HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.17.00 Council Packet
COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR
July 17,2000
6:30 P.M. CHAMBER/COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVEAGENDA
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Project Northland - Presentation
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments)
7. CONSENT AGENDA
a) Approve Council Minutes (7/3/00) (Regular)
b) Authorize Contract - Soils Testing
c) Authorize RFP for Recruitment Services
d) Customer Service Satisfaction Report - 1 st Quarter 2000
e) Schools and Conferences - Finance Department
f) Schools and Conferences - Fire Department
g) Approve Bills
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) East Farmington TIF Plan Amendment
9. AWARDOFCONTRACT
a) Fire Truck Award - Fire Department (Supplemental)
b) Authorize Contract - Sidewalk Reconstruction (Supplemental)
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Consider Negative Declaration - Murphy Farm EA W
b) Consider Resolution - Vermillion Grove Preliminary PlatlPUD
c) Consider Resolution - Approve Charleswood 3rd Addition Development
Contract
d) Consider Resolution - Approve Bristol Square 2nd Addition Development
Contract
e) 2000 - 2005 MUSA Staging Plan - Schedule Joint Council Workshop
1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Approve Orderly Annexation Agreement - Empire Township (Revised)
12. NEW BUSINESS
a) Authorize Request for Proposal - Zoning Code Update Consultant
Action Taken
Imormotion Received
API'roved
Authorized
Authorized
Imonnation Received
Information Received
Information Received
Approved
R52-OO
R53.00
Authorized
R54..oo
RJ5..(J()
RJ6.(JO
RJ7"'()()
August 30. 20JQ
Approved
Authorized
~.'=.. ~
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
a) David King Property Update (Verbal)
In/ormation Received
14. ADJOURN
------
---,-
-----.-'----'-- ~.-
k
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
July 3, 2000
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:
Ristow, Strachan, Verch
Cordes, Soderberg
City Administrator Erar, City Attorney Jamnik, City Management
Team
4. APPROVE A GENDA
MOTION by Strachan, second by Verch to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Verch, second by Strachan to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
a) Approved Council Minutes (6/19/00) (Regular)
b) Approved On-Sale Temporary Liquor License - St. Michael's Church
c) Received Information Capital Outlay - Police Department
d) Adopted RESOLUTION R49-00 Approving Gambling Premises Permit
Farmington Youth Hockey
e) Received Information Schools and Conferences - Administration Department
f) Approved Bills
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Consider Negative Declaration - Vermillion Grove EA W
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) was prepared for the
Vermillion Grove Planned Unit Development. Three types of decisions could be
made concerning the EA W:
1. Make a positive declaration, requiring an EIS for the project
2. Postpone the decision because of lack of information
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 3, 2000
Page 2
3. Make a negative declaration, stating that the project does not have a
potential significant environmental effect that warrants the preparation of
an EIS.
Based on the EA W, the response to comments and the Findings of Fact, the
Record of Decision concludes the following:
1. The EA W was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the
Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules.
2. The EA W satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing
information could have been reasonably obtained,
3. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, the
project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects,
4. Based on a review of the record prepared in this matter, the City makes a
"Negative Declaration," and
5. An EIS is not required.
6. The City of Farmington is directed to maintain a Record of Decision
including the Response to Comments on the EA W and to notify in writing
all persons on the EA W distribution list, all persons that commented in
writing during the 30-day comment period and to any person upon written
request.
MOTION by Verch, second by Strachan to adopt RESOLUTION RSO-OO
approving the Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision
for the Vermillion Grove PUD. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Consider Resolution - Accepting Akin Road Feasibility Report and
Authorizing Scheduling Neighborhood Meeting
The Akin Road improvements discussed in the feasibility report include three
options: 1) a bituminous overlay, 2) a bituminous reclamation and overlay, and 3)
a full reconstruction. All of the options include reconfiguration of the existing
intersections and street lighting at the intersections and along the curve between
190th Street and 193rd Street. Options for trail construction, replacement of the
culverts at Middle Creek and a traffic signal at 20gth Street are also discussed.
The intersections at 193rd Street, 195th Street, and 20gth Street were reviewed for
all-stop signs and traffic signals. The data acquired indicated that warrants for
stop signs and traffic signals are not currently met. The City has requested that
Dakota County participate in the costs of improvements to Akin Road as part of
the turn back of the road to the City. Dakota County's policy on project
participation splits the eligible project costs between the County (55%) and the
City (45%). Storm sewer costs are allocated using the State's cost sharing
formulas. The City's share of the costs would be financed through municipal
bonds. The debt service for the bonds would come from special assessments per
the City's special assessment policy and the appropriate City funds. A
neighborhood meeting with the City Council will be scheduled for August 10 or
August 24,2000. MOTION by Verch, second by Strachan adopting
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 3, 2000
Page 3
RESOLUTION R51-00 accepting the feasibility report and authorizing the
scheduling of the neighborhood meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
b) Authorize Orderly Annexation Agreement - Empire Township
A draft Orderly Annexation Agreement that provides for the transfer of the
township sanitary sewer line servicing properties on the south side of 209th Street
was presented to Council. The City has contacted the two properties on the east
side of Highway 3 to determine their desire to obtain City water services. This
agreement will be reviewed by the Empire Township Board at their July 11,2000
meeting. MOTION by Strachan, second by Verch to adopt the Joint Resolution
Providing for Orderly Annexation and the Exercise of Joint Powers Agreement.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
12. NEW BUSINESS
a) Township Fire Service Contract - Capital Depreciation Charges
The formula used to determine Township Fire Service charges since 1982 has
remained essentially the same. Equipment is to be depreciated over 20 years and
buildings are to be depreciated over 25 years. Research has determined that since
at least 1991, actual application of this formula has depreciated buildings over a
40 year period. The result has been an underpayment in each of the years by the
respective entities. MOTION by Strachan, second by Verch authorizing back
billing of the townships for their respective underpayments. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
b) Authorize Lease Agreement - 517 1st Street
The Public Works Department requires additional vehicle storage and operational
facilities before the new Central Maintenance Facility is completed. Staffhas
negotiated the lease of the 15,000 square foot building at 517 First Street for the
18-month period commencing August 1,2000. Mr. Kenneth Hanson has agreed
to lease the premises to the City at a rate of $6,000 per month. Mr. Hanson would
be responsible for the insurance and the property taxes on the building, the
maintenance of the lawn, the building and all building components. The City
would be responsible for the utilities and the snow plowing of the facility. All
Public Works equipment and activity will be moved from the current City garage
to the leased building and the solid waste operations will be moved into the City
garage facility. Therefore, the building currently leased by Solid Waste would no
longer be used and that lease would be terminated. MOTION by Verch, second
by Strachan authorizing the lease for the building at 517 First Street for use by the
Public Works Department. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
a) Jake Braking Concerns
Staffhas researched a Jake Braking Ordinance for the City. The Council was
presented with three options: 1) Maintain the status quo with no change in the
current situation. 2) Pursue the relocation of speed limit signs through MnDOT to
- ~ ---- ----- ............-..
....-....
...
;::.~
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 3, 2000
Page 4
slow trucks further from populated areas. 3) Direct staff to develop an ordinance
to prohibit excessive truck noise. Council agreed on option 2,
Council member Strachan: Noted Dew Days went very well.
Police Chief Siebenaler: He met with the Empire Town Board regarding warning
sirens. Staffwill prepare a Joint Powers Agreement for purchase of the sirens.
Mayor Ristow: Letters have been received from non-residents regarding
the seasonal passes for the pool. Staffhas responded and no further communication has
been received.
14. ADJOURN
MOTION by Strachan, second by Verch to adjourn at 8 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
~/~~ /J/7~
c'/"
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
------
,.
~. -
-----..
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
76
TO: Mayor, Councilmenibers, City Administrator 'l.l'.-
(./
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorize Contract ~ Soils Testing
DATE: July 17,2000
INTRODUCTION
Attached is a proposed contract agreement between the City and American Engineeriilg Testing Inc.
(AET), one of the City's soils testing consultants.
DISCUSSION
The City utilizes the services of soils testing consultants on a regular basis for projects. The attached
contract would be a standing contract which would be in place and referenced with each new project
proposal/scope of services. The contract has been reviewed by the City Attorney and the language is
more favorable to the City than the individual contracts that are entered into currently. This contract
does not limit or obligate the City to utilize AET as its consultant exclusively.
BUDGET IMPACT
Budget impacts are determined on a project by project basis and such costs are included in the total
project costs,
ACTION REOUESTED
Authorize execution of the attached contract for soils testing services.
~~
~. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
CONTRACT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FARMINGTON and
AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This agreement is made and entered into this 27th day of June, 2000, by and between the City of
Farmington, Minnesota, hereafter referred to as CITY and American Engineering Testing, Inc.,
St. Paul, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as AET.
Witnesseth:
Whereas, the CITY has need for various services, including subsurface exploration, geotechnical
engineering, construction-related soils and materials testing, laboratory services, and
environmental services; and
Whereas, it is the desire of the CITY to enter into an agreement with AET for the performance
of those services; and
Whereas, a schedule of rates and fees will be agreed to on a yearly basis for work on
miscellaneous projects; and
Whereas, a letter outlining the scope of services and basis of payment may be issued by AET
. (typically on preconstruction geotechnical/environmental exploration programs), and accepted by
the CITY on specific projects (Letter Proposal).
Now, therefore, the CITY and AET hereby mutually agree as follows:
SECTION I - SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY AET
A. Basic Services
1. The CITY proposes to engage AET to assist the CITY with furnishing basic
professional services for the CITY, and AET will do so in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this Contract Agreement or Letter Proposal.
The scope of these services may include, but shall not be limited to subsurface
exploration, geotechnical engineering, materials and soils testing, laboratory services,
and environmental services, .
The terms and conditions of this Contract Agreement shall be incorporated in any
Letter Proposal accepted by the CITY, unless specifically modified therein.
- 1 -
2. AET shall perform services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
agreement as an independent contractor. Except where otherwise provided in this
agreement, AET shall be responsible for the means and methods used in performing
services under this agreement and is not a joint-venturer with the CITY. The CITY
shall coordinate AET's Services and shall facilitate the exchange of information among
the independent professional associates and consultants employed by the CITY.
3. AET will perform services consistent with the level of care and skill normally
performed by other firms in the profession at the time of this service and in this
geographic area, under similar budgetary constraints.
4. AET shall request from the CITY and obtain all data and information necessary for the
performance of AET' s Services. AET is responsible to see that the documents prepared
by AET and the services AET renders hereunder will conform to applicable Federal,
State, and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, orders, and other
requirements. All of AET's communications to or with the CITY's other independent
professional associates and consultants will be through or with the knowledge of the
CITY.
5. AET will inform the CITY when AET is unable to perform exploration services in the
event private underground improvements cannot be located. The CITY must accept that
in order to perform services in this case, the CITY must locate private underground
improvements, arrange for location of such improvements, or waive AET's liability
in writing in the event such non-located improvements are contacted.
6. AET shall contact the Gopher State Call System to request location of public
underground utilities.
7, AET shall locate borings, excavations, or other penetrations such that they maintain
a safe distance from known underground improvements.
8, It must be understood by the CITY that in the normal course of field work, some
damage to the site may occur, It is the responsibility of AET to take reasonable
precautions to minimize such damage. It is AET's responsibility to patch bore holes
placed through pavement or slab areas after performance of borings. Otherwise,
restoration of the site is the responsibility of the CITY.
9. To the extent required by law, AET shall report to the CITY any contamination
detected or of which AET becomes aware during the course of providing services on
the project pursuant to this Agreement.
10. All samples obtained by AET shall remain the property of the CITY. AET will outline
the disposition of samples in writing to the CITY,
-2-
B. Additional Services
1. If authorized in writing by the CITY, AET shall provide with the time period stipulated
in such authorization. Additional Services which are not included as part of Basic
Services. The nature of the additional work to be performed, the time in which it must
be completed, and the amount of additional compensation shall be agreed upon by the
parties prior to rendering the additional services.
SECTION IT - THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
A. The CITY shall:
1. Make available to AET drawings, specifications, schedules, and other information,
interpretation, and data which were prepared by the CITY, or it's consultants, and
which the CITY and AET consider pertinent to AET's responsibilities hereunder, all
of which AET may rely upon in performing services hereunder except as may be
specifically provided in writing.
2. Provide AET information known by the CITY of possible site contamination concerns.
3. Make arrangements for legal access and make all provisions for AET to enter upon
public and private property as required for AET to perform services under this
Agreement. .
4. Give prompt written notice to AET whenever the City observes or otherwise becomes
aware of any development that in the CITY's determination may affect the scope or
timing of AET Services or any deflect or non-conformance in the work of AET that
may in the CITY's determination affect the project.
5. Advise AET of the identify of other independent professional associates or consultants
participating in the design or construction administration of this part of the project and
the scope of their services.
SECTION ill - PAYMENT TO AET
A. Small Miscellaneous Projects and Construction Testing: Proiects
1. The CITY shall compensate AET for a,11 Basic Services rendered under Section I at the
rates agreed to in the annual schedule of rates fees.
- 3 -
B. Specific Projects <Proiects with Specific Letter Proposal)
1. The CITY shall compensate AET for all Basic Services rendered under Section I in
accordance with the Letter Proposal of AET, for specific projects.
C. General
1. Invoices will be processed and payments made by the CITY to AET within thirty (30)
days of the date of receipt of invoice for services performed by AET.
SECTION IV - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Personnel and Timing
1. AET has, or will secure, qualified personnel, equipment, and facilities to complete the
services outlined in this Subagreement.
2. It is understood that the services under Section I will not commence until notice to
proceed is given to AET by the CITY,
3. The services as described herein shall be commenced and carried out expeditiously.
The time within which AET shall perform its services shall be extended by delays
caused by acts of God or other circumstances beyond the control of AET.
B. Change in Project and Alrreement Changes
1. Terms of this agreement may be changed only by prior written consent by the CITY
and AET.
C. Termination
1, The CITY and AET shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving thirty
(30) days' prior written notice to the other party of such termination and specifying the
effective date thereof. In such event, copies of the document data and work papers,
studies, drawings, maps, models, and photographs prepared by AET shall become the
property of the CITY. AET shall have the right to stop performing services on this
Agreement if the CITY has breached this Agreement, but only after giving thirty (30)
days' prior written notice to the CITY specifying the breach.
D. Records
1. Fiscal records of AET pertinent to AET's compensation and payments under this
Agreement will be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices,
-4-
2. AET shall maintain all original records (fiscal and other) and design calculations on file
in legible form for a period of not less than two (2) years.
3. AET's records and design calculations will be available at reasonable business hours
for examination and audit if required.
E. Insurance
AET shall secure the insurance specified below. All insurance secured by AET under the
provisions of this Article shall be issued by insurance companies in good standing and
authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. The insurance specified in this Article
may be in a policy or policies of insurance primary or excess.
Upon request, AET agrees to provide the CITY certificates evidencing that it has the
insurance specified below in effect; and stating that such insurance cannot be canceled until
thirty (30) days after the CITY has received written notice to the insurer's attention to cancel
the insurance.
1. Workers Compensation Insurance
With statutory limits of the Workers Compensation Law of the State of Minnesota
Employers Liability Insurance with a limit of $500,000/$500,000/$500,000.
2. Compensation General Liabilitv Insurance
Providing coverage is not less than that of the standard Commercial General Liability
insurance policies (Occurrence Form) for operations of AET or its consultants. This
coverage shall include contractual, personal injury, bodily injury, and property damage
liability coverage with total available limits, including umbrella coverage, not less than
$5 million general aggregate and $5 million aggregate products and completed
operations.
3. Automobile Liabilitv Insurance
Covering all owned, non-owned, and hired automobiles, trucks, and trailers, Such
insurance shall provide coverage at least as broad as that found in the Standard
Comprehensive Automobile Liability Policy with the limits of not less than $1 million
Combined Single Limit each occurrence, $3,000,000 Umbrella Coverage
4. Professional Liability Insurance
Providing protection for the claims that would arise form the wrongful acts, errors, or
omissions of AET, or its consultants, in the rendering of professional services by AET
-5-
or its consultants in the amount of $1 million for each occurrence, and $2 million
aggregate.
F. Limitation of Liability
CITY agrees to limit. AET's liability to CITY arising from professional acts, eIl'ors or
omissions, such that the tota1liability of AET shall not exceed the amount of the previously
stated insurance limits.
G. Indemnification
AET and the CITY mutually agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each other harmless from
any claims, demands, losses, penalties, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, or
causes of action arising out of any wrongful act, omission, or negligence on the part of AET
or the CITY, or their agents, servants or employees in the performance of, or with relation
to any of the work or services provided or to be performed or furnished by AET or the
CITY under the terms of this Agreement.
In witness whereof, this Agreement is herewith executed the date and year first above
written.
H. Governing Law
This Agreement shall be construed, and the rights of the parties shall be determined, in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota,
For the City of Farmington
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
By:
Inc.
Printe
Jefferv K. Voyen
Title: Vice President
-6-
Addresses for giving notices:
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Telephone: (651) 463-1600
American Engineering Testing, Inc.
550 Cleveland Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55114
Telephone: (651) 659-9001
-7-
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463~7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.fa!.Jl1ington.mn.us
7c
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~
Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Coordinator
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Authorize Request for Proposal for Recruitment Services
July 17, 2000
INTRODUCTION
DATE:
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information regarding the benefits of utilizing an
executive search or recruitment firm in identifying qualified individuals for professional
positions that are difficult to fill.
DISCUSSION
In today's labor market, it has become very difficult to find good candidates for professional and
technical positions. The recruitment process can be very time consuming yet produce negative
results. Positions may remain unfilled for a variety of reasons including the lack of qualified
candidates. Many organizations are unable to devote the amount of time needed to design and
implement the recruitment strategies necessary to attract the right candidates in a tight labor
market.
Executive search or recruitment firms specialize in fmding highly qualified individuals for
available positions. These fIrms utilize the best strategies in recruitment. Additionally, many
firms often specialize in a particular area of expertise; for example, one firm may only recruit
computer professionals, another in engineering professionals. By specializing in a particular
discipline, these firms are able to identify the strategies that are most effective for that discipline.
This enables them to be more effective in attracting the right candidates. The City would desire
to utilize the appropriate recruiting firm for the position available.
The services offered by executive search or recruitment may be all encompassing or limited
depending on the needs of the City. Services range from placing advertisements to providing a
pre~established candidate pool: Often, they may assist in the selection process or identify a
preferred candidate. Additionally, options exist regarding the actual placement of an applicant
such as trial periods or regular placement. Many of these options guard against making the
wrong hiring decision and helps ensure that the placement is the best decision for not only the
individual but also for the organization.
Establishing a relationship with an executive search or recruitment firm provides City staff with
expertise needed to recruit highly qualified individuals, Furthermore, the hiring process is often
more productive and efficient.
BUDGET IMPACT
It is anticipated that labor consulting services such as this is covered under Professional Services
in the 2000 Personnel Division Budget.
ACTION REOUESTED
Authorize Request for Proposal for Recruitment Services.
Respectfully submitted,
L! /1 ;/,<'}/f!, .,P
;ry21//ALb/cf(ftl1faL
I Brenda Wendlandt,SPHR
Human Resources Coordinator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
Ie!
TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator~
FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT: Customer Service Response Report
DATE: July 17,2000
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to meet and understand our citizen's needs and concerns, the City has adopted a
customer service satisfaction program. This program is designed to ascertain and measure the
level of customer satisfaction during service-related interactions. All citizen contacts with the
City are documented in terms of complaint type, referring department, priority of service request
and service outcomes.
Responses are typically anonymous ensuring that citizens with negative experiences are just as
likely to respond as those with positive service experiences, Accordingly, it is the City's intent to
use this information as a customer service tool to improve and promote the importance of
excellence in customer service,
DISCUSSION
The table below reflects summary statistics generated by Customer Action Request forms over
the months of January, February and March, 2000. Summary response percentages are generated
through the analysis of monthly reports and include response data from all operating City
departments,
# of Service # of Surveys Prompt Personally Courteous
Month Requests Returned Response Satisfied & Helpful
etlndil~-;' ' I 55 30 96% 90% 100%
~~<.J 35 22 100% 90% 100%
~:
_~~"'~'I 48 29 93% 86% 100%
, !i.!i.".~., ,.
~ . ~ - "'~" ~;
1~~!71 138 81 96% 88% 100%
.
On average, over seventy-four percent (74%) of citizen requests for service are handled and
addressed within a 1-3 day period, Typically, from that point it requires approximately 90 days
to receive, process, compile and analyze the survey response data into monthly reports,
-.-. ,-: '-.' ," .-'.~ ...,..":"-::--.-_:-,~_~':.".:,".~_:.-:~:-:~:.:. ---.-. -:,.:c:" :::::.~- ~,- ~ - -. -. ~ .':o-~ ~~.::. .-"--- I
In terms of how "promptly the City reacted to citizen requests," the degree of "how personally
satisfied citizens were with service outcomes," and was City staff "courteous and helpful" in
responding to citizen requests, response data suggests a very high level of customer satisfaction
in all three categories. In terms of core customer service skills, City staff have achieved an
impressive 100% rating in "courteous and helpful service" and 96% in "prompt service"
regardless of how personally satisfied a resident was with service outcomes, This underscores
the City's commitment to treat each resident contact as a highly valued customer service relations
opportunity.
In terms of how personally satisfied a resident is with a specific service outcome, staff responses
are, in most cases, controlled by state statutes, City ordinances, available staff resources and/or
service priorities. In some cases, responses are a function of a third party who must respond to a
given situation at the insistence of City staff.
Overall, a summary rating of 88% over the three month period for how personally satisfied a
resident was with a City service response is a very respectable response ratio given the wide
range of resident concerns. In review of survey comments, residents commented both negatively
and positively on a variety of concerns such as unkempt lots, sign requests, snow removal
concerns and staff responsiveness.
BUDGET IMPACT
None,
ACTION REQUESTED
Acknowledge the Customer Service Satisfaction reports from January through March, 2000.
Staff will continue to present customer service satisfaction data to Council as it becomes
available. Monthly report data with department breakdowns are available for Council review
upon request.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.fal.J11ington.mn.us
7 e...
TO:
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~
Robin Roland, Finance Director
SUBJECT:
DATE:
School & Conference - Finance Department
July 17,2000
INTRODUCTION
Attendance at the Minnesota Government Finance Officers Association Conference, held
September 20-22, 2000 at the Radisson Arrowwood in Alexandria is being planned.
DISCUSSION
This conference is an annual event for Government Finance Officers within the state organization.
Conference events include sessions on GASa 34 financial reporting, internal control, debt
structuring, bond ratings and TIF reporting. This conference qualifies as continuing education for
professional finance personnel.
BUDGET IMPACT
The adopted 2000 budget includes funding for this conference.
ACTION REQUIRED
For information only.
2?~J
Finance Director
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463~7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.fal.J11ington.mn.us
7f
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~
FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: School and Conference ~ Fire Department
DATE: July 17,2000
INTRODUCTION
The Fire Department is planning the attendance at the National Fire Academy, Emmitsburg,
Maryland, August 21 ~ September 1,2000.
DISCUSSION
Brad Schmoll, Fire Marshal has been selected to attend the National Fire Academy course,
Principles of Fire Protection/Structures and Systems, in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency sponsors attendance at this conference and will reimburse the
City for airfare approximately 6 weeks after the conference. Lodging is provided at no cost,
however, each student must purchase a meal ticket.
Only a limited number of students are chosen to attend this conference and it is an honor to be
given the opportunity. The training provided will prove to be of significant value to the Fire
Department and City.
BUDGET IMPACT
The cost of airfare is $484.00 which will be reimbursed. The cost of the meal ticket is $180.00
and is payable to Guest Services. The 2000 budget provides adequate funds to cover the costs of
this request.
ACTION REOUESTED
For information only.
Respectfully submitted,
k~. KlArL~
Ken Kuchera
Fire Chief
~
~.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Emergency Training Center
Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727
February 15,2000
Mr, Bradley C. Schmoll
9204 Woodhall Bay
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Dear Mr. Schmoll:
Welcome to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Emergency Training Center
(NETC). We are pleased t... inform you that you have been accepted for
R222: PRINCIPLES OF F.PROT.:STRUCT & SYS
August 21, 2000 To September 1, 2000
Enclosed is information that you need to plan your travel and training. Please read it carefully. H you
are eligible to receive a stipend, please note that there are changes in our reimbursement policies.
