .~ :5 in ~"O ~ .!!! Q) ~ 1ii:2c:: Ul > .- Uleg "0 0..0 Co E a ~ Q) Q) .9E.c:: -Q)- '5 's .~ ~ c:r:t::: UQ)Ul .........."0 sc::c:: "Og~ Q) ~ '0 ~ ._ c:: "O::l Q)Q)O .o"OU >-~ ~ Cll (ij .- 0 ~ o.U Ul CI) - ca > 'C 0. CI) ... C.) ,2[ ctJ) CI) c .~ CI) C)a. _0 :c ! o v /4:./ 0) CJ C cu c .- "E o "C 0) rn o c. o ... a.. "C c cu C) c <ci - .- - >< Ow .c ... >< 0 w.... C o rn 'C cu c. E o o c o ; cu CJ :c 0) C ~ ... cu a.. ~ o o - - CJ cu c. E 0) CJ C cu c .- "E o := 0) z "C 0) rn o c. e a.. Q)f/)~ J::. .!: .... ....roc Ea.:E o"O~ J;:03: ~~f/) ~Q)1O' t;-g~ c(3- ~ .!: ~ '0, ~ 0 .... - oro~ co(ij f/)....:: ro Q) Q) f/) Q)o"O>- .... C .- ro ro ro f/) 3: Q)c"O.... = ~,~ 2 f/)O:JJ::. "0....0"0) C C Q) .;:: ro Q) .... o.l:: "0 "0 >< :J C ro woroe 0) CJ C cu c .- "E o - c e ... = o f/) >. ~-g ~J2 ro Q) .!: = .:Ji. ~ f/) <<; "0 "0 a. "O<<;ro C 3: .... roo.E f/).... ro~~ Q)"o.... <<;~~ 0) 0 ,- cc"O .- Q) Q) "0>"0 C .- Q) o 0).0 0.Q) en .0 .9 -go~ ro C .!::: ~165- ~~~ "C c 0) 0 :=_; ,2:;::;cu ... .~ <ce"C -00) occ ZO)~ "C > ... c .- cu cuC)a.. ..J 0) rn .....c"C 00; 0) _ ~ c. 0 ~ I- E 0) ~ .... o ro a. .s ~ C o C "0 (j; Q) C.-:. = = rof/).... f/) ro >. ~ a; :;: ~ :J "0 ;:. Q) ro f/) C! ....0 C 0) .!: C f/) J::. E~LO Q):E E ro ro.... ....<<;6EE........ ~~~ui 'a; a. -.!: g. 0 ~ m Q) ro :J ~ 0.... >.....- 0 ~....~"Oc"OQ) ~ cO~"SQ)roQ)w ..... ro~ ~ f/) ~]3= ~ ~ 8.':: 0 ,!: Q) Q) Q) "0 .- 0'- = - "E.~"O ~ Q) 5 5 6>:g 5 3: C o O)::Ja=......J2-O'~ m ~ "0 "0 .Q ro .... Ici :J ro .... 5i .... '0, Q) C f/) >.'- - E Q) 0 .... ro f/)J2.- ro f/) >..... <<;- Q) f/)"O Of/)c::E~~.EQ)~~f/)ffi o.f/)Q) rof/) _....Q)O_ o Q) E . a. C Q) .0 .:::; .... 6>.... ....- -:-....Q)J::.ro~co 0 O'CO'OO"O....o.O"::Q).... ~,-oro-....O)oQ) J::.C :>...._-cQ)C-....E....:J Q) "S Q) ~ Q) J::. .- Q) co .... C 0 C f/) > .- > 0) f/) > Q) 0 ro E C Q) Q) C .- .- co Q) .... .... J::. ...."O:J o)J::.lD"O ro f/).... ro "0 C ro C"O Q)C CD EJ2 ...... o.~ (j; .Q <<; > ~a.U) ~ Q) . 3: .!!! "Oroo f/) Q)Q)= .... = <<; .E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'c ...."0 f/)O 0 C"l"","LOCD:J Ocro;::~..-..-..-..-LO ~J2 f/) C"Ii 'Ci) Q) 'co- . .;;:; c- ooWo Q).o'S . ororocl)":: roE ooco-_OLO "0 a. . co ro-~~EN Q) 0 0 0 _ ..." f/) .