Students staying on campus must purchase a meal ticket. The cost is $180.00, and is payable to Guest
Services, by cash, personal/department check, traveler's checks, or purchase order at registration. Guest
Services accepts credit. card payment (VISA and Mastercard), and 'does not issue refunds. Students
staying off campus are .required to purchase break tickets at the cafeteria the first day of class.
If you are a Federal employee, foreign student, private sector representative, or contractor to a State or
local government entity, you are responsible for your own travel and per diem costs, and lodging ($20 to
$30 per night), payable upon arrival to NETC. FEMA does not accept credit card payment for lodging. If
you are a FEMA emploY';e, you must present a copy of your travel authorization at registration. Please
read the FEMA instructioIls, policies and comptroller grams dealing with travel to NETC.
If you are not able to attend the course for which you have been accepted, please notify us in writing; no
later than 1 month prior to your course start date. We have a waiting list of your colleagues who will take
your place. Failure to notify us in writing may result in your restriction from NETC courses. If you have
any questions, please call (01) 447-1035.
Sincerely,
:".!o.
~+ U-tALL----
c:l..(
Darlyn M. Vestal
Admissions Specialist
Educational & Technology Branch
,
~ ~.-.,
Enclosures
J!~;.
Ib:r
<<' j
'i"
City of Farmington
325. Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463~2591
www.ci.fal111ington.mn.us
~a.,
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
City Administrator :pL
FROM: David L. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Proposed TIF Plan Amendment - East Farmington TIF District
DATE: July 17,2000
INTRODUCTION
The City Council scheduled this public hearing to consider an amendment to the East
Farmington TIF Plan to allow for the purchase of additional land to expand the Prairie
Waterway and to also reimburse the Developer for additional soil correction costs
associated with the development of East Farmington Additions 1-7.
DISCUSSION
Staff informed the City Council in April that Sienna Corporation has requested
reimbursement for additional soil correction costs it had incurred in addition to the soil
correction costs identified in the original TIF Plan. The amount of reimbursement
provided in the original TIF Plan and corresponding TIF Agreement was $1,500,000.
This included reimbursement for stripping topsoil, spreading fill and dewatering costs
related to the installation of utility improvements. The actual costs for these activities
that have been incurred by Sienna Corporation are in excess of $2,069,863. The original
TIF Plan budget did not authorize sufficient expenditures to reimburse all of these
additional costs, it is anticipated that up to $317,830 would be available to reimburse the
developer for a portion of these additional costs.
In addition, it is proposed that an additional 6.5 acres be purchased from Sienna
Corporation to allow for the temporary pond that was created to be incorporated into the
Prairie Waterway. The proposed purchase price for this additional land area is $188,500.
This purchase price was determined using the land values used in the City Parkland
Dedication Ordinance whi9h is now based on an annual appraisal of undeveloped land in
Farmington.
The TIF Plan Amendment is required because additional land is proposed for purchase by
the City in addition to what was identified in the original TIF Plan. The TIF Plan
amendment will not result in an increase in the original TIF Plan Budget nor will it
expand the geographic area of the TIF District or extend the duration of the TIF District.
A copy of the proposed TIF Plan amendment was provided to the Dakota County and ISD
192. The County Board considered this amendment at their July 11, 2000 Board meeting
and voiced no concerns or objections. No comments have been received from ISD 192.
BUDGET IMPACT
As has been stated the projected tax increments will be sufficient to reimburse Sienna
Corporation for the additional site improvement costs and to allow the City to purchase
the additional 6.5 acres of land to be incorporated into the Prairie Waterway. The original
TIF Plan Budget totaled $5,248,000. It is not proposed that this total budget amount be
changed, but rather that individual categories of expenditures within the budget are
modified. In addition, the $250,000 contingency amount in the original budget that is
now being allocated to a specific activity.
ACTION REOUESTED
1.) Consider the attached resolution approving the 2000 Amendment to the Tax
Increment Financing Plan for the East Farmington TIF District (Soil Condition Tax
Increment District No.1)
2) Consider approval of the Second Amendment to the Tax Increment Financing
Agreement between the City of Farmington and Sienna Corporation to authorize the
purchase of additional land for the Prairie Waterway and reimbursement of additional soil
correction costs incurred by Sienna Corporation.
Respectfully submitted
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
cc: Rod Hardy, Sienna Corporation
John Kirby, Dorsey Whitney
Sherrill R. Oman, Fredrickson & Byron
CERTIFICATION OF MINUTES RELATING TO
SOILS CONDITION TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO.1
Issuer: City of Farmington, Minnesota
Governing Body: City Council
Kind, date, time and place of meeting: A regular meeting held July 17,2000, at 7:00 o'clock
P.M., at the City Hall, Farmington, Minnesota.
Members present:
Members absent:
Documents Attached:
Minutes of said meeting (including):
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT
TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
SOILS CONDITION TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO.1 AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE
RELATED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AGREEMENT
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting recording officer of the public corporation
issuing the bonds referred to in the title of this certificate, certify that the documents attached
hereto, as described above, have been carefully compared with the original records of said
corporation in my legal custody, from which they have been transcribed; that said documents are
a correct and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the governing body of said
corporation, and correct and complete copies of all resolutions and other actions taken and of all
documents approved by the governing body at said meeting, so far as they relate to said bonds;
and that said meeting was duly held by the governing body at the time and place and was
attended throughout by the members indicated above, pursuant to call and notice of such meeting
given as required by law.
WIlNESS my hand officially as such recording officer this _ day of July, 2000.
City Administrator
Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption, which motion was seconded by Councilmember
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR SOILS CONDITION
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO.1 AND AN AMENDMENT
TO THE RELATED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Farmington, Minnesota (the City) proposes to amend the tax
increment financing plan (the TIF Plan) heretofore approved for the above tax increment
financing district (the TIF District), pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.175, subdivision 4(a), to (i) authorize the City to acquire additional property in the TIF
District to be added to the Prairie Waterway owned and maintained by the City, (ii) authorize
additional reimbursements to Sienna Corporation (the Developer) to cover additional site
improvement costs incurred by the Developer in excess of costs set forth in the original TIF Plan
and (iii) restate the budget for the TIF District to reflect the foregoing; and
WHEREAS, a draft of the proposed amendment (the 2000 Amendment) has been
prepared and furnished to this Council for review; and
WHEREAS, the City has submitted copies of the 2000 Amendment to the County Board
of Commissioners and the school board of the local school district not less than 30 days prior to
the date hereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on the date hereof, held a public hearing regarding
approval of the 2000 Amendment, for which hearing notice was published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City not less than 10 or more than 30 days prior to the date hereof,
including a map of the TIF District; and
WHEREAS, the City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to
the consideration of the 2000 Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA, as follows:
1. On the basis of the information presented to the Council, information included in the
2000 Amendment, information provided at the public hearing and at other meetings, the Council
hereby finds and determines that it is necessary and desirable to amend the TIF Plan for the
purposes set forth in the preamble hereof.
1
2
2. The 2000 Amendment is hereby approved and adopted by the City in substantially the
form on file with the City on this date.
3. The findings set forth in Section 2 of Resolution No. 138-94, made by the Council at
the time of adoption of the original TIF Plan, are incorporated herein by reference and are
confirmed as of the date hereof with respect to the TIF Plan, as amended by the 2000
Amendment.
4. The City Administrator is authorized and directed to file a copy of the 2000
Amendment with the Commissioner of Revenue.
5. The draft copy of the Second Amendment to Tax Increment Financing Agreement (the
Second Amendment) on file with the City, proposed to be entered into between the City and the
Developer, relating to the reimbursement of eligible costs to the Developer, is hereby approved,
and the Mayor and City Administrator are authorized to execute the Second Amendment in
substantially the form on file, but with such final changes therein as may be approved by the
officers executing the same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution
thereof.
Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the foregoing resolution:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of
2000.
City Administrator
SEAL
2
:-. -
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
June 16, 2000
Mr, Thomas V. Novak
Dakota County Treasurer - Auditor
Dakota County Government Center
1590 Highway 55 West
Hastings, MN 55033
Re: City of Farmington, Minnesota - Amendment to Tax Increment Financing Plan for Soils
Correction Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 (East Farmington Project)
Dear Mr. Novak:
On behalf of the City of Farmington, I am sending this letter to notify you that the City Council of the
City of Farmington is holding a public hearing on July 17,2000, at approximately 7 p.m. at the City Hall
of Farmington to consider the 2000 Amendment (the "Amendment") to the Tax Increment Financing Plan
(the "TIF Plan") for Soils Correction Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 (the "District").
The District was originally established and the original TIF Plan was approved by the City on November
10, 1994. The District was established to assist in correcting adverse soil conditions in the District by
constructing a drainage waterway (the "Prairie Waterway") and reimbursing the developer for costs
incurred in de-watering, filling and grading property in the District. The purpose of the Amendment is to
authorize the acquisition of additional property by the City to expand the Prairie Waterway and to
authorize the reimbursement of additional developer expenses. However, the budget set forth in the
original TIF Plan will not be increased in the aggregate (though line items will be revised), and neither
the boundaries of the District nor the duration of the District will be changed. Consequently, the City
does not believe adoption of the Amendment will have an adverse financial impact on the County or the
School District.
A draft copy of the proposed Amendment is enclosed.
You are invited to attend the hearing on this matter and to contact the undersigned for any additional
infonnation you may require.
Sincerely,
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
June 16,2000
Mr, Robert Heman
Independent School District 192
51 0 Walnut Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Re: City of Farmington, Minnesota - Amendment to Tax Increment Financing Plan for Soils
Correction Tax Increment Financing District No. I (East Farmington Project)
Dear Mr, Heman:
On behalf of the City of Farmington, I am sending this letter to notify you that the City Council of the
City of Farmington is holding a public hearing on July 17,2000, at approximately 7 p.m. at the City Hall
of Farmington to consider the 2000 Amendment (the "Amendment") to the Tax Increment Financing Plan
(the "TIF Plan") for Soils Correction Tax Increment Financing District No.1 (the "District").
The District was originally established and the original TIF Plan was approved by the City on November
10, 1994, The District was established to assist in correcting adverse soil conditions in the District by
constructing a drainage waterway (the "Prairie Waterway") and reimbursing the developer for costs
incurred in de-watering, filling and grading property in the District. The purpose of the Amendment is to
authorize the acquisition of additional property by the City to expand the Prairie Waterway and to
authorize the reimbursement of additional developer expenses. However, the budget set forth in the
original TIF Plan will not be increased in the aggregate (though line items will be revised), and neither
the boundaries of the District nor the duration of the District will be changed. Consequently, the City
does not believe adoption of the Amendment will have an adverse financial impact on the County or the
School District.
A draft copy of the proposed Amendment is enclosed.
You are invited to attend the hearing on this matter and to contact the undersigned for any additional
information you may require.
Sincerely,
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA
(Draft 6/12/00)
for
2000 AMENDMENT TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
SOILS CONDITION TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO.1
Approved and Adopted by City: July _' 2000
2000 Amendment to Tax Increment Financing Plan
for
Soils Condition Tax Increment
Financing District No.1
I. Background
A. Formation of District. Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174-469.179
(the "Act"), Soils Condition Tax Increment Financing District No.1 (the "TIF District") was duly created and
the original Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Original TIF Plan") for the TIF District was duly approved by
resolution of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota (the "City"), adopted November 10, 1994.
The original tax capacity of the TIF District was certified by the County Auditor on January 25, 1995.
B. Development Activities. Pursuant to the Original TIF Plan, the City proposed to assist Sienna
Corporation (the "Developer") in the development of approximately 173.5 acres on the east side of the City (the
"Development Project"). The Developer proposed to construct or cause to be constructed up to 426 moderately
priced, single family homes on the property and up to 132 moderately priced, multifamily units. Pursuant to the
Original TIF Plan, the City was authorized to capture the increase in real property taxes on the development
within the TIF District and to use the captured increase in taxes to finance soils correction activities, including
the grading and filling of the property within the TIF District, the construction ofa flood control and drainage
waterway (known as the "Prairie Waterway") within the TIF District to drain the property within the TIF
District and the cost of installing public improvements within the TIF District (and outside the TIF District but
within the Project Area, to the extent permitted by Section 469,1763, Minnesota Statutes) directly caused by
soil deficiencies, and to pay eligible administrative costs.
To date, construction has been completed on approximately 402 units of single family housing and 16 units
of multifamily housing. An additional 68 units of single family housing are expected to be completed by
December 31, 200 I, being the estimated date of the conclusion of the development activities.
The City issued $2,660,000 principal amount of General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1995A,
on January 30, 1995, to finance the costs of the Prairie Waterway. Pursuant to the Original TIF Plan, the City
also agreed to reimburse the Developer up to $1,700,000 to cover costs incurred by the Developer for site
improvements, including costs of obtaining fill, de-watering property, spreading fill, and grading property).
To complete the development activities, it is now desirable for the City to acquire additional property
within the TIF District (described as Outlot S to East Farmington First Addition and Outlot F to East
Farmington Seventh Addition) and to add said property (consisting primarily of a stormwater holding pond) to
the Prairie Waterway owned and maintained by the City. The cost of said property acquisition is $188,500.
Additionally, the Developer has incurred site improvement costs in excess of the costs originally detailed on
Exhibit F to the Original TIF Plan and the City has agreed to increase the amount of reimbursement to the
Developer to an amount not to exceed $1,817,830.
II. Amendments.
To accomplish the foregoing additional development activities, it is necessary to amend Section VI,
Paragraph A, of the Original TIF Plan dealing with the TIF District budget. Said Section VI, Paragraph A, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
2
VI. FINANCING PLAN
A. Budget
1. Public Assistance
The Original TIF Plan anticipated that the City would provide assistance to the
development within the TIF District by paying the costs of constructing the Prairie
Waterway in the TIF District (including related land acquisition, capitalized interest and
bond issuance costs) from the proceeds of general obligation bonds in the aggregate
principal amount not to exceed $3,000,000 issued under the TIF Act, or under other
applicable provisions of Minnesota law, with all or a portion of the debt service being
paid or reimbursed to the City from tax increments realized from the TIF District. In
furtherance of the Original TIF Plan, the City issued its General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 1995A, in the principal amount of $2,660,000 (the "TIF
Bonds"), to finance said costs of constructing the Prairie Waterway. A debt service
schedule for the TIF Bonds is attached to this 2000 Amendment as Exhibit A, It is
anticipated that all principal and interest on said TIF Bonds, aggregating $4,125,451, to
the extent not paid from capitalized interest, will be paid from available tax increment
received from the TIF District.
The Original TIF Plan also anticipated that the City would provide additional assistance
to the Developer for the site improvements (stripping topsoil and spreading fill and de-
watering costs relating to the installation of utility improvements) by reimbursing costs
incurred by the Developer from tax increments remaining after payment of bond debt
service pursuant to a "pay-as-you-go" development contract. The "pay-as-you-go"
contract would contain a limit on the dollar amount to be reimbursed and a limit on the
duration of the contract. At the time of adoption of the Original TIF Plan, the costs
anticipated to be reimbursed to the Developer were set forth on Exhibit F attached to the
Original TIF Plan and aggregated $1,578,000. The Original TIF Plan further anticipated
that the total costs to be reimbursed to the Developer, in any event, would not exceed
$1,700,000, However, in the Original TIF Plan, the City reserved the right to fund all
permissible costs through the issuance of bonds, or pursuant to a "pay-as-you-go"
contract, provided that the aggregate of costs funded did not exceed those budgeted in the
TIF Plan, and the City now proposes to reimburse the Developer for additional site
improvement expenses up to a maximum of $1 ,817,830.
2. Revised Costs
The public costs to be fmanced pursuant to the Original TIF Plan, as amended by this
2000 Amendment, are revised to be as shown below:
Prairie Waterway.
Site Improvements"
Administration
$2,890,170
1,817,830
540,000
Total
$5,248,000
. Includes land acquisition ($405,000 for original land acquisition and $188,500 for
land acquisition as authorized by this 2000 Amendment), construction of waterway
($1,686,670), capitalized interest ($415,000), bond discount and issuance costs
($40,000) and miscellaneous costs ($155,000),
.. Includes stripping of topsoil in TIF District and hauling and spreading of fill and de-
watering costs required preparatory to the installation of public improvements as
shown on Exhibit B to this 2000 Amendment. Additional detail can be found in the
3
Tax Increment Financing Agreement, as amended, executed by the City and the
Developer.
Costs shown in each category may decrease or increase, but the total principal costs to be
assisted with tax increment will not exceed $5,248,000. In addition to the above principal
costs, as noted on Exhibit A hereto, tax increment will also be used to pay the $1,465,451
of interest cost due from time to time on the TIF Bonds (to the extent not paid from
capitalized interest),
The total administrative expense is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, Subd.
3 of the TIF Act and is estimated to be approximately $540,000; in any event,
administrative expenses shall not exceed the lesser of 10% of the total tax increment
expenditures authorized by the Plan or the total tax increment expenditures for the Project
Area.
III. Impact on Taxing Districts
The boundaries and duration of the TIF District will not be changed as a result of the foregoing additional
development activities, and the overall budget of the TIF District will not be increased over the budget set forth
in the Original TIF Plan. For these reasons it is not believed that the foregoing amendment of Section VI of the
Original TIF Plan will have any adverse affect on the taxing districts.
IV. Other Changes.
Other than as set forth above, no other changes are made to the Original TIF Plan.
4
06/15/00 THU 14: 55 FAX 16123402644 DORSEY WHITNEY 141 002
, f-,J..I,.} A
FARMINGTON) MINNESOTA Prepared December 19, 1994
G.O. TAX INCREMENT BONDS, 1995A By SPRINGSTED Incorporated
POST SALE DEBT SERVICE
--
Bond Date: 1/ 1/1995
Sale Date; 12/19/1994
Issue Size: $2,660,000
Annual PaYlllent + 5% Levy
Date Pr1ncipal Rate Interest Total Payment Year
81 1/1995 91,584.79 91 , 584 .79 *
21 1/1996 78,501.25 78,501 .25 .. 170,086.04 178,591 1994
8/ 1/1996 78,501.25 78,501.25*
21 1/1997 78,501.25 78,501 .25'" 157,002.50 164,853 1995
81 1/1997 78,501.25 78,501.25*
21 1/1998 78,501.25 78,501.25 157,002.50 164,853 1996
8/ 1/1998 78,501.25 78,501.25
21 1/1999 78,501.25 78,501.25 157,002.50 164,853 1997
8/ 1/1999 78,501.25 78,501.25
2/ 1/2000 90,000 5.700 78,501.25 168,501.25 247,002.50 259,353 1998
8/ 1/2000 75,936.25 75,936.25
2/ 1/2001 230,000 5.800 75,936.25 305,936.25 381,872.50 400,967 1999 .
8/ 1 /2001 69,266.25 69,266.25
2/ 1/2002 330,000 5.800 69,266.25 399,286.25 468,532.50 491,960 2000
8/ 1/2002 59,696.25 59,696.25
21 1/2003 350,000 5.800 59,696.25 409,696.25 469,392.50 492,863 2001
a/ 1/2003 49,546.25 49,546.25
2/ ~ '2004 375,000 5.850 49,546.25 424,546.25 474,092.50 497,798 2002
8 2004 38,577.50 38,577.50
2/ ,/2005 400,000 5.900 38,577.50 438,577.50 477,155.00 501,013 2003
8/ 1/2005 26,777.50 26,777.50
2/ 1/2006 430,000 6.000 26,777.50 456,777.50 483,555.00 507,733 2004
8/ 1/2006 13,877.50 13,877.50
2/ 1/2007 455,000 6 . 100 13,877.50 468,877.50 482,755.00 506,893 2005
TOTALS $2,660,000 $1,465,451.04 $4,125,451 .04 $4,125,451.04 54,331,730
Discount (plus) $39,777.70
Net Interest Cost 51,505,228.74
* To be paid with capitalized interest
EXHIBIT B
ESTIMATED COSTS TO BE REIMBURSED TO DEVELOPER
Land for Prairie Waterway
Increased grading costs due to soil conditions
Increased sanitary sewer costs due to need for de-watering
Increased water main costs due to need for de-watering
Increased storm sewer costs due to soil conditions
Increased boulevard costs due to need for swales
Increased engineering due to foregoing
Total
5
$150,000
1,019,935
257,425
207,425
150,000
125,000
160.078
2,069,863
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AGREEMENT
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
AGREEMENT ("Second Amendment") is made as of the _ day of July, 2000, by and
between THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA, a statutory city under the laws of
the State of Minnesota (the "City") and SIENNA CORPORATION, a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Developer")
RECITALS
The City and the Developer entered into a Tax Increment Financing Agreement dated
March 28, 1995, as amended October 6, 1997 (the "TIF Agreement") which contemplates the
construction of approximately 426 single family homes and approximately 132 multifamily homes
within the Project Area (as defined in the TIF Agreement) to serve moderate income persons and
families. To solve the soil problems relating to the property upon which such dwellings are being
and have been constructed has required and will require stripping the topsoil, filling the property
with approximately 36 inches offill and constructing a drainage waterway for the area. To finance
a portion of the cost thereof the City created Soils Condition Tax Increment Financing District No.1
(the "TIF District") and agreed to use tax increment generated by the TIF District to pay certain
costs identified in the tax increment financing plan (the "TIF Plan") relating to the Development (as
defined in the TIF Agreement).
The TIF Plan and the TIF Agreement anticipated that the City would provide assistance
to the Developer for the site improvements (stripping topsoil and spreading fill and dewatering
costs relating to the installation of utility improvements) by reimbursing costs incurred by the
Developer from tax increments remaining after payment of bond debt service. The TIF
Agreement limits the dollar amount to be reimbursed to the Developer for site improvements to
$1,500,000.
The Public Costs relating to the soils correction have been higher than anticipated at the
time of execution of the TIF Agreement and adoption of the TIF Plan. In addition, to complete
the development activities, it is now desirable for the City to acquire additional property within
the TIF District (described as Outlot S to East Farmington First Addition and Outlot F to East
Farmington Seventh Addition) (the "Additional Property") and to add the Additional Property
(consisting primarily of a storm water holding pond) to the Prairie Waterway owned and
maintained by the City. The cost of the Additional Property acquisition is $188,500. The
Developer has requested and the City has agreed that the City will increase the maximum
amount it will reimburse the Developer for Public Costs to an amount not to exceed $2,006,330
plus the purchase price of $150,000 already paid to the Developer for the Hed Property. The
City and the Developer desire to amend the TIF Agreement to reflect this change.
The capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings designated in the
TIF Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Section 3.1(c) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(c) The City agrees to reimburse the Developer for the
Developer Public Costs (i) in the principal amount of
$150,000 from the proceeds of the Bonds described in
Section 4.1 (a) hereof, (ii) in the additional principal amount
of $188,500 for the Additional Property at the time of the
acquisition thereof, and (Hi) in the additional principal
amount determined as set forth in Section 3.2 hereof (the
Per Lot DPC) for each single family Lot for which
Developer Improvements are completed (the Developed
Lots) said payments to be made as set forth in Article IV
hereof, but subject to the following terms and conditions.
2. Section 3.1(t) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(t) The sole source of funds available for payment of the City's obligations
under this Section 3.1 hereof (except as the City shall otherwise designate) shall
be the Available Tax Increments and the proceeds of the Bonds to the extent
specified in Section 4. 1 (a) hereof.
3. Section 3.2(a)(vi) shall be amended to read as follows:
(vi) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the total reimbursement to
the Developer for Developer Public Costs for site improvements, to be paid out of
Available Tax Increment shall not exceed the swn of$I,817,830 ($2,156,330 less
$150,000 paid for the Prairie Waterway portion of the Land less $188,500 paid for
the Additional Property) (the estimated Developer Public Costs). Initially, the
maximwn Per Lot DPC shall not exceed $3,884.25 ($1,817,830 divided by 468 (the
current nwnber of Developed Lots estimated by the Developer to be included in the
Development)). At such time as the final nwnber of Developed Lots is determined
by the City and the Developer, the Per Lot DPC shall be recalculated as described
above in this subsection (vi) and the nwnber so obtained shall be the new maximwn
Per Lot DPC for all future Calculation Dates.
4. Exhibit B to the TIF Agreement is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit A attached
hereto.
5. The TIF Note shall be restated or modified to reflect the increased Developer
Public Costs to be reimbursed to Developer.
All terms and conditions of the TIF Agreement and the First Amendment except as
expressly and specifically amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect as if this
Amendment had not occurred. In the event of a conflict between this Amendment and
the TIF Agreement or the First Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Second
Amendment shall govern.
2399104.3 7/11/2000
SiennaIFannington
2
This Second Amendment to TIF Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to
TIF Agreement as of the day first written above,
CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA
SIENNA CORPORATION
By:
By:
Its: Mayor
Its: Vice President
By:
Its: Administrator
2399104.3 7/1lI2000
Sienna/Farmington
3
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
2000, by Rodney D. Hardy, Vice President of Sienna Corporation, a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
2000, by and .
the Mayor and the Administrator respectively, of the City ofFannington, Minnesota, a statutory city
under the laws of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
2399104,3 7/11/2000
SiennalFannington
4
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPER PUBLIC COSTS
Land for Prairie Waterway
Increased cost of grading the Land
due to soil corrections
Increased sanitary sewer costs due
to need for dewatering
Increased water main costs due to
need for dewatering
Increased storm sewer costs due
to soil conditions and excess water
Increased boulevard costs due to need for swales
Increased engineering costs due to foregoing
items
Total
2399104.3 7/ll/2000
SiennaIFarmington
ORIGINAL ESTIMATES ACTUAL COSTS AND
CURRENT ESTIMATES
$150,000
650,000
$338,500
1,019,935
200,000
257,425
150,000
207,425
150,000
150,000
125,000
153.000
125,000
160.078
$1.578.000
$2.258.363,00
5
City of Farmington
325. Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us
TO: Mayor & Councilmembers
FROM: Robin Roland, Acting City Administrator
SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda
DATE: July 17, 2000
It is requested that the July 17, 2000' agenda be amended as follows:
AWARD OF CONTRACT
9 (a) Fire Truck Award - Fire Department
Award the bid for the triple combination pumper truck to Clarey's Safety Equipment at
a cost of $353,957.
9 (b) Authorize Contract - Sidewalk Reconstruction
Council is requested to authorize the expenditure of an additional $6,300 for this year's
sidewalk replacement project and award the contract for sidewalk removal and
replacement to Erickson Construction in the amount of $13,100.
Respectfully submitted,
~RJ
Robin Roland
Acting City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~
Robin Roland, Finance Director
TO:
Fire Truck Award - Fire Department
DATE:
July 17, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Bids for the Fire Pumper Truck were opened on Thursday, June 15. 2000.
DISCUSSION
The City received three bids for the triple combination, 1500 gallon per minute pumper fire truck.
The bidders were Clarey Safety Equipment (Pierce), Emergency One/Metro Fire, and Toyne, Inc.
The lowest bidder who met all the requirements of the bid was Clarey Safety Equipment at a cost
of $345,000, Although it appeared initially that Toyne's bid was less than the Clarey bid, the
analysis of the individual items in each bid led the Fire Department Truck Committee to conclude
that the Toyne vehicle did not meet the minimum standards of the bid specifications.
The truck committee has also recommended that the pumper truck be outfitted with additional
equipment at a total additional cost of $8,957. This equipment includes a cellular phone, two way
radio and vehicle undercoating. With these additional items, total cost of the vehicle is $353,957.
BUDGET IMPACT
The City's adopted 2000 budget included $356,000 for the purchase of the Pumper. Funding for
this item was to be secured by a three year Equipment Certificate. The Equipment Certificate will
be issued at a date closer to actual delivery of the vehicle,
ACTION REQUIRED
Adopt the attached resolution awarding the bid for the triple combination pumper truck to Clarey's
Safety Equipment at a cost of $353,957.
/~~j
Robin Roland
Finance Director
RESOLUTION NO. R -00
AWARD OF BID - FIRE TRUCK, TRIPLE COMBINATION 1500GPM PUMPER
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 17tJt day of July,
2000 at 7 :00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the fire truck, triple combination
1500GPM pumper, the following bids were received:
T oyne, Inc
Clarey Safety Equipment
E-One/Metro Fire
Total Bid
$343,265.00
$345,000.00
$407,305.00
and,
WHEREAS, the bid submitted by Toyne, Inc. does not meet the minimum bid specifications as
required, it appears that Clarey Safety Equipment is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington accept this bid and
order the specified Pierce triple combination, 1500 GPM pumper fire truck from Clarey Safety
Equipment.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session the 17tJt
day of July, 2000.
Mayor
Attested to the _ day of July, 2000
City Administrator
SEAL
M" ""
. " ;,........,Ift..,.
. :t- ....... '.' .~., .............. ,........ '...... ,'.
. . '.. ,-.
,. .. "
.........&.,.....0
, -,' . -"" '.'- - '-'" .'
To:ParmingtonCity .COUnCiI
~ FarrnlQgton.f'ire Department Truck Committee
:CC:~RobinRolland,JohnErar
Date 07/13100
_Fire TTUCkBid
This memo is to serve as dariticationas.toWhytheCommitteereoommendedawarcfingthe
CO(\tract tob\Jttd the. ClUes new fire.. truQ(. to Pierce, rather than Toyne,. who was the awarent low
bidQer.
If a price. wasto:be. associated.wiU\: aU. the items, either not full)! specified or left out atUogether,
Toyne.no .I00geris the lowestbidder.
With thatbeing said, we na.re -supplied. a spread. sheet detailing. alliheitems. that were not
.specified:by 'fayne. Ihiswasrequested :by Mr. Erar, -Now:;arequesl has.beenmadeta .supply.a Jetter
explaining. the reasons. why Toyne was not chosen. The. Committee hopes. tbatttlis..1etter wiltclari.ty.any
.~uestiOIlSonpur~iQn. <ltoot ,~.r:ecpmmE~f1d'.that .a,~tiAg.takeplac.e witt1..aII.~ .~to
wrap.upthislsSlle; ,
Usted below, are the areas 'foyredidnotmeetthe specification:
'1. Toynespecifieda :smaJler;weakerframe; whidl.afteryearsofservicEf.coutd'lesuJLin '-early
failura
2~ Toyne speeifiedHighway Tread. .tires. We'-specified Aggressive Tread tires to aid traction in
ruraI:areas.
3. Toyne does not go into: detail ootheirftJ.rBrake:system.
4. Tqynewiltprov;deQne'PuelFiJterinsteacl:.ofthe Two we asked'for. This.rouJcFeause'fuel ilow
problems.
5. Toyne was vague on4heCooIing'$ystem. They..dici. JlOt:gointo:dErtair-pn;~ or the site
glass,
6. Toyne does not mention a R.emote~oI'Bo~jorlhe'cab tilt as specified.
7 .WeaskaHoraQverheadSwiteh Panel,' Toyne:didnotcomply.
8. Toyne did not include Door Locks orrtheCaO Doors as specified.
.. Page 1
9, Toynewill provide the radios we asked for~' but will not proviQe,installation
.'to. Toynewillno(provicleinstallationof1h&.ceJluIar:tele,phone.
11,. Toyne offers a-siQg1e25000:.BTUheater. White we specified dual 25OOGBTUheaters7
<12. Toyne'does~notprovicledash 'switct1esfor fheHeatedMirrors. WilhnowaytowrrHheseoff,
the heating. elements w\R ootlasl
13.:T.oyrIe]:)lac::esfhe:Jli.II1JPef'$ttJdson-:the~, Thisar.ea :ishan:l to access:jr:)"case <<.battery
failure. .
1.4. Toyne does not.provide storage. ofpikepoteson1he'IadderTacln~S'specified
15. Toyne-doesnot;provide $ten Fittings'oothe-softsuction.
16. Toyne oniyprovides4cy\indertlolders instead:ofthe:8-asked'for. Thisrould.-cause:a'~
dbreaft1ing:airat afire. .
17. Toynewas. vague ~,theDlschargeManifold-onihe1lQmP.
18. . Toyne:has:arl'OiI'Re$ervOir Type priming systemon_-pump.'We:asked:forOi~Less.
19, To.yne was vagueabout1hePumpOperators"Panel.inside1heQ'~'~
20. Toynedidnot ~.a'RearWaterLevelGauge.
21. Toyne doesnotprovideaeheckV8tvein,tt;le:pump-coolertarnd.itfijne'as-specified..
22. 'fayne'does notprovidea Drain'lialv.ein1he:frontJur:J'lPline.T:his-:coukfcauseifeezeqps.jn :the
winter;
23: We specified a 5"diameter,disd1arge-outlet onihe.right'side, Toyt;leprov~s;a4".
24.'WErasked:for'Wateroos(Brass}valveson, 2~..,ancttargerdischarges, 'Toynepmvides'Akron
(Nylon) valves. These nylon valves need.fllllCh more maintenance .thanthebFass vaNe.
25. ToyrJg'.doesnot alIQwforisolatingbatterysystems. anct.doesnol::pi"ov.ideJor,:Digital-8iagrIOStics
of all compo.nenis.
26. 'foyne:doesnorgive:alocatiooior1he:Q2B Siren.
27. Toyne does -not provide Intersection Ligtlts.
28. Toynedoes.notprovideAlleyUghts oothe-ITooHightbar.
29: T o.yne doe not provide Twist 'LockPIugs endOutiets on';theport<:Jblejunctiorrbox.
30, . TcOyne .does not provide a holder for::the- Portable JtI1CtionBox.
31. To.ynedoes not providea!'Do Not Move Apparatus" indicator.
32. Toyneprov:ide-a 5 Year Chassis PaintFiRishWarmnty.E-.Qne-and Pierce proVide a 1:0 'Year
Warranty.
. -Page2
~
~
33; Toyne requires 360 Days to deliver a Finished Apparatus. Pierce requires 1.80. to 210 Days
anclE-One requires 240 Days.
34. Even though Pierces bidinduded,57 areas in which-they 'took exception or provided.
dariflcationinmanyoflhose,areas,Pier:ceexceeded,therequirementsofour:SpeCifiGatiorlS.
.Pa~3
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ciJarmington.mn.us
9b
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator W
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorize Contract - Sidewalk Reconstruction
DATE: July 17,2000
INTRODUCTION
Four quotations were received for the 2000 Sidewalk Replacement Project.
DISCUSSION
Erickson Construction has submitted the lowest quotation for the sidewalk removal and replacement work
proposed for 2000 in the amount of$13,100 (see attached tabulation of quotations).
As part of the sidewalk project this year, the existing sidewalks in the downtown areas were ranked on the
basis of their condition in order to prioritize the projects for the next several years. All sidewalks,
excluding those completely free of cracks or deterioration, received a ranking between one (1) and seven
(7); one (1) being the best with only a hairline crack that is not separated and six (6) and seven (7) being
the worst displaying severe cracking and complete deterioration. The project proposed for 2000 would
address approximately 80% of the sidewalks with a ranking of six (6) and/or seven (7).
The budgeted amount for sidewalk replacement in 2000 is $9,000. Earlier this year, a section of sidewalk
was replaced on Oak Street, east of First Street, as a part of the 2000 sidewalk replacement project. This
area of sidewalk had been ranked in the most deteriorated category and was replaced in connection with
an adjacent project. The cost to replace this section of sidewalk was $2200.
The cost of the proposed project based on the low quote, including the sidewalk replaced earlier this year,
is $15,300. In the interest of facilitating the expeditious replacement of the most deteriorated sidewalks in
the downtown, staff recommends that the budget for this year's sidewalk replacement project be increased
from $9,000 to $15,300,
BUDGET IMPACT
The $9,000 amount budgeted for the sidewalk replacement project is accounted for in the City's Street
division budget. The additional expenditure of $6,300, if authorized by Council, is proposed be funded
50/50 through the Street division's budget and the Road and Bridge fund. The Street division's budget
will include a reallocation in November if necessary, to account for the additional costs.
ACTION REQUESTED
1. Authorize by motion the expenditure of an additional $6,300 for this year's sidewalk replacement
project.
2. Authorize by motion the award of contract for sidewalk removal and replacement to Erickson
Construction in the amount of $13, 1 00.
Respectfully submitted,
~J11~
Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
.....
en
c:
o
c.>
>-
al
~
al
(!)
'0
c:
al
.e
'-
::J
c.>
(j) (p
c~
:::lE(!)
'E
al
E '
al U
c.>.E
~.....
.en
3: c:
...i8
....
(.)
CD
.
e
c..
....
s:::
CD
E
CD
u
cu
-
CD
D::
~
-
;
CD C)
"'C C)
.- C)
UJ ('II
Q ,.:
Q ~
Q ~
N =
..,
.....
en
c:
o al
c.>=
c: '>
o Q)
en~
~ al
.~ ..J
'--
W 0
tV
-'0
o ,-
1-[0
::: ~
c: 'C:
::>Cl.
tV
15:2
1-[0
::: ~
c 'C::
::>Cl.
tV
15:2
1-[0
::: ~
c: .-
::>cl:
tV
-'0
o .-
1-[0
- ~
:Sit
o
o
d
c<>
I!)
aO
"I
~
o
It)
....
....
~
o
o
d
It)
CO
rD
....
~
o
I!)
,...:
~
o
CO
Lri
o
CO
rD
....
~
c:o
~
,...:
~
o
o
ex)
0>
o
ri
....
~
o
0>
Lri
~
'E
al
::J
o
~
o
"I
"I
"I
....
'2
::>
LL
rJ)
E
~
~
tV
~
al
'0
Ci5
$
~
U
c:
o
c.>
~
al
Ci.
al
Cl::
'0
c:
al
al
>
o
E
Q)
Cl::
~
alN
::Jo
c:1!)
all!)
~ c:
c::::lE
,9 C
al,9
WCl
0.5
c:o E
0'-
.... al
"ILL
~
"I
....
c1i:B
>
<( c:
Q):::lE
.~ >.
- al
al=
(!)~
c:o al
0>-
coc.
~c.
....<(
'O~
alN
00
Cl::1!)
.elt)
o c:
~:::lE
15 C
_ 0
0::0,
"1.5
~ E
0> '-
CO al
....LL
~
"I
o
I!)
~I!)
c:
(j):::lE
~ C
- 0
0_
C:OCl
"I c:
o 'e
.... '-
0> al
I"-LL
I!)
"I
c:o
~
c<>
~
....
It)
CO
::tt:
J:
Cl.
"I
c<>
....
l"-
I
"I
c<>
~
I!)
0>
::tt:
J:
Cl.
c<>
c:o
c<>
~
c<>
<D
~
I
"I
....
<D
::tt:
J:
Cl.
I"-
0>
"I
o
.
c<>
<D
<D
I
I"-
o
I!)
::tt:
J:
Cl.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/O~
TO:
Mayor, Council Members,
City Administrator ~
Lee Smick, AICP N ()
Planning Coordinator ~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Murphy Farm Planned Unit Development - EA W Response to
Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision
DATE:
July 17, 2000
INTRODUCTION
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) was prepared for the Murphy Farm Planned
Unit Development (PUD) pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes.
DISCUSSION
The EA W determines the environmental effects that may be associated with a proposed project.
The EA W serves primarily to aid in the determination of whether an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is needed for a proposed project; and serves as a basis to begin the scoping
process for an EIS. The EA W review was triggered for the Murphy Farm PUD because the
project exceeds the threshold of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) standards with the
combination of the 163 detached residential units and 490 attached residential units.
In the EA W process, the EQB assigns the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) in verifying the
accuracy of environmental documents and complying with the environmental review processes in
a timely manner. The RGU for the Murphy Farm PUD is the Farmington City Council.
Therefore, the Record of Decision is approved by the City Council through a resolution.
Three types of decisions could be made concerning the EA W:
I. make a positive declaration, requiring an EIS for the project
2. postpone the decision because of lack of information
3. or make a negative declaration, stating that the project does not have a potential
significant environmental effect that warrants the preparation of an EIS.
After a project has been filed with the Environmental Quality Board, the project is sent to over 20
agencies to review the effects of the project on the environment. The agencies have 30 days to
review the project and make comments concerning how the project might impact the
environment. The comments are then assembled by the RGU after the 30-day comment period
and the RGU has 30 days to respond to the comments.
In the case of the Murphy Farm development, the comment period ended on June 1,2000. Eight
written comments were received by the City concerning the EA Wand those agencies included:
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Historical Society, Dakota County Soil &
Water Conservation District, Dakota County Office of Planning, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Metropolitan Council and the
Vermillion Watershed Management Commission.
Based on the EA W, the response to comments and the Findings of Fact, the Record of Decision
concludes the following:
1, The EA W was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental
Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700 (1997).
2. The EA W satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have
been reasonably obtained,
3, Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, the project does not
have the potential for significant environmental effects,
4. Based on a review of the record prepared in this matter, the City makes a "Negative
Declaration," and
5. An EIS is not required.
6. The City of Farmington is directed to maintain a Record of Decision including the Response
to Comments on the EA W and to notify in writing all persons on the EA W distribution list,
all persons that commented in writing during the 30-day comment period and to any person
upon written request.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt a resolution approving the Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of
Decision for the Murphy Farm PUD.
Respect fUIIY,SUbmitl.ed, ,.02.., '
~ r:4:"--
pC Lt.. =-J.:?/t
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Don Patton, DR Horton
Larry Frank, Arcon Development
Thomas W. Balcom, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Helen A. Boyer, Metropolitan Council
Sharon Anderson, Minnesota Department of Transportation
Brian Watson, Jay Riggs, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
Ed Matthiesen, Montgomery Watson
Lynn Moratzka, Dakota County - Office of Planning
Eric J. Kilberg, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Dennis A. Gimmestad, Minnesota Historical Society
RESOLUTION NO. R -00
DECLARING NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR MURPHY FARM PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
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 17th day of July,
2000 at 7 :00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) was prepared for the Murphy
Farm Planned Unit Development (PUD) according to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
regulations; and,
WHEREAS, notice of the EA W was published in the EQB Monitor on May 1,2000; and,
WHEREAS, copies of the EA W were mailed to all of the agencies and organizations on the
EQB official EA W distribution list; and,
WHEREAS, the thirty-day comment period for the Murphy Farm PUD EAW ended on June 1,
2000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota that findings in the document titled "Findings of Fact Regarding a Need for
Environmental Impact Statement" Murphy Farm PUD, be incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a determination is hereby made that the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project which is the subject of the EA W is not
needed by an application of the following criteria to the factual information contained in the
EAW:
1. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects;
2. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects;
3. The extent to which environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority; and
4. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a
result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the proposer,
or an EIS previously prepared on similar projects.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
17th day of July, 2000.
Mayor
day of
2000.
Attested to the
City Administrator
SEAL
FINDINGS OF FACT/RECORD OF DECISION
PROPOSED MURPHY FARM GROVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA
July 12, 2000
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the development of a 249-acre mixed-density residential
development. The site will include 490 attached residential units, 163 unattached residential
units, and include preserved wetland, parkland, and open space areas
2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION
The City of Farmington is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the proposed Murphy
Farm Planned Unit Development Project, in the City of Farmington. An Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with
the Environmental Review Program of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB).
The EAW was filed with the MEQB and circulated for review and comment to all parties on the
Minnesota Environmental Review Program distribution list. A ANotice of Availability= was
published in the EQB Monitor on May 1, 2000, and a press release was provided to the local
newspaper. The thirty-day public comment period ended May 31, 2000. All comments received
were considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts as a result
of the proposed project. Written comments received on the proposed project are responded to
in the separate Response to Comments,
3. CRITERIA
A. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Impacts
The EAW describes the project and adequately identifies and analyzes the possible
environmental impacts associated with the project. The results of this analysis are that no
irreversible adverse environmental impacts will occur as a result of this project.
B. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects
The proposed project will not result in cumulative environmental effects not already guided
by the City's existing Comprehensive Plan. Future projects or related development are not
associated with the project.
C. Extent to Which Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public
Regulatory Authority
The City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will maintain ongoing authority over the project
as a result of permit applications.
D. Extent to Which Environmental Effects Can Be Anticipated and Controlled as a
Result of Other Environmental Studies
Environmental effects have been predicted and planned for in the City's Surface Water
Management Plan, which was prepared previous to the proposed project. No other
environmental studies have been performed.
4. COMMENTS RECEIVED
Written comments were received from seven agencies on the EAW distribution list, which are listed
below. No comments were received from the general public. Specific responses to agency
comments are contained in the separate Response to Comments document.
A. Minnesota Pollution Control Aaency (MPCA). May 31.2000.
8, Minnesota Historical Society, May 5.2000.
C. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. May 31, 2000.
D. Minnesota Department of Transportation. May 10, 2000.
E. Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. May 30. 2000.
F. Dakota County Office of Plannina, June 1, 2000,
G Metropolitan Council. June 1, 2000.
CONCLUSION
The City of Farmington, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit, makes a negative
declaration, The proposed project does not require the preparation of an environmental impact
statement.
John Erar, City Administrator
City of Farmington
Date
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Murphy Farm PUD Environmental Assessment Worksheet
The City of Farmington here provides the following responses to comments received during the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) comment period for the Murphy Farm
development.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnIDOT)
In their letter of May to, 2000, MnlDOT had no comment since the project does not impact state
highway right-of-way. No substantive response to MnlDOT's comment letter is required.
Minnesota Historical Society (MHS)
The MHS stated in a letter dated May 5, 2000 that there was a good possibility that the Murphy
Farm property might contain unreported archaeological resources and that a survey of the area
should be completed. They also indicated that a determination was needed as to whether an
adjacent cemetery was within the area of potential effect. The requested survey was performed
by HDR Engineering, Inc. and the results described in a report dated June 8, 2000, One side-
notched Raddatz-like projectile point and one prehistoric ceramic sherd were found on the site.
The locations of these finds were found ineligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places due to heavy, recent-historic cultivation which appears to have disturbed any
prehistoric sites that may have been present. No further CRM work was recommended for the
project site, A historic, private cemetery was also investigated and its limits approximately
located. The report indicated that the cemetery appeared to be entirely within an exception
property that is not part of the Murphy Farm project. The report was transmitted to the State
Historic Preservation Office. No requests for further information have been received from the
MHS and cultural resource issues appear to be resolved.
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
In their letter of May 30, the Dakota County SWCD listed a number of concerns. These
concerns are individually itemized below, and are followed by the City's response:
1. EA W Item 8 - Permits and Approvals
The SWCD pointed out that any wetland mitigation banking proposals must be reviewed by the
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) in accordance with WCA
Rules. The City is aware of the WCA mitigation banking procedures and will involve the TEP at
the time a WCA Wetland Replacement Plan is submitted.
The SWCD noted that they do not require erosion and sedimentation control permits. The City
has taken note and will not apply for one,
The SWCD asked that the City and project proposer coordinate closely with the Vermillion
River Watershed Management Commission (VRWMC) to ensure compliance with their draft
watershed management plan. The City and project proposer will coordinate with the VRWMC
to review the draft plan and make any design changes that are found feasible, prudent and
consistent with the City's SWMP.
2, EA W Item 11 - Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
The SWCD indicates that the Middle Creek corridor has the potential to become an important
greenway corridor in Dakota County and that preservation of the existing floodplain and re-
establishment of vegetation along this corridor should be a priority. The City agrees and also
notes that the SWMP identifies Middle Creek as a potential greenway. While the proposed
project may entail a minor amount of filling along the fringe of the Middle Creek floodplain (the
lost storage to be fully mitigated on-site), the overall project is consistent with the SWCD's
suggestion. Natural vegetation in the Middle Creek floodplain will be virtually unaffected by the
Murphy Farm development.
The SWCD has asked for more detailed information regarding tree inventory data and the
character of the existing upland vegetation. No detailed tree survey has been done to date and
the City of Farmington does not have a tree ordinance that would require one. As described in
the EA W, this forested area dominated by American elm and bur oak with an understory of
common buckthorn and prickly ash. Given the invasive species dominating the understory, this
forest stand appears to have been historically grazed. The project has been designed to preserve
about 42 percent of the forested area (see EA W Question 10). Given the topography of the
project site, the City considers this a substantial degree of tree preservation.
The SWCD states that most of the tree loss appears to be due to mass grading, as opposed to road
construction. Mass grading is necessary due to achieve acceptable vertical profiles on roadways
within the site. Substantial cuts and fills are needed in many areas to meet city requirements
with regard to roadway gradients. In addition, the depth of excavation required to install utilities
beneath these roadways contributes to the need for mass grading. Again, given the amount of
grading that is necessary, the City believes that they have already maximized the percentage of
trees being preserved.
3. EA W Item 12 - Physical Impacts on Water Resources
The SWCD acknowledges that 0.49 acre of wetland fill and 0.19 acre of wetland excavation is
proposed.