- '-"0 . J::.Q)_ro~~~cc"O"O .... > C 23 'c 'c 5 :J :J ro "0 C Q) 0 .- :J:J LO 0 J::. ro o"O~c C!C"Ii<ooo "OQ)~:JC!~o..-..-ro~ ~ C .- ~ I.C? "7 "';" ~ r.b Q) ~ co ~N<O..-CD" 0'- lD5"06C"1iIci"":~~u.5 .!! = e oc;- u..;c c c 0) o 0) E ; :2 c. curn,2 CJ 0) ... :ca:::> 0) ... 0) c~c "C C CU ..J ro ~ ro "0 C J2 f/) f/) e 0) Q) J::. .... '0 ~ o LO N ...... ...c; ~ .C - .!! rn c = = ~E-g cu"'- .~ 0 "C "Cu..c 0) - CU Cc- 0) CU "C E '(3 ; e :& ..J=E C"E ~ 0 o t) ro a. .s ~ C o C t) ro a. .s ~ C o C Q) o C co .!: "E o ~ ~~ u .- f/) ~ ~C a. o.~E- 0.= 0 l& ro "0 - .- "0 Q) 'c ~ ffi~::> ~ Q)~~<( gO":: (ij ro ro Q) C C Q)O :0 ~ E'Ci) .... "0 - f/) OQ)(ij,g! 1:Q)~e ~a."Oa. ....Ec.... :J 0 ro 0 o f/) f/)O...."O ro Q) Q) .... .0 .!!l ro Q)....ro"O E f/) .... C ro :J a. ro C/) E ~U5 .... C ~ .... :J o f/) ro Q) E ro C/) ro ~ ro "0 C J2 f/) f/) o .... 0) Q) J::. .... .... o ~ o LO .... C ~ .... :J o C o "0 Q) f/) ro .0 "0 Q)"O .!: C EJ2 .... Q) ~J::. Q).... "0.... f/) 0 .- Q) "0 :J c(ij ro > "0 "0 Q) Q) 3: .!!l o ro = .... ro a. f/) a. ro - c 0) E c. o "i > 0) C "C C CU ..J .... o = 0) ::i c .- .c rn CU o .... C :J "0 0"0 C :J E Q) roQ)ro.... :;= ~ <<; .!: ~ :0 a. J::. f/) Q) f/)f/)ro"O f/) ro ~ Q) Q)o~.o "C>E"O.9 C 0 .- J;: ro "0 .~ >. C ~ ~ Q) 0 'S ~ 5 ~ i C E f/) .... .- co "0 :t::~.oc ~JecJ2 Q)....Q)~ .... -2 E <<; >'"0 >- a. rocco.... Eroa.o ....~ Q) 0 i:3 J::. t:: ...."OroQ) E ~ 0.= ~ .g ~~.9i:3 C '(3 C (ij Q) o ~ .Q > J::. Q) ~Cf/)O""_J::. .!2 ro '> a..... .... a) >Q):oa.l3~o ~=.oro:J:Jc :J.... 0""0 ro ro 5 f/)J2 Q) Q).!: cno.....a.....~"E Q):JJ2(ij~OO :J"OBc....~f/) 0" Q) .- Ii: C oj:;."'- ~f/)i....o:o= >.ro a..E"O 0.... .0 Q)EO rof/)1i5cf/) f/) E1:J::.g ro 10'1: (j;Q)::rolDEQ) a.Eog...:_E .Q ~ t) 0.'(3 '(3 ~ Q) .- ro a. C C .- >:Ja.ro:J:J:J Q)O"EcooO" Cl ~ ._ ro U U ~ Q)"O Q) .... C .o.aro 0.2-= ........Q) "OOf/) C .... f/) ro C Q) ;;:~-= o Q) 0 f/) .... .... -Q.Q) ~....1i5 <<;~~ a. Q) 0) .... J::. Q) ~ 3: 'S f/)cO" JeOQ) .... Q)"o"O .!::: Q) - :J f/) :J O"roo ~.o3: >. "0 f/) f/) ro~""~ E ~ lB <<; .- "0 a. ~"O 'Ci) .- Q) Q) 0 u"O...._ 0) rn ca e CJ c rn 0)0- c;c CU 0) .s .~ E c "C e o 0) .- .- C = 't;i0)C" CJ 0) !E=a::: "C o :E IIIet2 I- Z W ::E c(~ W...I .JW L.