The SWCD notes that the wetland impact and mitigation information is for planning purposes
and that state and federal wetland permitting processes are independent of the EA W process.
The City is well aware that this is the case and will obtain the necessary permits from the proper
regulatory agencies before any such work is undertaken. Wetland mitigation will be designed in
accordance with the design parameters set forth in the WCA rules (see Minn, Rules 8420.0550)
The SWCD requests that continuous wetland buffers be provided as per the City of Farmington
wetland ordinance. The Dakota SWCD does not itself have buffer requirements. The project
proposer will be retaining unmowed buffers around wetlands that will remain on the site after
construction. These buffers will be of the widths required by the City of Farmington wetland
- ---~~~---,-..,--,~ ~- ~--
ordinance. The SWCD has indicated that it discourages buffer "averaging". As previously
stated, the project design and construction will follow the City of Farmington's ordinance
requirements as they apply to buffer widths. To the degree averaging of buffer widths is allowed
under the ordinance and contributes positively to the design of the project, the proposer may
utilize buffer averaging, City ordinance does not allow buffer averaging around "protect"
wetlands, which includes DNR Wetland #353W. It should be noted that compliance with the
city's buffer ordinance will represent a substantial improvement over existing conditions, No
buffers currently exist and the wetland is subject to direct inputs of untreated agricultural runoff.
The SWCD points out that wetland banking proposals must be reviewed by the WCA Technical
Evaluation Panel (TEP) under the WCA permit process. The City is aware of the mitigation
banking process and will apply for the necessary approvals at the appropriate time.
The SWCD indicates that Public Value Credit (PVC) is not considered an acceptable type of
wetland banking credit since it will not be in demand by the City or the applicant at a future date.
The eligibility of PVC for wetland banking is well established in the WCA rules. To the degree
excess PVC is generated by the Murphy Farm project, the project proposer may deposit those
credits in the state wetland bank if desired,
4. EA W Item 12 - Water-related Land Use Management District
The SWCD indicates that they support the City of Farmington's Standards for Floodway
Permitted Uses in the Floodplain Management Ordinance and discourage activities within the
100-year floodplain of Middle Creek. The Murphy Farm project will neither obstruct nor
adversely affect the capacity of the Middle Creek floodway for conveying water from a regional
or IOO-year flood. The project may require some encroachment on the fringe of the floodplain.
However, any flood storage volume that is lost will be offset by compensatory storage on the
Murphy Farm site. As previously stated, the project will not affect the potential for Middle
Creek becoming a future greenway corridor.
5. EA W Item 16 - Erosion and Sedimentation
The SWCD states that custom grading, as opposed to mass grading, will have stormwater,
wildlife, erosion and sedimentation benefits and that grading slopes steeper than 12-18% is not
recommended, The SWCD also recommends BMPs such as project phasing to minimize
exposed soil, preserving existing vegetation and the use of temporary cover and mulch. The
SWCD states that it will review the proposed erosion and sedimentation controls as preliminary
plats are submitted to determine compliance with NPDES and City requirements. As stated in
the EA W, it is important to note that the project site is currently cultivated on an annual basis
and that there are no erosion and sedimentation control measures in place. The erosion control
measures that will be installed and maintained during and after construction of the Murphy Farm
project will represent a substantial improvement over existing conditions. The City will work
with the Dakota County SWCD during the preliminary plat approval process to ensure that the
erosion and sedimentation concerns of the SWCD are adequately addressed.
6. EA W Item 17 - Water Quantity and Quality
The SWCD further states that since this site will drain to Middle Creek and the Vermillion River
water quality and quantity impacts of this project should be a central consideration. The City
concurs in the SWCD's statement and has accordingly designed the Murphy Farm development
in accordance with the City's SWMP.
The SWCD suggests the use of Low Impact Development (LID) practices as a way to design the
project in a manner that mimics the site's natural hydrologic regime. While the City will
continue to explore methods for further reductions in impervious coverage on the site, an LID
approach would require a major redesign of the project. Also, LID measures are not required
under any of the regulatory programs to which the Murphy Farm project is subject. Some LID
measures (e.g. infiltration basins) continue to be experimental in nature and have exhibited
performance and maintenance problems in the past, particularly in areas with fine-textured soils.
The City believes that they have adequately addressed stormwater quantity and quality issues by
their strict compliance with the design parameters set forth in the SWMP.
7. EA W Item 19 - Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions
The SWCD states that the site's silty soils combined with steep slopes present erosion and
sedimentation problems. For the past several decades, most of the site has been used for
agricultural crop production. As such, no measures for water quality improvement such as
buffers or stormwater ponds are in place. Thus, sediment-bearing stormwater from cropland
moves downslope into DNR Wetland #353W without no treatment or attenuation, The proposed
project would include the construction of six stormwater ponds designed to meet NURP criteria.
This, in combination with the City's wetland buffer requirements, will improve the quality of the
runoff water substantially when compared to the untreated agricultural runoff that has been
generated by the site for decades.
8. EA W Item 30 - Related Actions EIS, Connected & Phased Actions, Alternatives and
Cumulative Impacts
The SWCD suggests that Murphy Farm and other residential developments should be considered
"related" for purposes of environmental review because these developments all drain to Middle
Creek. The EQB Rules provide that "[a]n RGU may prepare a single EIS for independent
projects with potential cumulative environmental impacts on the same geographic area if the
RGU determines that review can be accomplished in a more effective or efficient manner
through a related actions EIS (Minn. Rules 4410.2000 subpart 5; emphasis supplied). As clearly
stated in the EQB rules, RGUs are not required to prepare a related actions EIS. Rather, a related
actions EIS is an option an RGU may utilize if, in its discretion, it believes that it would increase
the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental review. The City of Farmington has already
made the determination that separate EA Ws for the developments referred to by the SWCD will
provide for adequate environmental review. However, the City is in the process of reviewing the
suitability of using the AUAR process for expected future development for other large tracts of
land. While much of the City's study of use of the AUAR process will be based on the outcome
of the Environmental Quality Board's Generic Environmental Impact Statement on urban
development, the City currently plans to use the AUAR process prior to development of the
Genstar Orderly Annexation Area to the northwest of the current City boundary,
The SWCD suggests that, even though combining the projects in the area surrounding Murphy
Farm would "far exceed EIS thresholds", an acceptable alternative approach would be conduct a
detailed assessment of runoff volumes from the Murphy Farm and Vermillion Grove for a
variety of scenarios. First, there is no basis in the EQB rules for combining the Murphy Farm
development with other developments in the area for determining whether EIS thresholds are
met. Murphy Farm is not a "connected action" with respect to any of the other developments in
the area. Murphy Farm does not; (1) directly induce any other projects in the area, (2) is not a
prerequisite for any other project and (3) is fully justified in and of itself (see Minn. Rules
4410.0200 Subpart 9b), Neither is Murphy Farm a "phased action" with respect to any other
neighboring project since none of the other projects are proposed by the same proposer (see
Minn. Rules 4410.0200 Subpart 60). These are the only two bases contained in the EQB rules
for the mandatory combining of projects for purposes of determining whether an EIS threshold is
met.
A detailed assessment of runoff volumes from Murphy Farm has been conducted in developing
the plans for Murphy Farm. The hydrologic investigation prepared by engineers for the project
proposers has already been forwarded to the commenting agencies for review. That hydrologic
analysis is consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the Farmington SWMP;
accordingly, water quantity impacts of the Murphy Farm development have already been
adequately analyzed. Since the project design follows the accepted design parameters set forth
in the approved SWMP, the City sees no purpose in conducting supplemental analyses of other
scenarios that are not elements of the project being proposed. Finally, the SWCD suggests that
the various scenarios they want assessed should be compared to "infrastructure/development
costs and environmental benefits". Once more, there is nothing in the EQB Rules requiring this
type of analysis.
The SWCD correctly observes that the EA W needs to consider "cumulative impacts".
Cumulative are defined as "...the impact on the environment that results from incremental effects
of the project in addition to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects
regardless of what person undertakes the other projects" (Minn. Rules 4410,0200 Subpart 11).
However, in determining the potential for significant environmental effects and the need for an
EIS, the EQB rules do not require an analysis of past or present projects. Rather, the required
analysis of cumulative impacts is limited to "...related or anticipated future projects" (Minn.
Rules 4410.1700 Subpart 7B), As stated above, Murphy Farm has no "related" projects, as that
term is defined in the EQB rules. The only anticipated future project that is near enough
proximity to Murphy Farm to warrant cumulative impact analysis is the Vermillion Grove PUD.
Accordingly, the City is supplying additional information relating to the cumulative effects of the
Murphy Farm and Vermillion Grove developments combined (see Exhibit A attached).
Dakota County Office of Planning
The comments of the Dakota County Office of Planning were transmitted to and received by the
City of Farmington on June 2, 2000, after the closure of the 30-day EA W comment period for
the Murphy Farm development. Notwithstanding, the City offers the following responses.
Dakota County staff concurs with other commenters with regard to the need to assess the
cumulative impacts of the Murphy Farm and Vermillion Grove projects and suggest that this be
done through a related actions EIS or an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). See
response 8 to the Dakota County SWCD as to the need for a related actions EIS or an AUAR.
Dakota County questions the statement that the proposed project is not expected to significantly
alter the quantity or quality of site runoff. The county further indicates that the additional
impervious surface being placed on the Murphy Farm site will generate a potentially significant
change in the quantity of site runoff. The City concurs that the statement in the EA W requires
clarification. Replacing pervious surfaces with impervious ones will invariably increase the
quantity of runoff being generated per unit area. However, the stormwater management
measures that have been incorporated into the Murphy Farm project will control the rate at which
additional runoff will be discharged from the site to downstream receiving waters. The rate
control and water quality treatment features of the multiple stormwater ponds associated with the
Murphy Farm project have been designed to prevent adverse water quantity and quality impacts
that might otherwise result from the increase in impervious surface coverage associated with the
project.
Dakota County indicates that stormwater ponds should be designed to protect groundwater as
well as surface water. They indicate that some areas of the county exist where natural infiltration
of groundwater would not be recommended due to the danger of groundwater contamination.
The project proposer will design the stormwater ponds on the Murphy Farm site in accordance
with the design parameters set forth in the Farmington SWMP. To the degree the SWMP
requires ponds to be lined, the project proposer will comply. We are not aware of any data to
suggest that the project site lies in an area where natural infiltration of surface water would be
discouraged. To the contrary, the comments of the Dakota SWCD clearly indicate that
maximizing infiltration is considered desirable in this area.
Dakota County indicates that the northeast corner of the project site is designated "natural open
space" on the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan and that residential development in this area
makes the project inconsistent with that plan. The open space referred to is DNR Wetland
#353W. This wetland is being preserved and the peninsula within it is being dedicated to the
City as parkland. Accordingly, the City believes that there is no inconsistency in this area.
Dakota County correctly notes that the southern part of the proposed PUD is not within the
current MUSA but is proposed to be within the future MUSA. The portions of the project that
are in the future MUSA will not be initiated until the appropriate MUSA expansion occurs. One
exception is a 5.9-acre area at the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and 203rd Street, which is
proposed for immediate MUSA expansion. Given the minor nature of this addition, the project
proposer is working with the City of Farmington and the Metropolitan Council to determine if
this change can be done administratively.
The county questions what the City of Farmington will do if the floodplain study it is currently
conducting concludes that the current FEMA boundary is correct. It questions whether the city
will require the removal from the plans structures that are proposed within what is currently
designated as floodplain. The City will deal with this issue once the results of the floodplain
study are in. The EA W was prepared using what the City believes are reasonable assumptions
with regard to potential future changes to the floodplain boundary. If the results of the study
ultimately require a reduction in dwelling units, the potential impacts of the Murphy Farm
project would be reduced. Thus, the assumptions used in the EA W are conservative and
additional environmental review should be unnecessary, The details of floodplain impacts and
compensatory mitigation will be addressed through the city's subsequent permitting process.
The county indicates that the amount of grading being proposed does not represent "sensitive site
design" and that it contravenes Dakota County Comprehensive Plan 2020 Policy C4.1, which
supports efforts to minimize disturbance to natural grades and vegetation and encourages use of
existing topography for natural drainage and infiltration...". This comment is addressed in
response 2 and 5 to the Dakota SWCD.
Dakota County notes that access points to CSAH 31 and right-of-way dedication are subject to
approval by the Dakota County Plat Commission. The need for county approval of road access
was noted in Table 1.0 of the EA W.
The county supports the 203rd Street corridor as depicted in the concept plan and suggests that
the city consider altering its design to remove individual residential driveways. Such a design
alteration would require a shift in the roadway alignment either to the north or south. Such
alignment shifts would result in increased impacts to trees and/or wetlands, Given that 203rd
Street will be a minor collector street, the City does not believe that such a re-design is
warranted.
The county indicates that it is unable to assess the full impact of the Murphy Farm development
and other adjacent developments on transportation systems by reviewing this EA W in isolation
and suggests that it would be assisted by the preparation of an AUAR. The traffic analyses
contained in the EA Ws for each project in the area include in their assumptions trip generation
and distribution projections based on full development of the area. Also, the assumptions used in
the Murphy Farm EA W as to trip generation were more conservative tha those contained in the
Dakota County's County-wide Traffic Forecast Model. The City submits that the preparation of
an AUAR would not change the results of the traffic analysis contained in the Murphy Farm
EAW.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
In their letter of May 31, the Department of Natural Resources listed a number of concerns.
These concerns are individually itemized below, and are followed by the City's response:
1. Cumulative Impacts
See response number 8 to Dakota County SWCD,
2. Outlet for Minnesota Public Water Wetland #353W
An outlet for DNR wetland #353W will be provided as part of the Murphy.Farm project. The
SWMP dictates the size and invert for this outlet. In arriving at these parameters, the City of
Farmington considered the runoff anticipated from full development of this wetland's catchment,
which includes both the Murphy Farm and Vermillion Grove project sites, The City
acknowledges that a DNR public waters permit will be required for the installation of this outlet.
The DNR indicates that the Murphy Farm EA W inadequately addresses how the project affects
Middle Creek and indicates that Item 17 in the EA W does not identify Middle Creek as receiving
runoff from the development. The City acknowledges that Item 17 did not state Middle Creek to
be the receiving water for site stormwater but would point out that references to Middle Creek in
several other portions of the EA W make it apparent that this is the case.
3, Trout Stream Issues
The DNR incorrectly states that Middle Creek is a designated trout stream. Further, it
incorrectly states that the reach of the Vermillion River into which Middle Creek flows is a
designated trout stream. None of the stormwater runoff being generated on the Murphy Farm
project will be discharged into or conveyed by designated trout streams. Accordingly, there was
no reason to include an analysis of trout stream issues in the EA W.
At the joint City-agency-developer meeting held at Farmington City Hall on June 1, 2000,
representatives of the City and project proposer asked DNR representatives to provide the
agency's stocking records for Middle Creek and the Vermillion River. Those records have
recently been provided, and show that the Vermillion River is annually stocked by DNR and/or
the Southern Dakota County Sportsman's Club. The stocking point is believed to be Rambling
River Park, which is upstream from the river's confluence with Middle Creek.
The DNR offers no irrefutable data to demonstrate that Middle Creek "...exhibits a good quality
trout fishery" or that it consistently maintains"., .relatively cool water temperatures." Also, no
data have been presented to indicate that Middle Creek supports a reproducing trout population
or that the stream was ever a trout stream in its native state.
It appears that the above-described characterization of Middle Creek as a "good quality trout
fishery" is based solely on anecdotal comments from anglers that trout have been caught in the
creek. Such comments are, however, inadequate evidence to differentiate between a stream
where trout are surviving from year-to-year versus exploratory migration when conditions
temporarily suit their survival. No shocking surveys of Middle Creek have been done to date to
verify that trout are surviving there from year-to-year. The first shocking survey of Middle
Creek is scheduled for the fall of 2000 (Jason Moeckel, DNR Metro Trout Stream Coordinator,
pers. comm.). There has been no suggestion by DNR that Middle Creek contains suitable trout
spawning habitat or that trout are actually reproducing in the stream. In essence, to the degree a
trout resource is found in Middle Creek, it is the product of continuous stocking efforts by the
DNR and others.
The City concurs that the management and expansion of trout resources in the metro area are
appropriate and laudable objectives. However, the appropriate way for such objectives to be
accomplished in developing areas is for the DNR to work cooperatively with the applicable local
unit of government to establish appropriate local controls before development is imminent. In
that way, prospective project proposers would have advance notice of concrete standards for
designing their projects to avoid conflicts with those objectives. Conversely, attempting to effect
the modification of projects after they have been designed in full compliance with applicable
local controls is neither an effective nor an appropriate way to further these objectives.
It has been clear for a number of years that Farmington is a developing community and the DNR
has been cognizant of development-related trout stream issues since at least 1995 (when the
EA W for the Prairie Waterway was done). The City's SWMP was prepared and adopted in 1997
and expressly indicates that the protection of trout stream resources is an element of the plan and
has developed required project design parameters to prevent adverse impacts to those resources.
To date, the DNR has not requested any changes to the SWMP. In the case of Murphy Farm, the
project complies with all of the local controls that apply to the project and with the design
parameters dictated by the SWMP, Accordingly, the City believes that additional analysis of
trout stream issues is not warranted within the context of the environmental review process for
Murphy Farm.
4. Mass Grading
See response 5 to the Dakota SWCD.
5 , Woodland Resources
See response 2 to the Dakota SWCD.
6. Cumulative Impacts and Related Actions EIS
See response 8 to the Dakota SWCD.
7. Use of the AUAR process
The City recognizes the potential benefits that the AUAR process can afford with regard to the
comprehensive consideration of potential environmental impacts in a geographically defined
area. However, use of the AUAR process is optional and would be at the discretion of the City
of Farmington as RGU. The City of Farmington made the determination at the outset of the
environmental review process for Murphy Farm and Vermillion Grove that separate EA Ws
would provide adequate impact analysis for each project. However, the City is in the process of
reviewing the suitability of using the AUAR process for expected future development for other
large tracts ofland. While much of the City's study of use of the AUAR process will be based
on the outcome of the Environmental Quality Board's Generic Environmental Impact Statement
on urban development, the City currently plans to use the AUAR process prior to development of
the Genstar Orderly Annexation Area to the northeast of the current City boundary,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
In their letter of May 31, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency listed a number of concerns.
These concerns are individually itemized below, and are followed by the City's response:
1. Stormwater Impacts
The MPCA expresses their concern over potential adverse impacts to DNR wetland #353 W. As
called for in the SWMP, an outlet for DNR wetland #353W will be provided as part of the
Murphy Farm development. This outlet will protect the wetland from unacceptable water level
fluctuations, The wetland and water body classification system described in the SWMP
designates DNR wetland #353W as a "Protect" basin. The respective water quality and quality
protection strategies for such basins are; (1) to maintain HWL bounce at or below existing
conditions for a 100-year storm and (2) limit phosphorus loadings, The size (12 inches) and
invert elevation (908 msl) of this outlet have been defined by the SWMP and have been set to
limit the water level fluctuation in this wetland to 1.5 feet in a 100-year storm (i,e. 909.5 msl).
This represents the pre-development condition. The management regime the SWMP dictates for
DNR wetland #353W is oriented specifically toward minimizing water quantity and quality
impacts to this wetland. In all cases, Murphy Farm will meet or exceed the standards set forth in
the SWMP with regard to this wetland.
The MPCA further states its concern over water quality and quantity impacts to Middle Creek,
North Creek and the Vermillion River. No portion of the project drains to North Creek. The
Murphy Farm project has been designed to comply with the SWMP in order to protect Middle
Creek and the Vermillion River from adverse water quantity and quality impacts.
The MPCA suggests the use of Low Impact Development (LID) practices. See response 6 to the
Dakota SWCD.
2. Cumulative Impacts
See response number 8 to Dakota County SWCD.
Metropolitan Council
The Metropolitan Council, in their letter of June 1, 2000, indicated that the EA W was complete
and accurate with respect to regional concerns and that neither raises major issues of consistency
with Metropolitan Council policies. They indicated that no EIS should be required for the
Murphy Farm PUD.
The Metropolitan Council submitted specific comments regarding the following issues:
1. Cover Types and Impervious Surface
See response 6 to Dakota SWCD.
2. Impacts on Water Resources
See response 3 to Dakota SWCD.
3. Erosion and Sedimentation
See responses 5 and 6 to Dakota SWCD.
EXHIBIT A
CUMULATIVE IMPACT SUMMARY
VERMILLION GROVE pun & MURPHY FARM pun
FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA
This summary is provided to address the potential cumulative environmental impacts of
the Vermillion Grove and Murphy Farm PUDs in Farmington, Minnesota.
Land Use
Both the Vermillion Grove and Murphy Farm projects will convert agricultural land to
residential use. The areas affected by these projects have been zoned and guided by the
City of Farmington's Comprehensive Plan for such use. Accordingly, the land use
impacts of these projects have been anticipated and planned for by the City of
Farmington. The Metropolitan Council has reviewed the EA Ws for each project and
concluded that both documents are complete and accurate with respect to regional
concerns and that neither raises major issues of consistency with Metropolitan Council
policies.
Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
No threatened, endangered or special concern species will be affected by either project.
Both projects involve the conversion of farmland and woodland habitats to residential
use. Common farmland wildlife species inhabit both parcels. Habitat conversion is
expected to reduce the populations and/or diversity of some species in favor of other
species that are adapted to suburban land uses.
No fisheries habitat will be eliminated due to either of the projects. Both projects drain to
Middle Creek, which is a tributary of the Vermillion River. Middle Creek is described in
the City of Farmington Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) as a warm water
fishery. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has not designated either
Middle Creek or the reach of the Vermillion River it drains to as trout stream.
Physical Impacts of Water Resources
A total of 0.49 acre of partially to effectively drained wetland will be filled for the
Murphy Farm project. The jurisdictional status of this wetland is questionable due to the
presence of a drainage ditch through the basin. Compensatory mitigation is being
provided on-site. The Vermillion Grove project will not result in the filling of any
jurisdictional wetlands. Accordingly, the cumulative wetland fill associated with the two
projects is 0.49 acre. The Murphy Farm project will include an outlet structure for DNR
Wetland #353W in accordance with the City of Farmington Surface Water Management
Plan (SWMP). The size and invert of this outlet has been established by the city so as to
maintain water level fluctuations at pre-development levels. A DNR permit will be
required for this outlet as part of the Murphy Farm project.
Cumulative Impact Summary
Vermillion Grove and Murphy Farm PUDs
Farmington, Minnesota
Page 2
Water Use
Both projects will be connected to City of Farmington water servIce and adequate
capacity is available on the system to supply both projects.
Erosion and Sedimentation
Both projects have been designed to meet the erosion and sedimentation control
requirements of the City of Farmington and the policies of the Vermillion River Water
Management Commission (VR WMC).
Water Quality, Surface Water Runoff
The water body receiving stormwater discharges from the Vermillion Grove and Murphy
Farm project sites is DNR wetland #353W, which is classified as "Protect" under the
SWMP and the Farmington wetland protection ordinance. Under existing (pre-
development) conditions, this wetland is subject to significant inputs of sediment,
nutrients and agricultural chemicals due to the surrounding cultivated land use and lack
of stormwater treatment measures. Wetland #353W currently receives no protection
through vegetated buffers, stormwater treatment ponds or Best Management Practices
(BMPs), all of which are required to be implemented as a part of the proposed residential
developments. The stormwater management designs of both the Vermillion Grove and
Murphy Farm PUDs have been developed to substantially improve existing conditions
and will fully comply with the requirements of the City of Farmington SWMP. Given the
wetland's classification, the SWMP strictly limits phosphorus loadings and water level
fluctuations that would result from upgradient development. Given that these two
projects will fully comply with these strict requirements, the cumulative water quantity
and quality impacts of the two projects on DNR wetland #353W are expected to be
positive rather than adverse.
With the installation of an outlet on DNR wetland #353W, surface water from the two
projects will be discharged into Middle Creek and ultimately into the Vermillion River.
Like DNR wetland #353W, the affected reaches of these streams are currently
unprotected from water quality and sedimentation impacts from surrounding agricultural
uses. Surface water emanating from impervious surfaces on the two project sites will be
ponded in NURP ponds prior to release to DNR wetland #353W and ultimately to Middle
Creek. The characteristics of the outlet from DNR wetland #353W to Middle Creek that
are specified in the SWMP have been developed by the city based on modeling of both
the quantity and quality of the surface water to be discharged downstream. Accordingly,
the cumulative impacts of the two projects on the hydrology and water quality have
already been addressed in the SWMP.
Cumulative Impact Summary
Vermillion Grove and Murphy Farm PUDs
Farmington, Minnesota
Page 3
Water Quality Wastewaters
Both projects will be served by Farmington's municipal sanitary sewer system. Adequate
capacity exists on the system to serve both projects.
Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions
Neither project site encompasses any known geologic hazards. Erodible soils on both
sites will be addressed through the measures described in the EA Ws and to be included in
the erosion control plans for the projects (which are subject to review and approval by the
city and other agencies).
Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes and Storage Tanks
Phase I Environmental Assessments for the two projects identified no potential
contamination or other environmental conditions that warrant additional investigation or
remediation.
Traffic
The traffic analyses for Vermillion Grove or Murphy Farm identified specific design
recommendations for roadways and intersections serving the two sites. No traffic
movement conflicts or capacity problems were identified that will not be addressed by
plans contained in the City-proposed Aitkin Road Improvements plan. Each traffic
analysis used 2020 traffic volume projections, thereby anticipating future development in
the area in its assumptions.
Vehicle-Related and Stationary Source Air Emissions
Due to the relatively low trip generation associated with the two projects and the absence
of roadway and intersection capacity problems, no vehicle-related air quality problems
are anticipated. No significant stationary sources of air emissions will exist on either site.
Odors, Noise and Dust
Due to the relatively low trip generation associated with the two projects and the absence
of roadway and intersection capacity problems, no traffic noise problems are anticipated.
The projects will both generate construction noise and dust from earth-moving machinery
but these effects will be temporary and controlled by proper muffling of equipment and
standard dust control measures. No odor producing land uses are planned for either site.
Cumulative Impact Summary
Vermillion Grove and Murphy Farm PUDs
Farmington, Minnesota
Page 4
Nearby Resources
The peninsula on the Murphy Farm site between the lobes of DNR wetland #353W was
identified as a site of potential cultural significance. This peninsula will not be developed
and will be dedicated to the City of Farmington for its long-term protection. The upper
reach of the Vermillion River is a DNR-designated trout stream. However, this reach lies
entirely upstream from the point where stormwater from the two projects will discharge
into the river.
Visual Impacts
The two projects are not expected to have adverse impacts to scenic views or vistas,
either individually or cumulatively.
Infrastructure and Public Services
Adequate infrastructure and public services are in place to serve the cumulative demand
of the Vermillion Grove and Murphy Farm PUDs.
~IE&~
\!.~}
01' no"
Minnesota Depah,fient of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
May 10, 2000
li~lS 1015 U IV gin'
ml MAYI2am ~
City of Farmington
Attn: Lee Smick
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota 55024
Dear Lee Smick:
The Metro Division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the Murphy Farm PUD. We have determined
that this development will not affect the State Transportation System and appreciate the
opportunity to comment.
This letter represents the transportation concerns of MnJDOT Metro Division. Other
environmental concerns raised by a wider MnJDOT review may be forwarded to you in a
separate letter. Please contact me at (651) 582-1468 with any questions.
Sincerely,
c::5h0tAC/Y\ cAn~
Sharon Anderson
Transportation Planner / Local Government Liaison
Cc: Gerald Larson - MnJDOT Environmental Services
An equal opportunity employer
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
,;: ';n\' qlt!lqO~J~"E' ''''A' L
-' I"'.......' '6 r...~. ~ ", I'IV' J'I f.1
: ~ 1 t
i.'..... ,I
~~ B 20(1) W~
,~~ :;,,#I,~,,:-,",., t<.. il ,., r.;:3
"~.' :::; 11 ',',j Ii=' "
G tSu1!1L':J
STATE HISTORIC PREsERVATION OFFICE
MAY
May 5, 2000
~ !-',
nd
uU
Mr. Michael Graham
Peterson Environmental Consulting
1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100
Mendota Heights. MN 55120-1112
RE: Murphy Farm Property
Farmington, Dakota County
SHPO Number: 2000-0171
Dear Mr. Graham:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the
responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and
the Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800), and to the responsibilities given the
Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act.
'Ve,have the following comments:
1. We believe that there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties might be
present in the project area. Therefore, we recommend that a survey of the area be completed. The
survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and
Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are
identified. For your information, we have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest
in undertaking such surveys.
If the project area can be documented as previously disturbed or previously surveyed, we will re-
evaluate the need for survey. Previously disturbed areas are those where the naturally occurring post-
glacial soils and sediments have been recently removed. Any previous survey work must meet
contemporary standards.
2. We do not believe that any of the farm buildings in the project area need further evaluation for
historical significance. However, whether the adjacent cemetery lies with in the area of potential effect
or not is not clear. If it does, it will need to be evaluated. In making this determination, the definition of
effect in 36CFR 800 will need to be considered.
If you have any questions on our review of this project, please contact me at (651) 296-5462.
Sincerely, '"
t>~i.-b&~
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
'1)'
Enclosure: List of Consultants
345 KELLOGG BOULEV~~RD WEST / SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102-1906 / TELEPHONE: 651-290-6126
DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center
4100 220th Street West, Suite 102
Farmington, MN 55024
Phone: (651) 480-7777 FAX: (651) 480-7775
May 30, 2000
Ref.: 00-FRM-037
Ms. Lee Smick
City Planner
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EA W) REVIEW FOR MURPHY
FARM P.D.D.
Dear Lee:
This letter is in response to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) completed for the above-
referenced project which was submitted to our office for review and comment. The proposed
development entails 653 mixed-residential units on 250 acres in Farmington. Many of our comments
regarding this proposed project correspond to those submitted for the Vermillion Grove EA W, but there
are additional issues with this EAW (wetland fill, Middle Creek floodplain, and others). The following
comments are submitted for your consideration:
Item 8: Permits and Approvals Required
1, Any wetland banking proposals must be reviewed by the Technical Evaluation Panel under a separate
wetland permit process and in accordance with Chapter 8420 ofWCA rule.
2. Table 1.0 notes an "erosion and sedimentation control permit" from the Dakota SWCD. The Dakota
SWCD reviews site plans and conducts site inspections for the City, but no such permit requirement
exists.
3. While the Vermillion River Watershed Management Organization does not have direct regulatory
authority, the District recommends the City and project proposer coordinate closely with the WMO to
ensure compliance with the WMO's draft watershed management plan.
Item 11: Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
1. The Middle Creek corridor has the potential to become an important greenway corridor in Dakota
County. Preservation of the existing floodplain and re-establishment of vegetation along this corridor
should be a priority.
2. Has an inventory been conducted to determine the number, size, and species of trees that will be lost
during site alterations? We cannot adequately assess the actual impacts to fish, wildlife, and
ecologically sensitive resources without a more detailed assessment of the upland vegetation on the
site.
3. The EA W states "tree impacts have been minimized through the use of curb and gutter design instead
of rural section." It appears most of the tree loss is because of mass grading. See Item 16 below for
suggested alternatives to mass grading this area to minimize tree loss and protect natural features on
the site.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNllY EMPLOYER
Murphy Farm EA W Comments
OO-FRM-037
2
Item 12: Physical Impacts on Water Resources
1. The EA W states 0.49 acre of wetland fill and 0.11 acre of wetland excavation is proposed.
2. The EA W does not provide any design specifications on the wetland replacement. This information,
as well as the information on the overall need to fill any wetlands within the project site will be
forthcoming in subsequent permit applications. Please be aware that the wetland impact and wetland
mitigation information provided in the EA W is for preliminary planning purposes and the State and
Federal wetland regulations will need to be conducted independently of the EA W process.
3. Continuous wetland buffers should be protected per the City's wetland ordinance. The Dakota
SWCD strongly discourages the use of "buffer averaging" when determining compliance with the
wetland ordinance as it defeats the goals of the plan. A contiguous buffer around the entire perimeter
of this high quality wetland system is one of the most effective method to minimize short and 10ng-
term adverse impacts of the proposed development to the wetland. Buffer averaging severely
diminishes the effects of buffers as an entire wetland can be impaired by runoff from one non-
buffered area.
4. Any wetland banking proposals must be reviewed by the Technical Evaluation Panel under a separate
wetland permit process and in accordance with Chapter 8420 of WCA rule.
5. Public Value Credit is not considered to be an acceptable type of wetland banking credit since it will
not be in demand by the City or applicant at a future date.
6. See below for suggestions that would reduce the likelihood of indirect, downstream impacts.
Item 12: Water-related Land Use Management District
The EA W suggests fill will be placed within the 100-yr floodplain identified in the City of Farmington's
Surface Water Management Plan. The Dakota SWCD supports the City's Standards for Floodway
Permitted Uses in the Floodplain Management Ordinance, Section 10-1O-4.B.2, which state "The use
shall not obstruct flood flows or increase flood elevations and shall not involve structures, fill,
obstructions, excavations, or storage of materials or equipment." The floodway is defined as the
watercourse and adjoining floodplain necessary to convey the regional, or 100-yr, flood. Further, the
Vermillion River Watershed Management Plan discourages fill within floodplain.
The floodplain also serves as a greenway corridor along Middle Creek and should be protected for this
purpose as well.
Accordingly, the Dakota SWCD strongly discourages any activities within the 100-yr floodplain.
Item 16: Erosion and Sedimentation
.
1. Mass grading is proposed for much of the site. Custom grading portions of the site, especially those
within wooded areas, near wetlands, and above steep slopes, will greatly reduce construction-related
erosion and sedimentation. Reducing the amount of grading will also have tremendous stormwater
(see below) and wildlife benefits.
2. Avoid grading slopes steeper than 12-18% (recommendations varies depending on soil types and
existing vegetation).
3. In addition to standard erosion and sediment controls, the following BMPs are critical:
a) Project phasing to minimize exposed soil.
b) Preserve existing vegetation, especially adjacent to wetland resources and within natural
drainageways.
c) Use temporary cover extensively and regularly. Seed and mulch exposed areas that will be
exposed and idle for more than a week. Repeat as necessary.
4. The District anticipates reviewing the proposed erosion and sedimentation controls as the preliminary
plats are submitted to determine compliance with NPDES and City requirements. Because of the
Murphy Farm EA W Comments
OO-FRM-037
3
sites proximity to Middle Creek of the Vermillion River, effective BMP selection, proper installation,
and ongoing maintenance will be critical to protecting water quality during and after construction.
Item 17: Water Quality and Quantity - Surface Water Runoff
1. Because the drains to Middle Creek of the Vermillion River and downstream streambank scour and
flooding concerns have been well documented, minimizing the long-term water quantity and quality
impacts of this development should be a central design consideration.
2. Accordingly, the SWCD recommends the use oflow impact development (LID) practices such as
impervious area reduction, infiltration BMPs, maintaining natural drainage courses, reducing clearing
and grading, and bioretention/infiltration. LID can achieve stormwater control through the creation of
a hydrologically functional landscape that mimics the natural hydrologic regime (LID Design
Strategies, Prince George's County, MD, January 2000).
Minimizing the post-development curve number (to reduce runoff volume) and maximizing time of
concentration (to reduce peak discharge rates) are critical design elements in the LID approach. This
can be achieved by providing runoff storage measures dispersed uniformly throughout the site's
landscape with the use of a variety of detention, retention, and runoff practices.
The Dakota SWCD may be able to provide financial incentives to support incorporation of LID
concepts into the development plans.
Item 19: Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions
High silt contents of the site's soils and steep slopes create conditions conducive to severe erosion and
sedimentation. See comments above regarding erosion and sedimentation control.
Item 30: Cumulative Impacts
As stated in the EAW, MN Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B, the RGU must consider the
"cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects." This does not require the projects
be submitted by the same proposer to be considered "related or anticipated." Adjacent residential
developments that ultimately drain to the same tributary (i.e. Middle Creek of the Vermillion River),
should be considered "related." Combining Vermillion Grove, Murphy Farm, and Charleswood (not to
mention other nearby ongoing and proposed developments such as Autumn Glen and Riverbend), create a
scenario that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The cumulative impacts of
these and other proposed developments that drain to the Vermillion River justify completing additional
review and, more importantly, implementing innovative stormwater management practices and design
approaches to minimize the short and long term adverse impacts of these land alterations.
Even though combining these projects far exceeds EIS thresholds, the Dakota SWCD prefers an
alternative approach. We suggest conducting a detailed assessment to determine runoff volumes from
two of the proposed developments (Vermillion Grove and Murphy Farm) for a variety of scenarios -
including scenarios that fully embrace the LID approach. The results of these scenario assessments
should then be compared to infrastructure/development costs and environmental benefits. Lastly, the
aesthetic, environmental, and wildlife benefits should be included in the final assessment to determine
what practices and designs should be pursued.
The Dakota SWCD offers to assist in this effort, including but not limited to providing potential cost-
share funds for the hydrologic analysis. We may also be able to provide cost-share for implementation
and monitoring of LID concepts.
Murphy Farm EA W Comments
OO-FRM-037
4
If you should have any questions or comments regarding this letter, you can reach either of us at (651)
480-7777 .
Sincerely,
C/C>~
h Ri~gS
Urban Conservationist
o r\ 0vY"'\ W oJ-"20Cl L UL ')
Brian Watson
District Manager
cc: Suzanne Savanick, SWCD Supervisor District II
Gerry Stelzel, Vermillion River WMO
Jay Michels, MPCA
Judy Sventek, Met Council
Pat Lynch, MDNR
Lisa Ring and Kurt Chatfield, Dakota County Office of Planning
Office of Planning
Lynn Moratzka.AICP
Director
Dakota County
Western Service Center
14955 Galaxie Avenue
Apple Valley, MN 55124
612.891.7030
Fax 612.891.7031
www.co.dakota.mn.us
()
Printed on recycled paper
with 30% post-consumer waste.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY' EMPlOYER
~4~
Ifff
June 1, 2000
Ms. Lee Smick
City Planner
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheets for the Vermillion Grove and Murphy
Farm PUDs
Dear Ms. Smick:
Dakota County staff appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the
proposed planned unit developments (PUDs) referenced above.
Dakota County staff offers the following comment regarding the Vermillion Grove
and Murphy Farm PUDs:
Overall, County staff agree with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's
assessment that the potential cumulative environmental effects of these two
developments, along with the other developments in this area, should be studied
further through either a related-actions Environmental Impact Statement or an
Alternative Urban Areawide Review. Dakota County staff also agrees with the
comments made by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District regarding stormwater run-
off, wetland impacts, and erosion control. In addition, County staff is also
concerned about groundwater protection, and refers city staff to the water quality
comments (No.1 beginning below) for the Murphy Farm PUD.
Dakota County staff offers the following suggested changes and comments
regarding the Murphy Farm PUD:
1. Page 17, Item 17 - Water Quality, first paragraph: The EAW states that the
"proposed project is not expected to significantly alter the quantity or quality of
site run-off." County staff believes that an alteration from 0.1 acres of
impervious surfaces to 55.6 acres constitutes a potentially significant change in
the quantity of site run-off. If the amount of site run-off will not change
significantly because of the proposed stormwater ponds, then this should be
stated as the reason why. The statement alone, begs the question, and without
an explanation would seem to be untrue.
Whereas the proposed stormwater ponds could help "protect receiving waters
from (the typical suburban residential chemicals in the site) run-off," the other
concern in this area of the County is the fact that this is a "High" (weeks to
years) geologic sensitivity area. In addition to protecting receiving waters, the
stormwater ponds should be constructed to protect groundwater from possible
danger of contamination. On page 18, a statement is made that the "final design
and construction standards (of the stormwater ponds) will conform to the City of
Farmington's requirements." The final design should also take into
consideration the protection of groundwater. There are some areas in the
County where natural infiltration of surface water would not be recommended,
because of the danger of groundwater contamination. Is this one of those
areas, and if not, how was that conclusion reached?
2. Natural Open Space Impacts: The northeast corner of the proposed PUD
contains "natural open space" as shown dn District 3 Central Map 3.5 in the
City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. All of this designated natural open space area
would be lost to residential development. This appears to be inconsistent with
the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
3. MUSA Staging and Current MUSA: Map 4.1, in the 2020 MUSA Staging Plan,
shows that the southern part of the proposed PUD is not in the current MUSA,
but is proposed to be in the future MUSA. Table 4.1, in the 2020 MUSA Staging
Plan, in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan shows that 60 acres of medium
density residential used will be allowed between 2000-2005. The proposed
PUD includes 490 attached units on 72 acres. This appears to be inconsistent
with the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
4. Floodplain: Page 15 of the EAW states that, "...much of the southern portion of
the project site lies within the floodplain of Middle Creek.. u" The EAW also
states that "a study of the floodplain is currently being undertaken, which will
likely result in a change to the mapped floodplain in the project area (Exhibit C)."
What if the study concludes that most of the FEMA flood zone boundary is
correct? Will the City require that the project proposer amend the PUD and
remove the 1 O-unit villas proposed in the west end of the project that is in the
currently designated floodplain? Will the City notify affected agencies and units
of government of the results of the floodplain study and any changes to the
project?
5. Grading: Page 16 indicates that 144 acres of soil will be graded or excavated.
The total development acreage is 157 acres; 91.7% of the proposed developed
area needs grading. County staff does not view the significant amount of
proposed grading to constitute site sensitive design. Has site sensitive design
been a factor in the proposed development of this site? If it has, County staff
would like to know how that is reflected in what's being proposed, especially
relative to the amount of proposed grading on this site. Dakota County
Comprehensive Plan 2020 Policy C4.1 supports efforts to "minimize disturbance
of natural grades and vegetation and encourage the use of existing topography
for natural drainage and infiltration to the extent possible."
6. The proposed roadway access points on CSAH 31 are subject to approval by
the Dakota County Plat Commission. The Dakota County Plat Commission will
also need to approve right of way dedication for land adjacent to CSAH 31.
7. We support the 203rd Street corridor depicted in the concept plan as an
important east/west route parallel to 195th Street and 208th Street. This street
is identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a major east/west route that
continues all the way to the Lakeville/Farmington border and perhaps beyond.
However, if this street is intended to be a major east west route, the City might
want to consider altering its design to remove individual residential driveways
and accommodate higher traffic volumes. Based on the City's Comprehensive
Plan, this road will presumably carry higher traffic volumes when land develops
to the west and the road is extended.
8. The roadway design within the proposed development provides good local road
connectivity. However, we are unable to assess the full impact of this
development and other adjacent development on transportation systems by
reviewing this EAW in isolation. An AUAR would allow us to do a more
comprehensive review of the cumulative impact of this development and
associated development that is occurring adjacent to Murphy Farm.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on these proposed PUDs. If you
have any questions, please call Kurt Chatfield at 952-891-7022.
Sincerely,
YJ?Cl1~~
Ly Moratzka, Director ~3 ' lA<-/
Office of Planning
c: Commissioner Joseph Harris
Brandt Richardson, County Administrator
Susan Hoyt, Physical Development Director
Jul 12 2000 9:43 P.02
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
son Lafayette Road 10
SI. Puul. Minnesola 55 1 S5.4ll_
July 12, 2000
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
Planning and Zoning Division
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024-1358
~@:@@:D\'!l@: IT
\ Jll I 2 2(xx) U
RE: Vennillion Grove: PUD EA W
Murphy Farm PUD EA W
Final DNR Perspectives
Dear Ms. Smick:
DNR provided comments on both of the EA Ws prepared respectively for the Vermillion Grove pun and
Murphy Farm PUD projects. Both projects occur adjacent to a state protected water and runoff from the sites
discharges eventually to Middle Creek, which a tributary of the Vennillion River that exhibits the conditions
and habitat capable of supporting trout populations. In response to DNR's concerns, representatives of the
City, MPCA, the watershed district, and the DNR met on June 1,2000. These comments have been
developed as follow-up to that meeting. The comments focus on the status of the trout waters, our concerns
about State Protected Wetland #19-353W, and on establishing a dialogue regarding opportunities that could
be available for conducting cumulative effects assessments. Specifically:
1. Middle Creek is not a designated trout stream. Trout stream designation in the Vermillion River
watershed occurs in Sections 33-36 of T114 RlOW, Section 31 ofTl14 R19W, and several sections
ofTl13 R20W. Portions offout sections (34-36 and 31) are in the City of Farmington. Middle
Creek flows into the Vennillion River downstream of the designated portions and therefore does not
affect those portions. However, it does affect waters of quality sufficient to support trout
populations, both rainbow and brown trout.
Information that Erik Peters from Bonestroo presented us, especially several pages oftem.perature, is
important to consider. This information shows similarities between Middle Creek and South Creek, a
Vennillion River tributary that is being managed as a cold water fishery. Jason Moeckel ofDNR
provided the city with this information to encourage Farmington to join the ongoing effort to improve
conditions in the upper VenniUion River watershed.
Our point to the City is that trout populations can be maintained in Middle Creek and that suitable
trout habitat ex.ists downstream of the point at which Middle Creek joins the Venn ill ion River. We
believe that the cold water fishery oan be expanded and enhanced. Additionally, trout stream
designation could be extended all the way to Highway 52. Mr. Moeckel has been working with the
City of Lakeville as they develop a South Creek Management Plan. the purpose of which is "to
preserve trout stream habitat within the City of Lakeville and minimize impact to downstream areas
designated as trout stream habitat." The strategies laid out in thi!i plan cou Id be applied to Middle
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-q367 · TrY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal OppottUnity Employer ^ Pnnl8d on Recydcd Paper Containing Ii
Who V:l.lue.~ Oi...miry "'...,- Minimum of 10,.. P06I-Consumar Wasle
Jul 12 2000 9:44 P.03
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
July 12,2000
Creek as well. In fact, Lakeville authorities have encouraged the City of Farmington to manage the
Middle Creek watershed similarly.
Therefore, this potential future for Middle Creek should be considered as development unfolds in its
contributing watershed.
2. Both DNR letters, May 17) 2000 and May 31, 2000, included comments noting that the EA Ws
provide insufficient information regarding stormwater runoff impacts to State Protected Wetland #19-
353W. Runoff generated by the Vermillion Grove PUD will discharge to the wetland and plans for
the Murphy Farm PUD appear to include an outlet from the wetland. The City's final decisions
should include clarification of the relationships between these two projects and the wetland. As
stated in the May 31 letter, the EA W for Murphy Farm should identify the relationship of runoff
generated in the Vermillion Grove and how actions being evaluated in the Murphy Farm EA W result
from impacts generated by the other project In particular) the relationship of any proposed outlet to
this wetland to these projects should be very clearly explained.
The construction of an outlet on I O.353W will require a DNR protected waters permit. This was not
acknowledged in the Murphy Farm EA W (Item 8) Table 1.0). Additionally, while the EA W only
requires the listing of permits and approvals, the inclusion of a description of the regulated activity
would be informative and may help the regulatory agencies flag possible permitting problems earlier
in the process.
3. Although it is recognized that the EA WS likely meet the procedural requirements of the state
environmental review process. they do expose the need for more in-depth evaluation of cumulative
impacts in the area. During its review of the EA Ws, the DNR focused on three resources of concern.
upland habitat, wetland #19-353W, and the Vermillion River and its tributaries. The May 17 letter
comments that the EA W understated the loss of woodland resources while the May 31 letter mentions
the large amount of mass grading in upland areas. In combination, these two projects represent a
fairly significant amount of upland habitat loss that cannot be fully appreciated at the project level. A
landscape-level evaluation might be more appropriate. Likewise, the potential impacts to surface
waters are insufficiently addressed project-by-project.
The following discussion offers a framework for how the City, other local governments, and the DNR
(and other parmers .such as MPCA, watcrshQC! district) could approach the: .:valuation of cumulativc
effects of development on natural resources in the area. The basis for this framework is from a DNR
Report) Cumulative Effects of Develooment on Minn~sota Lakes, (Barstad, 1999).
MIDDLE CREEK VERMILLION RIVER
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT (CEA)
The state environmental review (EA) process calls for the consideration of cumulative potentia)
effects of related [existing] or anticipated future projects when determining the need for an
environmental impact statement (EIS).
The intent ofEA W Item 29 is to address the combined effect of numerous activities on resources of
concern.
2
Jul 12 2000 9:44 P.04
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
July 12, 2000
Three applications of Cumulative Effects Assessment come into play here: 1) the DNR and local
units of government are actively managing and restoring the Vermillion RiveT and its tributaries and
2) local governments could be evaluating or re-writing their land use plans or surface water
management plans with a greater focus on resources of concern and 3) the potential effects of single
projects or activities are being evaluated.