> ::EW ~~ WO:: () c( o (0 - ~CI)~ CI) ... CI) ::i ~ .le c ... I! .,. CI) Q,- .c Q,Q,~ enoftl- ftlo..ftI (Joc> -c:iCl) s~t: o ~ ~ ~-U - ~ ~ 'n; (J ftI ... _l:l.~ ftI... ~ - 0 C {!.~ftI ECI) 00 .c 00 g.- ~oo _ 0 ..- ~ CO CI) _'- 0 "'" >-(J..oM Cl)C 0)"'" CCl) (")T- E CI) li; g 'ftI...- a..c a. Q) 0' o-oc:co ~-;S-;ON ~c>->ZT- ... CI) C CI) N ... C CI) C N _ ".~ 00 C:=:O 00 CI)= -00 E ~ooooo ~ 00000 ... a._II) 0 .. ~.2.t!-c:ig~ ~01l)~~(")T- CI) .- c(J(J - II)~ o ... (J lIS _l:l. S ... 002 ~ o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o N OM o 0 ~ N ~ '0 0 CI) 0 ECI)~ 0 Q,.c~- g 0-...0Q) . -o"':'ooc:o CI)-CI) ~o~ ~-; g.~Z Qo_.,. ~(JCI) ... > ftI CI) l:l. Q _ en ftI ~ '0.5 .c~E II) CJ ~ ftI C CI) (J ._ ._ _c- CI) 'n; .5 zE.c CI) en ~ B II) ~ ftI CI) II) 5:::i Q)II) ~ - . .... (.) ~C:(.)ro s..;- ro co ~.coo c II) T- 0 ftI ftI LC) ..J(J 00 ... Cl)qq --"'00 lii~oo l:l.E.....qq CI) a.li; 0 0 CJo a.(")(") t! -; II) ~~-; C(C8 c CI) ~ II) II) ~"'Q)Q) ftI IV .... .... ~l:l.~~ ~... 0 0 i02T-T- ..J '0 ~ ~ 8.~ ~.2li ....CI)l:l. ~! ~ 00 T- T- ii ~'g c Cl)E ftI o~ ..J '-- ... Q, ... ftI 0 0 :Cl:l.-;LI. ~ >CI) ..... CI) CI) CLI. 00 S 00 ..~oo II) ._ ~ co o (Jq""'. (JCI)LC)(") .cO)N 'j! - ~ CI) 'n; g -... . ~'E" ~ ..~~ C\t Sc;;(J T- -;-cc~"'" li;o.!!o (Jo a.~ a.z o CI) -~ 'j! ~ ~ ~QCI) :s! - c c II) o CI) II) ~ ~ E ~ (.) B!~ro :c 'S 0 ~ Cl)C"NIri C & T- ~ c .!!'g ... ftI !.t! ftI CI) li'! !-; c( ... a; 02 z CI) li :a II) CJ-S ~ c U <( (.) :C-6z~ C CI) T- &.~ T- ftI ! II) II) c( ~ ~ II) ro ro en 0 0 ecoco C) T- T- 4:: _ 11)... _ ftI -; : 0 o c02'j! (J=o" .- 0.... CI) t!co~~ ~ ('II 0 .:; .,; ~ - 0_00 ~~'Oqq Cl)CO 0~0S2 _....~ ... ftI.,.... 0 E~ftI..o..o .- 0 CI) 0) 0) -;..c CI)~= U ftI "0 CI) ~ U Ol 0 ic:a. .c_ ti e Ox Q.. ~ UJ 3: o Q) Z CI) U C ftI "0 C _ Q) .- c: II) ~~8 o 5 e UQ.. 00 00 'ftI...- ~ 0 0 CI) co~ -E-q~ ~ Q,S~LC) ColI)~O ftI_o ;;; ~ ~ U IV CI) Q,~ 00 ... a._00 o 0 .- 0 0 LI.-;t!~co II)~~O"'" -_~LC)(") ~cc~~ (J 0 ftI --~ S~li {!.C3l:l. o lI)iUi' q ftI::i!Q)g CCUc:N CI) '7' ftI 0 cO ~=~Z"'" (J- ~ 00 CI) 00 ::icoo . Cl)oo c..ll:qC\t ];ftlg(") II)~~~ IV (J ..II: ... ftI l:l. ... 0211)11) C ~ ~ (.) (.) ~roro ftloo ~T-T- ~ C ftI ..J ... ~ Co II) ~ II)~ ~~~~~(.) c ! ... ftI (.) ro ftI.- ftI.!:! roco ..J~l:l.