The resources of concern are the Vermillion River and its tributary Middle Creek. Both are state
protected waters and portions of both are trout habitat. Another resource of concern is State
Protected Wetland #19-353W. The following discussion focuses on the two streams, but the same
approach can be applied to the protected wetland and other resources of concern that might be
identified.
As it pertains to the two streams, the goal of CEA is to sustain existing water quality/quantity
conditions with the long-term goal of restoring the streams to conditions that existed prior to
settlement or some other definable point in time.
The DNR role is I) to know the lake, its structure and function; 2) to clearly describe the purpose of
our management; 3) to identify the activities on the water, in the riparian zone and in the drainage
area that affect structure, function and management. The local government role is to determine how
to live on the land without negatively affecting the stream resources and their social values. These
roles go hand-in-hand and are best carried out in a cooperative effort.
Steps to be taken:
1. Describe the resource.
Locate the streams in their drainage basins.
Identify the drainage patterns.
. Gather physical, chemical and biological information about the streams.
. Describe the existing structural and functional condition.
Describe the functional capability, the highest ecological status the system can attain given
the political, social, or economical constraints (limiting factors).
. Describe the functiona.l pOtential, the highest ecological statwo the: systfom can attain. given no
political, social, or economical constraints.
· State the societal values of the streams (utilitarian, recreational, cultural, human health,
aesthetic, spiritual, or intrinsic).
Predict various future conditions.
2. Describe the cause of change.
Describe activities that may affect the streams. Describe in detail how the functioning and
output of a development or activity could affect the streams' physical, chemical, and
biological parameters and societal values. [activities: development projects, planning and
zoning, fisheries management, natural events][describe past, present and future activities]
3
Jul 12 2000 9:44 P.OS
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
July 12, 2000
3. Determine tlle effects as a function of the activities, specifically in terms of what are the
changes in stream ecosystem structure and functioning over time and space. Show the
relationships between activities and the resource.
4. Plan for minimizing or eliminating effects.
The CEA approach would also approach other questions. such as:
. How well does the Surface WarM Management Plan address CEA?
. How much of the needed jnionnation is in the Plan?
Are the goals and policies of the Plan consistent with the goal ofCEA?
Are the goals and policies of the Plan too broadly stated to be useful in a CEA?
Finally, through the Metro Trout Stream Initiative, the DNR regional staff have been deeply involved
in stream restoration and rehabilitation efforts in the Vermillion River watershed; Jason Moekel will
carrying out this effort. Additionally, DNR Region staff are willing to provide technical and
procedural assistance to the Cities of Farmington and LakevilIe in carrying out a cumulative effects
assessment of the Vermillion and its tributaries. lfthe City of Farmington elects to use the AUAR
process, then DNR is willing to assist in scoping the assessment.
The CEA approach just described is offered as a means of addressing important community-level natural
resource issues recognizing that it operates beyond the review of individual projects. We are willing to
provide a copy of Mr. Barstad's report if desired. Please consider DNR a partner in your efforts to ensure the
protection high quality natural resources within your jurisdiction.
Thank you for considering how these and future development could affect valuable community resources.
We encourage the City of Farmington to engage other potential partners, including ONR, in ongoing efforts
to retain the water quality necessary to support viable trout populations within the Twin Cities Metro Region.
Fortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that trout stream protection need not inhibit desired growth
if community planning anticipates what is necessary to protect stream quality without compromising project-
specific objectives and returns. We look forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
j3;ff:r~
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Y
Environmental Planning & Review Section
Office of Management & Budget Services
c: Kathleen Wallace
Con Christianson
JoeOschwald
Peter Leete, Metro Area Hydrologist
Jason Moeckel, Metro Trout Stream Coordinator
~20000209-0002lFARMLAST. WPD
4
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
51. Paul. Minnesota 55155-40 10
May 31, 2000
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
Planning and Zoning Division
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024-1358
RE: Murphy Farm Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
Dear Ms. Smick:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the EA W for the Murphy Grove
PUD project. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
The April 17, 2000 edition of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) publication EQB Monitor
noticed a project that is immediately adjacent to the Murphy Farm PUD site called Vermillion
Grove PUD. These two projects share a common border and will be implemented under similar
time frames. Item 29, Cumulative Impacts, requires consideration of the "cumulative potential
effects of related or anticipated future projects when determining the need for an environmental
impact statement (ElS)." The answer provided to Item 29 in the EA W, which offers that the
Murphy Farm PUD is not a connected or phased action of other projects, is an inadequate
response on the issue of potential cumulative impacts. As the designated Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU) for both EA Ws, it is necessary that the relevant environmental
analysis examine the broader picture associated with any related projects, including the
Vermillion Grove PUD.
Consideration of related proj ects is especially important in this instance because runoff generated
by the Vermillion Grove PUD will discharge to State Protected Wetland #19-353W (Items 12
and 17). Although the EA W correctly notes the wetland exhibits an ordinary high water (OHW)
level of908.7', the document does not indicate that this is a landlocked basin, which means that
the wetland has no associated natural outlet. Past experience indicates that the routing of storm
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
1
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
o
Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Minimum of 10% post-Consumer Waste
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
May 31,2000
water to basins without outlets can present substantial environmental and legal problems. Figure
F of the Murphy Farm PUD EA W shows that an outlet is planned for basin #19-353W;
installation of such an outlet would require a DNR protected waters permit and Item 8 should
indicate this permit need. Of particular note in the area of related actions impacts is that no
outlet is proposed for the Vermillion Grove PUD project although it will have several discharges
to basin #19-353W. As such, the EA W for Murphy Farm PUD should identify the relationship
of runoff generated in the Vermillion Grove PUD and how actions being evaluated in this EA W
result from impacts generated by the other project.
Item 12 ofthe EA W, which discusses Physical Impact on Water Resources, is incorrect in its
assertion that "no filling or other impacts are planned which would affect Basin 1." Basin 1 in
this instance is DNR protected water #19-353W. The construction of an outlet to control water
elevations should be identified as a potential source of impacts and need for a DNR permit for
the activity should be listed.
DNR's previous comments to the City of Farmington on the Vermillion Grove PUD EAW
focused on that document's inadequacies in addressing potential impacts to DNR protected water
#19-353W. Now that a second environmental document is available to understand the potential
environmental consequences for essentially contiguous, related "physical manipulation of the
environment, directly and indirectly," [see Minn. Rules part 4410.0200, subp. 65], both reviews
have inadequately assessed how the projects may affect Middle Creek. Middle Creek is a state
protected watercourse that is downgradient from the wetlands that receive runoff from these two
developments, including basin #19-353W. Item 17 does not identify that Middle Creek will
receive runoff from these developments.
Middle Creek is a tributary of the Vermillion River where both waters are state-designated trout
streams. Middle Creek exhibits a good quality trout fishery that in turn is indicative of good
water quality, especially in terms of relatively cool water temperatures. Both projects will
increase runoff-contributing impervious surface by approximately 87.0 acres, (31.4 acres + 55.6
acres), and the EA W supports this conclusion by stating that the" [p ]roposed peak discharge rates
will be lower under the developed condition although discharge volumes will be higher because
of the increased amount of impervious surface;" (Item 17). When this project's runoff volume is
combined with that generated by the Vermillion Grove PUD, it is highly likely that adverse
impacts to stream morphology will occur. In addition, adverse thermal impacts are also likely.
Changes in stream form and structure, coupled with increased temperatures, will result in
damage to the trout populations that are present in Middle Creek.
The EA W fails to consider this potential project-specific and cumulative impact to the trout
fishery value of Middle Creek. Any project-related change in this system that would diminish its
ability to support trout should be considered an adverse, significant outcome that warrants
investigation in an environmental impact statement (EIS). An EIS could examine project
alternatives that: 1) reduce the amount of impervious surface; 2) rely upon infiltration of storm
2
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
May 31, 2000
water runoff rather than surface discharge; and/or 3) incorporate measures to limit potential
runoff-related temperature increases in the potentially affected downstream resources, especially
state-designated trout waters.
Our water quality concerns also extend to the amount of mass grading proposed at the site as
detailed in Item 16. Grading is proposed for 144 acres of the 249-acre site; when wetland
acreage is subtracted, nearly 75% of the upland areas will be graded. These circumstances
require very diligent management of erosion control measures, including ongoing monitoring
and maintenance. A failure could threaten the water quality of not only the receiving wetlands
and Middle Creek, but also the Vermillion River. This too is an area that can be explored in an
EIS if alternative project configurations lessen the amount of mass grading necessary to meet
project objectives.
Site grading appears to result in substantial clearing of woodland resources. The project should
include provisions to utilize all commercially viable timber for conversion to various wood
products. Additionally, it appears that much of the woodland is on high ground that is planned
for use as the source fill material to raise other areas on the site to make them buildable. An EIS
could examine project configurations that reduce this filling such that the amount of woodland
conversion is reduced at the site.
Item 29 should specifically acknowledge the Vermillion Grove PUD, and any other projects
known to the RGU to be occurring in the vicinity, and how these projects in total may result in
adverse impacts to natural resources, infrastructure, or public services. Both Minn. Rules part
4410.1700, subp. 7B and Minn. Rules part 4410.2000, subp. 5 address the issue of considering
cumulative impacts. We cite these rules to alert. you that the Minnesota Environmental Review
Program anticipates circumstances where cumulative impacts across multiple projects are
determined to be potentially significant. If your examination of cumulative impacts does identify
potentially significant issues, then preparation of a related actions EIS may be the means to
accomplish the necessary evaluation of impacts and mitigation, especially if consideration of this
and all projects under the auspices of this EA W leads to a conclusion that the trout fishery of
Middle Creek will be adversely impacted by these developments in total.
DNR has previously offered that the City of Farmington consider use of the Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) process to address how future development will affect the land base.
If development within the MUSA is as definite as it appears, then the AUAR process can provide
a number of benefits to the City as an RGU and to project proposers and reviewers alike. It
could be especially beneficial when significant natural resources like Middle Creek are
potentially affected by development.
The AUAR process allows for the comprehensive consideration of the potential environmental
effects within a geographically defined study area. It can cover multiple known or future
projects in one process. Potential impact areas, and measures available to prevent these same
3
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
May 31, 2000
impacts, are identified and incorporated into an adopted Mitigation Plan that applies to the study
area. Once the AUAR process is complete, projects that meet the assumptions ofthe AUAR are
exempt from project-specific environmental review and may proceed directly to permitting.
Most important, future project proposers understand up front what will be required, either in
project designs or applicable approvals, to conduct projects within the study area such that
significant environmental effects are prevented.
DNR supports use of the AUAR process and is willing to assist RGUs in scoping issues of
potential natural resource concern. Please contact Bill Johnson of my staff for further DNR
perspective on the AUAR process if desired; he can be reached at (651) 296-9229.
Loss of the trout resources in Middle Creek would undermine ongoing efforts to improve the
trout fishery value of the entire Vermillion River watershed. The City of Farmington is
considered a partner in these efforts and has a stake in an outcome that ensures that adverse
impacts are avoided. It is unclear whether water quality impacts to the Middle Creek system in
turn would have direct adverse impacts upon the Vermillion River. Regardless, it is in the
interest of all parties to ensure that existing habitat for trout in the Twin Cities Metro Area
continues to be available broadly within the watershed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. We look forward to receiving your record
of decision and responses to comments submitted on the EA W at a future date. Minn. Rules part
4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require that you send us these documents within five (5) days of your
decision. Please contact Bill Johnson at the previously mentioned number if you have questions
regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
~c-v(f?~
Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor
Environmental Planning & Review Section
Office of Management & Budget Services
c: Kathleen Wallace
Con Christianson
Joe Oschwald
Peter Leete, Metro Area Hydrologist
Russ Peterson, USFWS
Jon Larsen, EQB
Don Patton, D.R. Horton Custom Homes
Larry Frank, Arcon Development, Inc.
#20000298-0002
4
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
May 31, 2000
Mr. David L. Olson
Community Development Director
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota 55024
RE: Murphy Farm Planned Unit Development (PUD) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
Dear Mr. Olson:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the above-referenced EA W. Please
note that the concerns we raised in our comment letter of May 17, 2000, on the Vermillion Groves EA W
(a project abutting Murphy Farm on the north) also apply to the Murphy Farm project. I reiterate the two
issues of concern to the MPCA:
. The first issue is impacts of stormwater runoff from this and other developments in the area on water
quality and quantity in Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Water #353W, which is
immediately adjacent to the proposed development. We are also concerned about impacts on water
quality in North Creek, Middle Creek, and the Vermillion River.
. The second issue is that of other nearby residential developments, which are related actions, and the
need for a related-actions Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Alternative Urban Areawide
Review.
Stormwater Impacts
We share the concern of the DNR that this could have a very negative impact on DNR Protected Water
#353W. More importantly, the entire surrounding area is undergoing major conversion from agricultural
to residential land use, and it is unclear (at least from the EA W), how the resultant increase in
impermeable surfaces will impact water quality in Protected Water #353W, Middle Creek, North Creek,
or the Vermillion River. We encourage the use oflow impact development principles like added
detention through ponding, depressional storage and infiltration. The Dakota County Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD) has received a $100,000 grant to develop low-impact development
principles throughout the county. We recommend that the city and developers work with the SWCD on
developing a plan to match existing (pre-development) and post-development discharge rates and
volumes from the site to the wetland. As you may be aware, the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program will require cities (including Farmington) to obtain
Stormwater Permits by March of2003. Farmington has the expertise in the Dakota SWCD and even
some potential funding
520 Lafayette Rd. N.; 81. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 (TTY)
81. Paul . Brainerd . Detroit Lakes . Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us
Equal Opportunity Employer . Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers. from paper recycled by consumers.
Mr. David L. Olson
Page Three
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review this EA W. We encourage the proposers in their efforts to
design and build a residential subdivision with minimal environmental impacts. If you have any
questions about this comment letter, please contact me at (651) 296-8643.
Sincerely,
~~~
Eric J. Kilberg,
Planner Principal
Operations and Planning Section
Metro District
EJK:sjs
cc: Don Patton, D. R. Horton Custom Homes
Larry Frank, Akron Development, Inc.
Jay Riggs, Dakota County SWCD
Curt Chatfield, Dakota County Planning Department
Jon Larsen, Environmental Quality Board
Jay Michels, Metro District, Community and Area-wide Program
Bill Johnson, DNR
~ MetropolitaA.J. Council
~ Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024-1385
~[g@[gD\Yl[g~~
JUN I 2 2000
,\. ~;)
June 1, 2000
RE: Murphy Farm PUD in Farmington -- Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W)
Metropolitan Council District 16
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18255-1
Dear Ms. Smick:
Metropolitan Council staff has conducted a review of this EA W to determine its adequacy and accuracy
in addressing regional concerns. The Murphy Farm P. U. D. is located east of Pilot Knob Road between
approximately 202nd Street West and 209 Street West in Farmington. The proposed project involves an
area of 249 gross acres/157 net acres. It includes the construction of a total of 653 dwelling units of
single-family, townhomes and 8-10 unit villas. The overall net density ofthe project is 4.2 units per acre.
The staff review has concluded that the EA W is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns
and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional
purposes. However, Council staff offer the following advisory comments for your consideration.
Item 10 Cover Types (page 8)
The EA W states that land cover on the site will be modified with resulting impervious area increasing
from 0.1 acres to 55.6 acres. This change in impervious cover will result in a significant increase in
stormwater runoff volume. We encourage the project's proposer to minimize the amount of impervious
area to be incorporated into the project design as much as possible to prevent potential negative effects of
increased runoff volumes on downstream waterbodies.
Item 12 Impacts on Water Resources (page 11)
The EA W states that a number of natural wetlands are located on the project site, including at least two
classified in the city of Farmington's Surface Water Management Plan as wetlands to be protected.
However, the EA W does not mention whether vegetative buffers will be left intact adjacent to the
wetlands. We recommend that such buffers be left undisturbed around each of the natural wetlands and
Middle Creek. The vegetative buffers will provide filtering for stormwater runoff and provide bird and
wildlife habitat. The width of the buffers should be consistent with those required by the Dakota SWCD
and the city. We also encourage installation of vegetative buffers around all NURP ponds in the
development. These will serve to filter stormwater runoff, and most importantly, will deter geese.
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626
(651) 602-1000
Fax 602-1550
TDD/TIY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888
An EqunL Opportunity EmplDyer
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
June 1, 2000
Page 2
Item 16 Erosion and Sedimentation
The EA W states that 76 acres of the site to be graded have slopes greater than 12%, and that an NPDES
General Permit for Construction Activities will be submitted to the MPCA. The proposed construction
plans will include BMPs (Best Management Practices) as needed. Due to steep slopes on the site, we feel
that the EA W should be more specific about measures that will be used to reduce erosion on the site. In
specific, we encourage the use of double silt curtains around all wetlands to protect the integrity of the
ecosystem from suspended solids in stormwater runoff.
This will conclude the Council's review of the EA W. The Council will take no formal action on the
EA W. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Jim Uttley, principal
reviewer, at 651-602-1361 or bye-mail atjim.uttley@metc.state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
~fbov
Helen Boyer
Director, Environmental Services
cc: John Conzemius, Metropolitan Council District 16
Keith Buttleman, Director, MCES Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department
Eli Cooper, Director, MCCD Planning and Growth Management Department
Karen Jensen, MCES Environmental Planning & Evaluation Department
Sherry Narusiewicz, Supervisor, MnDOT Metro Division
Sandra Pinel, Acting Sector Representative, Dakota County
Jim Uttley, AICP, Planning and Growth Management Department
V:\library\commundv\referral\letters\OOletters\Farmington EA W 18255-1.doc
<I}) MONTGOMERY WATSON
June 1,2000
Mr. David Olson
Community Development Director
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for Murphy Farm Planned
Unit Development (P.U.D.)
Dear Mr. Olson:
I have reviewed the EA W for this project as the engineer for the Vermillion River
Watershed Management Commission (VRWMC) and offer you the following comments:
I. The EA W states that the water discharge rate and water quality requirements of the
City's Storm water Management Plan will be followed and will therefore be consistent
with the Commission's draft Watershed Management Plan.
2. In the draft plan the Commission has adopted a policy of infiltrating the first OS' of
precipitation where appropriate. Please investigate the applicability of infiltration to
this project.
3. Exhibit E, Concept Grading Plan shows an area of fill north of the delineated wetland
associated with Middle Creek in the southwest corner of the site. Exhibit C, Existing
Topography, shows this area as FEMA Zone A floodplain (approximate 100-year
flood boundaries). However, Exhibit B, Concept Site Plan, shows parts of this area
as proposed 8- and 10-unit villas. Has the amount of floodplain fill been estimated
and a possible compensatory storage area identified? The EA W states that
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates is currently completing a study of this
floodplain. What type of study is this? Will is be a detailed study of Middle Creek?
Will a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) be requested from FEMA so these proposed
homes would not need to purchase flood insurance?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EA W.
Sincerely,
MONTGOMERY WATSON
~R~
Ed Matthiesen, P.E.
cc: Jerry Stelzel, VRWMC
Laura Jester, DSWCD
Waterford Park
505 U.S, Hwy, 169
Suite 555
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
Tel: 612 593 9000
Fax: 6125939975
Serving the World's Environmental Needs
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
lOb
TO:
Mayor, Council Mem9yr~,
City Administrat0l1P
Lee Smick, AICP f'vf!)
Planning Coordinator v-v
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Consider Resolution - Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat/PUD
DATE:
July 17, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Rottlund Homes proposes to develop approximately 122.5 acres ofland in the southeast quadrant
of the intersection ofCSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) and CR 64 (195th Street West) as a single and
multi-family development. The property was rezoned to R-3 PUD High Density residential on
January 3, 2000. A negative declaration, stating that the project does not have potential
significant environmental effects that warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement was accepted by the City Council on July 3, 2000. The proposed development
consists of 94 detached residential units and 283 attached residential units as described in the
attached Planning Commission staff report.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat at the July 11, 2000 meeting. At the
meeting, a number of items were discussed including the connection of Street B with Akin Road,
cul-de-sac lengths, cul-de-sac turnaround radii, street widths, a sidewalk along Street B and the
City's dead end road access policy. Additionally, the Planning Commission discussed the
Dakota County Plat Commission letter (see attached), the proposed removal of trees on the site,
the need for a landscape buffer along the shared property line with the five homes abutting
Vermillion Grove on the east and the need to review traffic safety issues for the proposed
intersection of Street B and Akin Road. Finally, the Planning Commission discussed the need to
mitigate the average buffer width that is lost due to Street B encroaching within the buffer strip.
Connection of Street B with Akin Road
The Developer proposes Street B to connect with Akin Road to provide an easterly access from
the site. The Developer is in the process of preparing an agreement for a land swap with Dale
and Leslie Pettis at 19735 Akin Road. The agreement would allow the Developer to extend the
roadway to the right-of-way of Akin Road.
The first phase of Vermillion Grove will be on the west side of the project along CSAH 31 and
no connection with Akin Road is proposed until after this phase is completed. However, the
Planning Commission recommends that the agreement be finalized before they review the final
plat.
Cul-de-sac Lengths
All of the public cul-de-sacs (Streets C, D, E and N) proposed on the plat exceed the maximum
cul-de-sac length of 500 feet as required in the City Code. Therefore, the Developer will be
required to apply for a variance to the maximum cul-de-sac length. A public hearing notice is
required for the variance and will be reviewed concurrently with the review of the final plat by
the Planning Commission.
Cul-de-sac Turnaround Radii
The Planning Commission discussed the City standards for the turnaround radius of cul-de-sacs
as proposed on Streets C, D, E and N and Drive H. The City standard requires a 66-foot right-of-
way with a 50-foot radius to the face of the curb (no curb is required for Drive H). The cul-de-
sacs are shown with a 60-foot right-of-way and 47-foot radius to the back of the curb. The
Planning Commission recommends that this issue be addressed on the final plat.
Reduction of Street Widths
The Planning Commission recommends that the cul-de-sac roadways (Streets C, D, E and N) be
reduced from 34-foot back to back streets to 30-foot back to back streets making the street
pavement width 28 feet and requiring a sidewalk on one side of the street. The recommendation
for a 28- foot wide street is based upon the following criteria:
1. The functional classification of the roadway (i.e. local, collector) will be a pnmary
consideration.
2. Proposed developments that reside near land that is environmentally sensitive including
wetlands, floodways, slopes or natural areas to reduce pavement and runoff from large
expanses' of paved surfaces.
3. The reduction of road widths in areas where the presence of neighborhood parks and
multiple driveways are being planned.
4. The need for sidewalks on at least a minimum of one side is required, however sidewalks on
both sides of the street will be encouraged to enhance pedestrian safety.
5. The 28-foot roadway requires an 8-foot parking lane on one side and a 20-foot width for
two-way traffic flow.
6. The development is part of a PUD where the preservation and enhancement of desirable site
characteristics and open space are recommended.
Benefits to the reduced street widths and sidewalk installation include improved pedestrian
safety, increased traffic calming effects and may provide for a more cohesive neighborhood.
Sidewalk along Street B
The Planning Commission recommends that the Developer propose a sidewalk or trail on one
side of Street B in order to promote pedestrian safety in the single-family area and provide
access to the north/south trail along Street A. The trail along Street A may then be utilized by
2
the entire development for access to Akin Elementary School, thereby alleviating some need to
bus children in this neighborhood. '
Dead End Access Road Policy
The final transportation issue discussed at the Planning Commission meeting concerned the
lengths of the dead end driveways of buildings 62, 63 and 64. The driveways along the west
sides of these buildings show lengths exceeding the fire code requirement of a maximum of 150
feet. Therefore, the City's dead end access road policy is required for the three driveways and
needs to be addressed on the final plat.
Dakota County Plat Commission Letter
The Planning Commission reviewed the July 11, 2000 Dakota County Plat Commission letter
concerning the future right-of-way needs for County Road 64 (l95th Street). The letter states
that City staff "have indicated the potential for County Road 64 to be a divided highway in the
future." City staff acknowledged to the Planning Commission that staff has had discussions with
Dakota County concerning the "connectivity" of 195th Street between Cedar Avenue and Trunk
Highway 3, however, no discussions concerning whether the roadway would be designed as a
divided or undivided roadway have taken place at this time. Staff informed the Commission that
a response letter to the County would be drafted to clarify the City's position.
Removal of Trees on the Site
The Planning Commission recommends that City staff along with the Developer perform an on-
site inspection of the existing trees on the property to determine which areas will be "no touch
zones" for tree removal. The Planning Commission along with residents at the meeting were
concerned about the amount of existing trees proposed for removal on the site. The Developer
agreed to this recommendation at the meeting.