~oo C" CI) N . CI) C ~ ~ CI) u-i c c: II) ftI Q) 0 C .... ;::: .- 5 0 ~u'" o Q.. //~.3 I- Z w :E ma. w9 Jw L.> :Ew ~c w~ o <( o CO CO ..;- g io CIS""" CJ~ - ~ J! Cp ~::i ~ Cp ~ _=.2 CIS ~Ci'g ! CIS <(- 00 00 "C 00 f~cp-c:icO U .!!! Cp "'" C") CIS~CIS~N"'" ~~aiii~~ Cp U 0. > 0. CIS c: · Cp c: ~ ";- CIS ,c ~ I- II) Cp "CCIS::i c:CJ CIS II) ..J CIS en en Q) ~ ..... U U CO CO"," CO . C") c:"C Cp c: ~ CIS ~ i: 'ji CIS ~ 'gn.1- CIS ~ ..J.2 en en ~ ~ o 0 CO CO "'""'" - c: c: o Cp en en :o::E~~ CIS ! 0 0 .!:! ._ CO CO "C~o"," Cp C"..... ,..: o~ "Cf" ; CIS Cp II) ~u<(co l)=ti,gZIO ! c: Cp Uj &. "C CIS f en en A~~ ....00 l:COCO e~~ C) "C Cp Q) U Cl en c: c 0 CIS'- 0. c:ii)e =ti 'x a.. OW~ z ... .e 'i! -I- II)"C o c: CJ CIS Si: o CIS I-Q. .. .- .... .2l!5; Ujl-ecp o "C o.,c CJSo- .v - 0 Si:~- o CIS Cp I-Q.O -c: Cp - Cp= ~ e 0 ~ 0._ ~ ~_II) ... Cp II) > 0 ~CJ o ~ .sa c: :: Cp = 0 II) 0. l! "C ocpo...cp CJ:5"icp!E i>!~ 05;-8 -'- 'i! I- _ 00 5;~qq e'- 0 0 o.CJ~8 o Cp - - _,C......O Cp_coco i>,S..... o o ~ q Cp 0 o.Q)N OCIO "iOr-: >ZO Cp ..... o 00 qq 00 >-00 -qq .- 0 0 CJNCO ..... _ 0 c: Cp ~ q Cp,ccp 0 ~e-o.Q)O ~0.,S0c:0 CIS~_"iOc:i n.CPII)>ZCO > 0 Cp CPCJO o 00 CDq q ,cC:00 ='2000 CJ .- "'" 0 ClSN"r-: l)e......N ZCP~"'" ~ ~ ~- ~ c: CIS Cp Q. E Cp 0. CDO l!"i Cp > > Cp <(0 00 00 ~ 00 o.cpoo .A ~ 00 v, U - . Uj<(~~ o CJ ~ 00 11)0'" 00 Uj - ~ .:: 0 0 o >-... .v N 0 CJ~o.~~q _CJO..........O CIS ~ "i "'c: CO CO -0> ..... ~LLcpCIS o .... O"C II) Cp f o.~ 2~~"'""'" ....~Q. S Cp 00 I- ,c 0 11)""" 0 CIS. 0 oe-Q)o lI)~lflcq ClScp~O"'" C:::i~ZIO Cp . ~ .5 I- -"C iii 5; c: c: ej oi: o.~ :e CIS 0 0 "CQ."iLL ::9 > Cp .... Cp Cp OLL o 0 _ 0 _ ~o II) ._ N Q) OCJlOc CJCP......o ,c"'"c 'i! - I- ~ 00 Cp 00 ::ic:oo · Cp 00 c:~qq 1C1S~~ II)I-N..... CIS CJ o o 'i! - Q) ~ I-C:CIO ~.!! 0 r-: ;!::" n. Z "'" CJ c: ~~enen CIS~~~ I-Q,OO "C ... CO CO C:.2"'"""" j ~_:;:;-OO ",11)000 0'- 0 .. "",,~u.2~~ ~O"C~IOIO N 0 Cp CIS - . -....ftj~~~ J!!oe= ~::O::CIS CJolflo .- = - ClO~ l! ... CIS I-ClS=; ~l!.... =-0 ~ .2 c: o "0:0:: ! CIS ._ U s.=ti Cp Cp ~o "Ci: c: CIS jn. "C Cp Q) U Cl en c: c 0 CIS .- 0. c:ii)e =ti .x a.. ~ w == o Q) Z en en f ~ ~ ~ 0"'" ........... "C Cp ~ g Cl ~ CIS :S 0 c: en ..... .- .- a.. 'E~== o Q) Z /I~t./