Landscape Buffer for Properties abutting Vermillion Grove on the East
The residents that abut Vermillion Grove on the east expressed their concern about the amount of
trees that may be removed from the property thereby eliminating the natural screen that the
residents currently have to the west. The Planning Commission recommended that an on-site
inspection be carried out to determine which trees may be retained on the Vermillion Grove
property to maintain the natural screening. The Planning Commission reviewed the landscape
plan and recommends that additional trees be installed along the shared property line if a large
number of trees are removed from the natural screen.
Traffic Safety Issues - Intersection of Street B and Akin Road
The residents at the Planning Commission meeting expressed their concern about the dangers of
siting the intersection at its proposed location on Akin Road and the need for traffic controls to
slow speeds on Akin Road. The residents questioned the outlet location of Street B along Akin
Road, stating that the location was dangerous due to poor sight lines exiting Vermillion Grove.
The location of Street B is shown at the bend of Akin Road, causing potential sight distance
problems.
3
Additionally, the residents expressed the need for traffic controls (i.e. 3-way stop signs) at the
intersection to slow traffic on Akin Road and improve the intersection sight distance problems.
City staff informed the Planning Commission and residents that the City has drafted the "Report
for Akin Road Improvements" and the study proposes a right-turn lane and bypass lane for the
proposed intersection. The Planning Commission recommends that the City continue to review
the traffic safety issue.
Wetland Buffer Issue
The Planning Commission also recommends the approval of the attached memo from John
Smyth discussing the need to mitigate the average buffer width that is lost due to Street B
encroaching within the buffer strip. As the memo states, Protect wetlands allow no buffer
averaging. Street B encroaches into the buffer and wetland area by 35 feet.
The location of the roadway is constrained by the connection to Akin Road and the pond to the
north. Based upon the "no buffer averaging" requirement, it is recommended that impacts to the
buffer from the road be allowed if a buffer is re-established on the fill slope of the road and the
average width of the entire buffer is equal to the minimum buffer width. Therefore, the fill slope
area at 35 feet in width and 200 feet in length needs to be re-established with vegetation
appropriate and consistent with the buffer strip. If site constraints prohibit achieving the average
buffer width, the additional buffer area needed should be included elsewhere in the development.
Summary of Requirements
The Planning Commission recommended the following conditions be placed on the approval of
the Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat:
1. Approval of the Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat is contingent upon an agreement being
reached between Pettis and Rottlund Homes for the purchase of a small piece of property
owned by Pettis in order to connect with Akin Road.
2. Condition approval of the Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat contingent upon the approval
of the variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length of 500 feet.
3. Require a 66-foot right-of-way with a 50-foot radius to the face of curb for cul-de-sacs on
Streets C, D E and N and Drive H.
4. Require Streets C, D, E and N to be reduced from 34-foot back to back roadways to 30-foot
back to back roadways meeting the City's criteria for 28-foot wide streets thereby requiring a
sidewalk on one side of the street.
5. Require a sidewalk on one side of Street B to promote pedestrian safety and provide a
pedestrian access to Akin Elementary School to the north from these neighborhoods.
6. Require the driveways on the west side of buildings 62, 63, and 64 to meet the requirements
ofthe City's Dead End Access Road Policy per Fire Code requirements (copy attached).
7. Require an on-site inspection of existing trees on the site to determine "no touch zones" in
order to retain existing trees.
8. Require additional trees to be installed along the east side of Vermillion Grove adjacent to
the single-family homes to the east to provide screening from the new development.
9. Require City staff to review the traffic safety issues concerning sight lines and traffic
controls at the intersection of Street B and Akin Road.
4
10. Require the re-establishment of the buffer area along the fill slope of Street B per
requirements of the Wetland Ordinance and/or additional buffer area to achieve the average
buffer width.
11. Approval of the Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat is contingent upon all engineering
requirements being addressed.
The requirements have been discussed and approved by Rottlund Homes and will be
incorporated as part of the final plat. While the number of conditions attached exceed typical
approvals, these conditions have been identified to document concerns and issues that will be
addressed in the final plat, but are not, at this time, reflected in the preliminary plat now before
Council.
The City Attorney has reviewed the above conditions and has approved the requirements.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt a resolution approving the Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat/PUD contingent upon the
above-mentioned conditions.
R~speCtfullY SU, bm"itled', //
~ C~i-C~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes
5
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
VERMILLION GROVE
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 17th day of July,
2000 at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member _ seconded the following:
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat of Vermillion Grove is now before the Council for review and
approval; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the lIb day of July, 2000
after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent
to surrounding property owners; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly
served by municipal service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above preliminary plat be approved with the
following stipulations:
1. Approval of the Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat is contingent upon an agreement being
reached between Pettis and Rottlund Homes for the purchase of a small piece of property
owned by Pettis in order to connect with Akin Road to the east.
2. Condition approval of the Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat contingent upon the approval of
the variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length of 500 feet.
3. Require a 66-foot right-of-way with a 50-foot radius to the face of curb for cul-de-sacs on
Streets C, D E and N and Drive H.
4. Require Streets C, D, E and N to be reduced from 34-foot back to back roadways to 30-foot
back to back roadways meeting the City's criteria for 28-foot wide streets thereby requiring a
sidewalk on one side of the street.
5. Require a sidewalk on one side of Street B to promote pedestrian safety and provide a
pedestrian access to Akin Elementary School to the north from these neighborhoods.
6. Require the driveways on the west side of buildings 62, 63, and 64 to meet the requirements of
the City's Dead End Access Road Policy per Fire Code requirements (copy attached).
7. Require an on-site inspection of existing trees on the site to determine "no touch zones" in
order to retain existing trees.
8. Require additional trees to be installed along the east side of Vermillion Grove adjacent to the
single-family homes to the east to provide screening from the new development.
9. Require City staff to review the traffic safety issues concerning sight lines and traffic controls
at the intersection of Street B and Akin Road.
10. Require the re-establishment of the buffer area along the fill slope of Street B per requirements
of the Wetland Ordinance and/or additional buffer area to achieve the average buffer width.
11. Approval of the Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat is contingent upon all engineering
requirements being addressed.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
17th day of July, 2000.
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
Attested to the _ day of_.
John F. Erar, City Administrator
1 .
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmineton.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP ()fJ
Planning Coordinato"r
SUBJECT:
Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat
DATE:
July 11, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Rottlund Homes proposes to develop approximately 122.5 acres of land in the southeast quadrant
of the intersection ofCSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road) and CR 64 (195th Street West) as a single and
multi-family development. The property was rezoned to R-3 PUD High Density residential on
January 3, 2000. A negative declaration, stating that the project does not have potential
significant environmental effects that warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement was accepted by the City Council on July 3, 2000. The proposed development
consists of 94 detached residential units and 283 attached residential units.
Plan nine: Division Review
Applicant:
Rottlund Homes
J. Michael Noonan, Division Vice President
3065 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
(651) 638-0520
jmnoonan@rottlundhomes.com
Referral Comments:
1. City Engineering Division
2. Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Letter from Developer
3. Application for Plat Review
4. Plat Information
Location of Property:
Southeast quadrant of the intersection of CSAH 31
(Pilot Knob Road) and CR 64 (195th Street West).
Area Bounded By:
Single-family residential on the east, agriculture on the
south, vacant on the west and an elementary school on
the north.
Existing Zoning:
R-3 PUD High Density Residential
Proposed Development:
The Developer proposes 377 housing units constructed
on approximately 122.5 acres. The proposed building
types are as follows:
Single-Family -
Gardens
Garden Townhomes
Villa Townhomes
94 units
68 units
67 units
148 units
The single-family product proposes ramblers, split-
levels and two-story configurations. The gardens are
slab on grade construction and provide one-level living
and consist of 4-unit buildings. The garden townhomes
include a basement. The two-story villa townhomes
consist of 8 or 12-unit buildings.
Streets and Accesses:
The Developer proposes three accesses from the
property. One access onto Pilot Knob Road to the west,
a second access onto 19Sth Street to the north (Street A)
and a third access onto Akin Road to the east (Street B).
The Developer proposes both public and private streets.
The private streets will be maintained by a homeowners
association.
Public Street Widths
40' back of curb to back of curb with 70' ROW
34' back of curb to back of curb with 60' ROW
Private Street Widths
30' back of curb to back of curb
24' back of curb to back of curb
22' back of curb to back of curb
Water, Sewer & Gas:
Water access is located at the newly constructed City
water tower and sewer will be available from the south
through the Murphy Farm development. A 100-foot
wide gas line easement runs north and south through the
western portion of the site. No structures may be
located within the easement. The Developer proposes to
maintain a 10- foot building setback from the gas line
easement.
Sidewalks:
A sidewalk has been proposed on the west side of the
north/south (Street A) roadway and a 8-foot wide trail is
proposed on the east side of Street A.
2
Topography:
Site topography is rolling except for the central portion
of the site that tends to provide wider contours. The
drainage patterns are generally towards the south. There
is a large existing swale area along the eastern property
line that abuts the homes along Akin Road.
Wetland:
The wetlands shown on the site are classified as protect
wetlands. The largest wetland encompasses
approximately 14.8 acres and the smaller wetland is
approximately 5.6 acres in size. The protect wetland
classification requires that structures shall not be placed
within a minimum of 10 feet of the buffer area. The
buffer area provides a minimum of 75 feet from a
protect wetland, thereby requiring a minimum setback
of 85 feet surrounding the entire wetland. These types
of wetlands exist in a largely unaltered state and have
special and unusual qualities that call for a high level of
protection.
Flood Plain:
There are no flood plains delineated on this property.
Parkland and Trails:
The Developer proposes a park located on the peninsula
between the two wetlands. A trail will be provided to
access the park through the buffer area surrounding the
wetlands as well as from the cul-de-sac at the end of
Street D directly to the north of the proposed park.
Additional Comments
The Vermillion Grove PUD was approved by the City Council on January 3, 2000, re-
designating the property to R-3 PUD. The PUD process permits any combination of the
following uses: single-family, two-family, quad homes, town or row houses and apartments. The
PUD requires that the total coverage by buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the
total area in the PUD. The total building coverage shown on the preliminary plat is 13.22 acres
and the total plat area is 122.44 thereby providing 10.80% building coverage within the
Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat.
Proposed Density
The Developer proposes the following gross densities:
Housing Type Proposed Density City Requirement Land Use Designation
Single-Family 2.3 du/ac I to 3.5 du/ac Low-Density
Gardens 3.9 du/ac 2.5 to 5.5 du/ac Low/Medium-Density
Villa Townhomes 7 du/ac 5.5 to 14.0 du/ac Medium-Density
The proposed gross densities correlate to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update.
3
Transportation
The Developer proposes three accesses from the property. The westerly access is proposed as a
70-foot right-of-way with a roadway width of 40 feet measured from the back of the curb to the
back of the curb that connects to Pilot Knob Road. The roadway is shown as a future minor
collector on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. A majority of the traffic is expected to enter and leave
the property from this access, thereby requiring a left turn lane on Pilot Knob Road towards the
south.
The northerly access is shown as a 70-foot right-of-way with a roadway width of 40 feet
measured from the back of curb to back of curb and provides a north/south transportation
corridor (Street A) through the development. The proposed roadway will also provide a shared
access with the City property to the west. This roadway is considered a public street and will be
maintained by the City of Farmington. The City is negotiating a cost share agreement with
Rottlund Homes for the construction of both this roadway as well as the roadway along the
southern border ofthe City's property.
The easterly access is shown as a 60-foot right-of-way with a roadway width of 34 feet measured
from the back of curb to back of curb that is proposed to connect to Akin Road. The Developer
is in the process of acquiring a small piece of the Pettis property in order to connect the roadway
to the right-of-way of Akin Road. This access will mainly accommodate vehicles travelling
south on Akin Road into the subdivision and north on Akin Road, leaving the subdivision. The
developer will be required to provide a right turn lane and a bypass lane on Akin Road.
The Developer has prepared a trip generation analysis for the development. In total, the
Vermillion Grove development is expected to generate 2,500 average daily trips with the
proposed 377 housing units. The trip generation model anticipates approximately 60% of site
traffic will be distributed to the north on Pilot Knob Road (from the site via Pilot Knob Road and
Akin Road) and approximately 20% will be distributed to the west via 195th Street. The
remaining trips will be distributed to the south.
Roadways associated with the villas and gardens will be private streets and will be maintained by
a homeowners association. The widths of these roadways include 30-foot, 24-foot and 22-foot
all measured from the back of curb to back of curb.
Transportation Issues
There are transportation issues that need to be addressed on the preliminary plat. As mentioned
above, an agreement with the Pettis property needs to be finalized to connect Street B with Akin
Road on the east. The phasing of the property will be from the west and no connection with
Akin Road is proposed until after these phases are completed.
Secondly, all of the public cul-de-sacs (Streets C, D, E and N) proposed on the plat exceed the
maximum cul-de-sac length of 500 feet as required in the City Code by 115 feet. Therefore, the
Developer requests a variance to the maximum length of a cul-de-sac. City staff has reviewed
the request and has researched surrounding communities for their maximum requirements. An
average length for most communities is 700 to 1,000 feet.
4
Additionally, the Fire Marshal has reviewed the cul-de-sac issue and has stated that if the cul-de-
sac has an unobstructed lane of traffic 20 feet in width and an adequate turnaround radius, the
Fire Department can accept a cul-de-sac length of 500 feet or more. Therefore, City staff
recommends approval of the variance concurrent with the approval of the preliminary plat.
During the zoning code update, staff will propose an update to the maximum length of a cul-de-
sac.
The third transportation issue consists of the turnaround radius for the proposed cul-de-sacs on
Streets C, D, E and N and Drive H. The City standard requires a 66-foot right-of-way with a 50-
foot radius to the face of the curb (no curb is required for Drive H). The cul-de-sacs are shown
with a 60-foot right-of-way and 47 feet to the back of the curb. This issue needs to be addressed
on the plat.
Additionally, City staff recommends that the cul-de-sac roadways (Streets C, D, E and N) be
reduced from 34-foot back to back streets to 30-foot back to back streets making the street
pavement width 28 feet and requiring a sidewalk on one side of the street. Staff has made this
recommendation for a 28-foot wide street upon the following criteria:
I. The functional classification of the roadway (i.e. local, collector) will be a primary
consideration.
2. Proposed developments that reside near land that is environmentally sensitive including
wetlands, floodways, slopes or natural areas to reduce pavement and runoff from large
expanses of paved surfaces.
3. The reduction of road widths in areas where the presence of neighborhood parks and
multiple driveways are being planned.
4. The need for sidewalks on at least a minimum of one side is required, however sidewalks on
both sides of the street will be encouraged to enhance pedestrian safety.
5. The 28-foot roadway requires an 8-foot parking lane on one side and a 20-foot width for
two-way traffic flow.
6. The development is part of a PUD where the preservation and enhancement of desirable site
characteristics and open space are recommended.
Benefits to the reduced street widths and sidewalk installation include improved pedestrian
safety, increased traffic calming effects and may provide for a more cohesive neighborhood.
City staff also recommends that the Developer propose a sidewalk or trail on one side of Street B
in order to promote pedestrian safety in the single-family area and provide access to the
north/south trail along Street A. The trail along Street A may then be utilized by the entire
development for to access Akin Elementary School to the north, thereby alleviating some
pressures to bus children in this neighborhood.
The final transportation issue concerns the lengths of the dead end driveways of buildings 62, 63
and 64. The driveways along the west sides of these buildings show lengths exceeding the fire
code requirement of a maximum of 150 feet. Therefore, the City's dead end access road policy
(see attached) is required for the three driveways and needs to be addressed on the plat.
5
Park & Recreation Issues
The Parks & Recreation Commission has approved a park location on the peninsula between the
wetland areas. A playground structure is proposed for this area. Additionally, a trail is required
from the cul-de-sac on Street D to the park area. Trail locations surrounding the wetlands is
being negotiated with the Developer.
Secondly, the proposed 4-acres of park space along the easterly property line is not conducive to
the park system due to the inability of accessing the site. City staff recommends that this area be
shown as an outlot and be dedicated to the City to preserve the area adjacent to the "protect"
wetland.
Wetland Buffer Issue
The attached memo from John Smyth discusses the need to mitigate the average buffer width
that is lost due to Street B encroaching within the buffer strip. As the memo states, Protect
wetlands allow no buffer averaging. Street B encroaches into the buffer and wetland area by 35
feet.
The location of the roadway is constrained by the connection to Akin Road and the pond to the
north. Based upon the "no buffer averaging" requirement, it is recommended that impacts to the
buffer from the road be allowed if a buffer is re-established on the fill slope of the road and the
average width of the entire buffer is equal to the minimum buffer width. Therefore, the fill slope
area at 35 feet in width and 200 feet in length needs to be re-established with vegetation
appropriate and consistent with the buffer strip. If site constraints prohibit achieving the average
buffer width, the additional buffer area needed should be included elsewhere in the development.
Landscaping
As reported in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W), the Developer proposes to
preserve approximately 40 percent of the forested area on the site. The forested area that will be
affected due to grading of the site is the 24.3 acres located in the northeast portion ofthe site. As
described in the EA W, American Elm and Bur Oak with understory of common buckthorn and
prickly ash dominate this forested area.
With the large amount of mass grading proposed on the site, the Developer proposes to replace
many of the larger trees with oaks, maples, birch and lindens along the roadways. Additionally,
the Developer proposes to landscape each villa, garden and garden townhome with a number of
plantings as shown on the attached landscape plan.
The Developer also proposes to re-establish a buffer area of trees along the shared property line
with the five homes along Akin Road. However, City staff recommends that landscaping also be
installed along the pond area that is adjacent to the Pettis property.
Phasing of the Development
The developer is proposing to gain preliminary plat approval for the entire development by the
end of July 2000 with final plat approval for various phases of the development shortly
thereafter. The developer will begin construction of the villas along the northern property and
6
the gardens along the western property line in the first phase. The developer plans on the
construction of model homes for marketing purposes and plans to be built-out within 3 to 5
years.
Homebuyer & Housing Characteristics
The development is proposed to meet the needs of the first time homebuyer, the move-up
purchaser and the "empty nester" looking to down size. The villa townhomes will accommodate
the first time homebuyer and are the most affordable in the Rottlund Development. This product
will range in size from 1,220 to 1,645 square feet. The villas will be part of the first phase of
development on the property.
The gardens and the garden townhomes will meet the needs of the "empty nester" with one level
living in the gardens home and one level and a basement living in the garden townhomes. These
products will range in size from 1,260 to 1,450 square feet. The gardens and garden townhomes
will also be a part of the first phase of development on the property.
The single-family product will accommodate the move-up segment of the population and will
range in size from 1,850 to 2,700 square feet in rambler, split level and two-story configurations.
The single-family construction will be included in later phases of the development; however,
most of the utilities and streets will be installed in the first phase.
Population Projections
The developer has estimated that at total build-out the population of Vermillion Grove will be
near 743 persons. These projections are based on the following:
148 villa townhouses @ 1.25 persons per unit (ppu)
135 garden and garden townhomes @ 1.8 ppu
97 single-family homes @ 3.25 ppu
= 185 persons
= 243 persons
= 315 persons
Summary of Requirements
1. Approval of the Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat is contingent upon an agreement being
reached between Pettis and Rottlund Homes for the purchase of a small piece of property
owned by Pettis in order to connect with Akin Road to the east.
2. Approve a lIS-foot variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length of 500 feet for the cul-de-
sacs on Streets C, D, E and N.
3. Require a 66-foot right-of-way with a 50-foot radius to the face of curb for cul-de-sacs on
Streets C, D E and N and Drive H.
4. Require Streets C, D, E and N to be reduced from 34-foot back to back roadways to 30-foot
back to back roadways meeting the City's criteria for 28-foot wide streets thereby requiring a
sidewalk on one side of the street.
5. Require a sidewalk on one side of Street B to promote pedestrian safety and provide a
pedestrian access to Akin Elementary School to the north from these neighborhoods.
6. Require the driveways on the west side of buildings 62, 63, and 64 to meet the requirements
of the City's Dead End Access Road Policy per Fire Code requirements (copy attached).
7. Require additional trees to be installed along the east side of the storm water pond adjacent
to the Pettis property for screening of the development.
7
8. Require the re-establishment of the buffer area along the fill slope of Street B per
requirements of the Wetland Ordinance and/or additional buffer area to achieve the average
buffer width.
9. Approval of the Vennillion Grove Preliminary Plat is contingent upon all engineering
requirements being addressed.
ACTION REOUESTED
Recommend approval of the Vennillion Grove Preliminary Plat contingent upon the above
requirements and forward this recommendation to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
~,../;:., ~
-_:.~
V '
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes
8
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.c:i.farmineton.mn.us
TO: Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer ~
SUBJECT: Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat Review
DATE: July 6, 2000
Engineering staff has reviewed the preliminary plat for the above referenced project and
forwards the following comments:
Plat Issues
1. 15-feet of additional right-of-way needs to be platted along CSAH 31 for future
expansion of the County roadway.
2. Ponds must be platted as outlots to the high water level. Access to ponds on outlots must
be included within the outlot.
3. The parkland areas need to be defined and platted as Outlots.
Street Issues
1. All street designs must be in accordance with City standards. Cul-de-sacs are currently
shown with a 47-foot radius to back of curb with a right-of-way radius of 60-feet. City
standards require a 66-foot right-of-way radius and 50-foot radius to face of curb.
2. Street grades should be limited to a maximum of7.0%.
3. Turn lane and bypass lane improvements will be required on Akin Road at the
intersection with Street B. The intersection of Street A and 195th Street will need to be
reviewed to determine if turn lanes are necessary.
4. Retaining walls must be placed outside of City easements on private property. Retaining
walls that retain higher than four-feet must be designed by a structural engineer.
5. At a minimum, sidewalks or trails need to be provided along collector routes, including
Street A and Street B.
Utility Issues
1. The water and sewer systems for the site need to comply with the City's comprehensive
Water Supply and Distribution Plan and Sewer Policy Plan respectively:
Vermillion Grove Preliminary Plat Review
07/06/00
Page 2
2. As indicated previously, two water supply well sites must be planned within the area of
this development. Corridors for the future raw water mains must be provided.
3. Trunk water main needs to be routed through the site per the Water Supply and
Distribution Plan~
4. The sanitary sewer layout and the issue of serving the properties along Akin Road needs
to be finalized.
5. Sanitary sewer proposed to be located along rear and side lot lines will require larger
easements for future access and maintenance.
6. Structures (gatevalves, manholes, etc.) need to be located outside of the gas main
easement. When crossing pipeline easements, cross perpendicular to pipeline. Utility
and house pad layouts must be reviewed with the gas company.
7. Confine utilities (water, sanitary and storm) to the road right-of-way and lot lines
whenever feasible. Exceptions for conservation of trees and minimizing sanitary sewer
depth will be considered.
8. Utility tie-ins with the City's facilities site need to be coordinated.
Storm Water Issues
1. The storm sewer systems for the site need to comply with the City's Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP).
2. Submit storm sewer design worksheet, storm sewer profiles with drainage area map for
final plat review. Storm sewer design will need to be approved before grading plan
approval.
3. The pond east of Block 3 is encroaching within the wetland buffer area.
4. Confine drainage to rear and side lot easements. An easement must be provided for all
drainage routes.
5. The comments stated in Erik Peters memo dated 6/9/2000 need to be addressed.
The preceding comments will need to be addressed during the final platting process. Further
comments will be forthcoming upon review of the final construction plans.
Memo
"" BonestlUO
.I!jI Rosene
-=- Andertik &
1\11 Associates
EngIneets ,,--
Project Name: Vermillion Grove Response to
EAW Comments
Client: City Of Farmington
File No: 141-99-114
To: Lee Smick
Date: 6/6/00
From: John Smyth
Re: Review of Vermillion Grove Response to Comments dated 6/14/00
Remarks: I have reviewed the Vermillion Grove responses to EA W comments in regards to Wetland Protection.
One concern relates to response 3 of Peterson Environmental to the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation
District, EA W Item 12 - Wetland Buffers. The following statement is not entirely correct: "One of the storm water
treatment ponds will encroach into a wetland buffer, however, this has been accepted by the City of Farmington in the
past because the pond serves the same purpose as the buffer that surrounds it." In my memo for Vermillion Grove
PUD EA W dated February 14, 2000 under General Buffer Area Requirements it states that "It appeared that the
current pond location along the fringes of the wetland may be within the vegetated portion of the buffer. If ponding is
to occur within the buffer it should be limited to the cropped area."
The first project that requested ponding in the buffer was Charleswood 3rd Addition. The ordinance language below is
followed by the City's interpretation of the ordinance which was met by Charleswood 3rd Addition.
Ordinance Language: The wetland ordinance discusses this issue under section 10-9-7 (E). Clearing and removal
of vegetation in the buffer area is prohibited, except for selective clearing and pruning, of individual trees and shrubs
which are dead, diseased, noxious weeds, or water hazards. This section is interpreted to indicate that grading within
a buffer area that has existing natural vegetation would not be allowed. This interprtation is consistent with other City
ordinances.
City's Interpretation
The following interpretation of the ordinance has been developed so that the criteria regarding allowing grading and
ponding in a buffer area is consistent for each development.
1. Grading within buffer areas, including ponds, should be limited to areas that have had a history of being farmed.
Farming within the buffer needs to have occured 7 out of 10 years to be considered having a history of being
farmed.
2. If the ponding location meets the criteria above in item 1, then it can be counted as buffer area as long as the
minimum vegetative buffer area for the classification is maintained.
In the case of Vermillion Grove, the minimum width for the buffer strip for a Protect Wetland is the same as the
overall buffer width, so no part of the buffer strip can be used for ponding without a variance to the Farmington
Wetland Ordinance. In other words, the buffer strip cannot be designed to an "average" width. The entire buffer strip
must meet the minimum width. The plans currently show grading for a berm around the pond site extending into the
buffer area. This grading needs to be eliminated from the buffer in order to be in compliance with the City Wetland
Ordinance.
Another proposed encroachment into the required buffer occurs with the proposed road access to Akin Road. Roads
are discussed under Section 10-9-7 (K) of the Farmington Wetland Ordinance. This section reads as follows: "For
roadways, trails, and driveways, or portions thereof, that are routed across wetlands and are subject to WCA
Bonestroo, Rosene, Ander/ik and Associates
2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311
Memo
n Bonestrao
-=- Rosene
~ Ander11k&
1\11 Associates
I!IIgInMn &_ecu
replacement requirements, no buffer areas shall be required" The purpose of this statement in the ordinance was to
insure that an applicant would not widen a road embankment to meet buffer requirements and therefore impact more
wetland area.
The proposed road does not impact wetland and thus it does not require a replacement plan and therefore the
exemption for the buffer strip does not apply. However, the city does not want applicants routing roads through
wetlands to meet the above exemption so impacts to buffer strips from roads will be allowed with the following
conditions:
1. Impact to the buffer strip by roadways, trails or driveways should be minimized to the extent possible while still providing
public saftey and access to development.
2. After minimizing the impact of the road to the buffer strip, the embankment of the road should be re-established with
vegetation appropriate and consistent with the buffer strip.
3. Road impacts to buffer strips will be allowed if Items I and 2 above are followed and the overall buffer strip average for the
wetland classification is maintained. This would include Protect wetlands in which buffer strip averaging is not typically
allowed.
The location of the road is constrained by the existing connection at Akin Road and the required ponding for the
development. Based on the discussion above, it is recommended that the impacts to the buffer from the road be
allowed if a buffer is re-established on the fill slope of the road and the average width of the entire buffer is equal to
the minimum buffer width. The fill slope extends along 200 feet of the wetland buffer and is approximately 35 feet
wide. This area should be re-established into a buffer in accordance with Section 10-9-7(C) of the Wetland
Ordinance. This would provide 35 feet of buffer strip that would be included in calculating the average buffer width.
The remaining buffer strip should completed elsewhere on-site to meet the overall buffer average of 75 feet. If site
constraints prohibit achieving the average buffer width, the additional buffer area needed should be included
elsewhere in the development.
Please don't hesitate to contact me at (651) 604-4708 if you have questions.
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates
2335 West Highway 36 + 51. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311
."
.n.L~l1-2l21laB as: 14 FRQ'l:Sl.JRUEY DF1<OTA
952-891-7037
TC:6S1 463 2591
?1301"eB2
~,
~~
~
, . " . ,,- -
(/~
DY~<G~D\Yl~ ij
J1. I I 2.OOl
\
s..",., and Land 'nformacion Iuly 11. 2000
Guy H. s..~JlolIlOl. PoLS.
Counlt~
I. ~ \nInrrMIIClrI ()lnwTnr
DaIaa Counly
WeItIrtt SerOllca Ccnrar
'4955 GalDie"-
Apfle~MN 55111-8579
Co 12.1t 1.7017
fix 612.891.7097
_.ea.daIeocI.mn.ut
~
'.........,.......
....... ".,.........,..........
... ..... Gr'I'Od\HI"t tWt,.....
City ofParmingr.on
325 Oak Sm:et
Farmington MN 55024
Attention:
Re:
Lee Smick. Planning Coordinacor
VERMILLION GROVE
The Dakota County Plat Commission met on July 10. 2000. [0 consider the preliminary plat of
VERMn..LlON GROVE. Said plat is adjacent to CSAH 31 and County Road 64. and is
thcreforc. subject to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance.
The County's Right of Way Guideline is 75 feet of half right of way for a four-lane divided
highway and 60 feet of half right of way for a four-lane undivided highway. CSAH 31 is
designated as a fUlure four-lane divided highway. Although the Dak.ota County Road Plat
Review Needs Map identifies County Road. 64 as a future four-lane undivided highway; City
staff have indicated che potential for County Road 64 co be a divided highway in [he future. If
this is the case. the righl of way should be preserved for a four-lane divided highway with 7S
feet of half right of way.
The County's Access Spacing Guideline is one-quarter-mile for a full intersection and an eighth-
mile for right-in/out on CSAH 31 and an eighth mile for a full intersection on County Road 64.
The cwo proposed city stteCt.S shown on the preliminary plat meet tbe guidelines:
1. On CSAH 3 I at one-quaner-mile south of County Road 64.
2. On COUDCy Road 64 opposite the existing school entrance approximately half way between
CSAH 31 and Akin Road.
The Plat Commission always recommends that the City look at interconnectivity of local streetS
to minimize access to the County Highway System.
The Ordinance requires submittal of a fina.l plat before a. recommendation is made to the County
Board.
Traffic volumes on County Road 64 were 1.800 in 1998 and are anticipated to be 5,000 by the
yea:t 2020. Traffic volumes on CSAH 31 were 3.150 in 1999 and are anticipated to be 9.000 by
the year 2020. n1eSe traffic volumes indiOllC that current Minnesota noise standards for
residential units could be exceeded for the proposed plat. Residential developmentS along
County highways commonly result in noise complaints. In order
JlL-11-2l2IB9 e8:14 FRCM:~ OA<DTA
"
9S2-891-7fB7
10:651 ~ 2591
P .liE"ara2
~
July 11. 2000
City ofParmiDgtoa
Page two
for noise IcvcJs from the highway to JD::CL acc:eptable !eveJs l<< adjacear ~cj~1 uzWs.
lub-mnri:al building setbacb. buffer areas. aDd other noise mitiptian eIemems should be
incorpor.ated into this development.
No work sball commence in the Col1nty right of way until a permit is obf..iIPf. !10m. rbc County
Highway Dcpaxtr.ncnt and no pemJit will be iuued umi1 the plat bas been tiled. The Plat
CnmmiuiOD does not review or approve actual engineering design of proposed accesses and
other improvements made in the right of way. The permit proceas reviews the design and may
requi,(C constrUction of highway improvements not discussed during plat reviews. itu:luding. but
not limited to. turD lanes. drainage features. efC.
:z~ -
~~?~venson
Secretlry. Plat Commission
c:Pionccr Engineering
...-!
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro WaterS, 1200 Wam:r Road, St. p~ MN 55106-6793
Telephone: 651-m-7910 Fax: 651-m-7977
1uly 7, 2000
Ms. Lee Smick
" Pl-tmit,g CoordiDator
City afFarmingtDn
325 Oak Street
FanningtoD, MN 55024
0: VERMILLION GROVE pt ADDmON, UNNAMED WETLAND 19-353W, CITY OF
FARMINGTON, DAKOTA COUNlY
~~@~ a\'!l~~~ 1
M. - 7 2000
\ I "./
Dear Ms. Smick:
We have reviewed the site plans dated 4/27/00 (received June 27, 2000) for the above-referenced proposal
(SW1/4, Section 24, and portions ofNW 1/4 Section 25, TI14N-R20W) and have the following comments to
ofl'er. These comments are essen~ally the same comments and questions that where raised during the EA W
review process for the same project. However, we are restating them here because the questions raised were
not answered during the EA W process.
1. Public water wetland 19-353W, is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water
(OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands, is
under the jurisdiction ofDNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. The official OHW is
correctly shown on the plans as being 908.7'.
2. The city of Farmington's Surface WatJ:t Management Plan shows that basin 19-353W (city basin F-
P7.2) is ultimately to have a 12" outlet with a nonnal water level of908.0. Currently there is no outlet
constructed. At the same time the Vennillion Grove plat shows three stormwater outfulls into basin
19-353. The area of the proposed outlet is not located on the Vennillion Grove property. Who is
IOinl to build the outlet aDd when? We object to anv stormwater beinS! routed into basin 19-353
without an outlet bemS! constnlcted first. Any outlet at or below the OHW would require a DNR
protected waters permit. DNR protected waters permits typically take between 45 and 60 days for
review and comment prior to a permit being issued.
The city of Farmington1s Surface WatJ:t Management Plan show the basin with a classification of
'Protect'. It is our belief that routing stormwater into this basin prior to the construction of an outlet
could seriously impact the ecological health of the wetland and cause flooding of adjacent properties.
Overland flow from this wetland would not occur until water elevations reach nearly 5' higher than
normal.
3. Two DNR letters (dated May 17, 2000 and May 31, 2000) included comments to the effect that the
Vermillion Grove and Muq>hy Farm EAWs provide insufficient infonnation regarding stormwater
ronoffimpacts to State Protected Wetland #19-353W. Runoffgenerated by the Vermillion Grove PUD-
will discharge to the wetland and plans for the Murphy Farm PUD appear to include an outlet from the
wetland. The City has not clarified the relationship between these two projects and the wetland.
ONR Infonnation: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TrY: 651-296-5484 . 1-800-657-3929
~n Equ:1i OpportUnity Employer
Who Values Diversity
,,~~ Printed on Recycled Paper Contllining a
".iIl'Jr Minimum of 109& Post-Consumer W:J.Ste
Ms. Lee Smick
City of Farmington
July 7. 2000
Page (2)
4. Ultimately stonnwater from Vennillion Grove PUD will discharge to Middle Creek. The Middle Creek
is not a designated trout stream and eventually flows into the Vennillion River downstream of the
designated portions. However. it does affect waters of quality sufficient to support trout populations.
both rainbow and brown trout. Our point to the City is that trout populations can be J119i~ined in.
Middle Creek and that suitable trout habitat exists downstream of the point at which Middle Creek
joins the Vennillion River. We believe that the cold water fishery can be expanded and enhm1ced.
Regardless of the potential trout fisheries impact, the additional volumes of water added to downstream
areas need to be addressed as well.
5. Additionally. trout stream designation could be extended all the way to Highway 52. Mr. Moekel has
been working with the City ofLakeville as they develop a South Creek Management Plan, the purpose
of which is lito preserve trout stream habitat within the City ofLakeville and minimize impact to
downstream areas designated as trout stream habitat. II The strategies laid out in this plan could be
applied to Middle Creek as well. In fact, Lakeville authorities have encouraged the City of Farmington
to manage the Middle Creek watershed similarly.
6. There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties
adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the DNR,
the U.S. Army ~orps of Engineers, and the City of Farmington, have jurisdiction over the areas and
that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate authorization.
7. There may be wetlands on the site that are not under DNRjurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands. In
addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with the Minnesota
Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991.
8. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments:
a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken dUril1g the construction period. The
Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of
Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan and Soil and Water Conservation
Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed.
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per
year, a DNR appropriations permit is needed.
c. Construction activities which disturb five acres of land. or more. are required to apply for a
stonnwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Jay Michels @ 651-296-
7036). .
d. The comments in this letter address DNR Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These
comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project.
---.-
-.
(
(,
Ms. Lee Smick
City of Farmington
July 7, 2000
Page (3)
Please contact me at 651-772-7916 should you have questions.
c: Vennillion River WMO
U.S. Army Corps ofP.1'\gjneers, Gary Elftmann
Dakota SWCD, Jay Riggs
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Jay Michels
Wetland file 19-353
DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center
4100 220th Street West, Suite 102
Farmington, MN 55024
Phone: (651) 480-7777 . FAX: (651) 480-7775
July 6, 2000
Ms. Lee Smick
City Planner
325 Oak: Street
Farmin~ MN 55024
ID~@~lJW@q~!~
~\ .lL - 6 2IlXl ~
Ref.: OO-FRM-036
'.
RE: REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANS FOR VERMILUON GROVE P.U.D.
Dear Lee:
The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) bas reviewed the Preliminary Grading
Plan for the above-mentioned site. This project entails 145 mixed use lots on approximately 122 acres.
The following report summarizes the proposed erosion controls, submits additional erosion control
recommendations, and discusses alternative site design considerations to rmnim170C development impacts.
Erosion Control Observations
-1. Silt fence at the downslope gradients and around wetland areas. '
2. Multiple stormwater ponds.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Comments and Recommendations
1. Project phasing is critical to mintmi7.e erosion and sedimentation on this site. Show how the site will
be phased and exposed soils will be kept to a minimum
2. Develop a phased grading plan to show how drainage on the site will be controlled during active
grading.
3. All slopes exposed adjacent or directly tributary to the DNR wetland should be brought to final grade
and stabilized inunediately.
4. Construct the stormwater ponds first to use as temporary sediment basins. Install a floating riser or
similar structure to enhance sediment trapping efficiency. The pond should be stabilized innnediately
and a controlled overflow structure installed.
5. Install a double row of heavy duty silt fence to protect the DNR wetland. Place the fence outside of
the proposed buffer and have the fences about 6-10 feet apart.
6. Any areas adjacent or directly tributary to the DNR wetland that left idle for more than 7 days should
have seed and temporary cover applied. This is a requirement of the NPDES permit.
7. Stabilize all 3: I and steeper slopes with erosion blanket or hydromulch with tackifier. Show the
location of these areas on the plan. Reguire that once these areas are exposed, they are finish graded
and stabilized promptly.
8. Install all silt fence on-contour. Cross-contour silt fence tends to concentrate nmoff and c~use silt
fence failures.
9. Show the location and type of energy dissipation devices at all storm sewer outfalls.
10. Show the location and type of check dams in areas of concentrated flow.
11. Show the location of the rock construction entrance.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNllY EMPLOYER
--
--..--. - ---
Vermillion Grove PUD
GO-FRM-036
1
12. Include notes regarding NPDES permit requirements on the plan, including inspection and
maintenance timing.
13. Include locations and specification of all erosion controls on the plan. .
14. Additional controls may be deemed necessary during construction to protect the DNR. wet1md.
Further, there are many Opportunities on the site to install diftUse integrated management practices (IMPs)
to retain water on the site and mitigate long term, down stream erosion and water quality issues. The
Dakota SWCD has cost-share ftmds available to design and install these low impact development (LID)
practices.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this plan. Because the sites will disturb more than five acres, a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General StOrmwater Permit is required.
Good implementation. consistent monitoring, and maintenance of all erosion control measures are
important to minimize erosion on this construction site. Call me at (651) 480-7779 if you have questions.
Jay Riggs, CPESC
Urban Conservationist
cc: Jay Michels, MPCA
Pat Lynch, MDNR
.
CIty Water
Tower
N
w*
s
- '
~,~
~~
~.
..~
Property Location
....-'"
.
!~
..... ;
I SUBJECT PROPERTY'
o
"\4
,",,-
~
- --... ..- --
,
r'_',_
--..
~
tJtO!!~Y!!!?co!!QME~
Mr. Dave Olson,
Community Development Director,
City of Farmington,
325 Oak Street,
Farmington, MN
55024
~r-;;.. ....~/ ,;".- ".'. ,:-.:,.: {;':~~~\' f :; -,
~~: ;SU: ~~
;J I
April 28, 2000
Dear Mr. Olson,
RE: Application for Preliminary Plat Approval
Vermillion Grove
We are pleased to submit for the City's consideration our application for preliminary plat
approval for the proposed Vermillion Grove community. This plan, I believe, represents
the culmination of considerable effort on the part of many parties and individuals. We
truly appreciate the interest and assistance provided by staff in the Engineering,
Community Development/Planning, Parks and Finance Departments. The advice and
feedback that has been provided over the past number of months has been invaluable in
terms of refining our preliminary plat.
Enclosed you will find the City's standard application form executed by the Rottlund on
behalf ofthe owner of the property, our checks to cover the City's application and escrow
requirements, 15 copies of the preliminary plat and associated information, a reduced
copy of the plat, hydrology report and abstractor's certification. In addition, our
consulting engineer, Pioneer Engineering, has provided a cd on which all plans are
contained in an electronic format.
We trust this provides the City will all information its requires to process our application
and move it forward for consideration by the City's Planning Commission and Council.
As we have discussed previously we are targeting a hearing before the City's Planning
Commission and Council on June 13,2000 and June 19,2000, respectively. Should you
require any additional information or clarification please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Special considerations being requested by Rottlund are summarized under the heading
"pud requirements" on the cover sheet to the pud plan package. These requirements touch
upon such things as private and public street widths (pavement and right of way),
minimum lot setbacks and setbacks from county roads, designated wetlands and the gas
Gl
d::~ MLS.~~:W
3065 CENTRE POINTE DRIVE ROSEVILLE. MN 55113
(651) 638-0500 FAX (651) 638-0501
easement. One requirement that this not enumerated on this sheet is for special
consideration for a relaxing of the maximum cui de sac length requirement.
Further, we are also requesting the ability to construct model homes prior to the first lift
of asphalt. This is a commonly accepted practice throughout other municipalities in the
metropolitan area. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with the City an
acceptable milestone for the receipt of permissions to construct models and models alone.
For the information of the City, the single family lots proposed for this development have
an average lot width of 70 feet and average lot depth of 130 feet. Lots of these
dimensions, we feel, are able to meet the demands of the consumer and allow for the
construction of a variety of homes.
We would respectfully request that the City undertake a comprehensive and total review
of our submission, rather than the raising of possible issues as they emerge. This
approach allows all parties to deal with the Vermillion Grove development in a total
versus an incremental manner, thereby allowing all issues to be considered at one time
and in a way where interrelationships and connections are fully understood. We believe
that whatever issues do emerge they can be addressed through an appropriately worded
condition of approval governing the preliminary plat. Rottlund is confident that this
approach would enable the approval process to move forward, while at the same time
providing the necessary protection and assurances to the City. . <,
We appreciate the City prompt and professional consideration. We are at your
convenience in terms of meeting to discuss our application or providing the City any
additional information.r
Yours very truly,
~
. chael Noonan,
V President,
Minnesota Division
JMN/jrnn
EncIs.
c.c. Paul Thomas. Pioneer Engineering
John Erar/Lee Smick. City of Farmington (without attachments)
. '
. --~ --....-------..--
04/08/00
11;53
~612"_~63 1611
CITY FAlUfINGTON
.- ....
IaJ 0002/0003
..... .......-..~~-
APPLICATI08 lOR PLAT REVIEW
DATE
PLAT N.AH! VERMILLlCE GROVE
LOCATION South - east quadrant of intersection @" Pilot Knob and 195th
AREA BOUNDED BY north - 195th Street; east-Akin Road, five sfd; south - Murphy ~arm
east - Pilot Knob Road
TOTAL GROSS .AltEA 122.4687 acres
ZONING DISmICT(S)
R3 - PUD
lWfES & ADDUSSES or ALL OWNnS Lawrence W. Wenzel and Doneene R. Wenzel
2001 l20th Street West, Rosemount, MN 55068
PHONE: (651) 452-1565
NAHE & ADDRESS OF LABD StmVEYOl/ENGINEEI. Pioneer Engineering -Pll1ll "Th6Y\'yNo
2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, 55120 PHONE (651) 681-1914
IWtES & ADDRESSES OF ALL ADJOINING PROPERTY OWE1lS ~VAILABLE nOM: Stewart Title
ON: see attached abstracters list
PLAT REVIEW.OPTION: preliminary plat
~F.l.T~tN'.ARV & tt~AL TOGF.'T'RER.~"
.. .
._..-I~, SEQUEl9:CE:
PRE PLAT SURETY: $20,400
PRE PLAT ADMINISTRATIVE FEE: $1623
-.. . . - ..
I BEUBY CEB7IFY mAT I AM (lJ! ARE) THE FEE OWER(S) 01' THE ABOVE LAND. THAT TIlE
PERSON PREPARING tHE PLAT HAS RECEIVED A COPT OF. TItLE 11. CRAnERS 1 'lHlUJ. S.
ENTITLED "SUBDIytSIONS" AND TITLE 10. CHAPTERS 1 nmu 12 ENTl!LED "ZONING" 01' tIlE
FARMINGTON CItY CODE AND WILL PREPARE mE PLAT IN ACCOBDANCE tlITR nm PROVISIONS
CONTAINED tHEREIN. .
ADVISORYMEEtlNG:
1. SKE'l'CH PLAN
2. STAFF AND DEVELOPER CONSENSUS
i-:""- ~J ~ ,..-:: r:-- n 1=:'--' ",
" ... <=, (gC" I... ," ' , "J
,~ ,", \ - _,,"; \.., t, ~
:11)),' ' ~,~ u ~-'Ijllil
I ~\ I APR 2 8 2ml 1,1/ Jill
u~) :~'l
, I
!
i
I
I
!
i
i
i,
i"
ir
"
i
i
~
DEAD END FIRE ACCESS ROAD POLICY
(MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS)
JI
(~Sl Rev;sion]
,
j
,
I
,
i
~
II THE FARMINGTON FIRE DEPT. HAS
I! APPROVED THREE ALTERNATIVES WHEN
II A CUL-DE-SAC HAS PROVEN TO BE
I! IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT
i'-
I(
j City Plate NO.') i
FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ), )1
':/
il i
f,f
!!. ;
il~
;1:
--5'
!!.9ii
f~l
l:.
!':: a
~l
a
3.t
;r::
(;
if
i~
U
1 f
I .
I
i
f
_~.........._ __ _____ __...J ,,_______..... ___......_.._....._..__..______~-..-..
'>
__..:.::::..------....~~...--~--9':"'--':'-...~--..--.,;---. :.--:'1."" I
r--"
i
,
,
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
I
I
,
,
I!
:iI
,J:
,
,
,
:1-
'.
il
:~
f!
C
:
!
,
,
~
,
,
,
,
,
t
....-
~
~
o
.........-........... - ...,_.,.'
,,,,
~'
,.,.,
,.,.,...
~
o
..............--.-... --............- ................-.\\
",''-' -..-....... \
.....,,.,-, \
'.............,
~~aa~~~~ ~~~~uil ~~~~.~.i~ ... ;!(J) _0
~~aa~~~~ i!! . I! ;a C:
.~
...~::u::u I I.... ~::u::u::u I I.... ~~~~~~1 ~~~~~111 ~ N ~;;I 8 ;~ .~n,.., b
'ij pp~iil J/ OOINNI .. :i! UI""
f!'j'OI~:j:jii ~o. . ~o:o ~ I OI<.o:j:jN ~ I 01<.0 ...:jl:;l mUl r- i1-l .
10) c..I "rJ.... N m m I m ct~ a ~
-t-:j.......o z-t- 0 z-.- .... ~ ~ Q~ 0 qQ
iijotlmm Zo I ",0 1m ",Ollrml!!::! 1'1 :;;0
I "'ggcs;:j '" m m ::j l:jc.ngl!!c::! l:jc.ng s;6 I
~ .!.::!gg~!;:!i: ~ ~If: ~~~ :2 IT1
0.... 6Gl!! o ~6 6 m o 0 i!2m ;:; 0 :::l6-l:!! If: If: If:ii tl {;)
::!~::j::j~~!2 :j~::!::! zzS ...f<l::l::! z~ ::jf<l::l::!::Iz~6 8~ .... 2:i! (J)
..,."lDClCl2 0 8 "'8 C
'" ....iil:a:ilnn- alilil n..,_ c .
;;: f<l)>i1:i1......z ~)>::u::us..,..,~ ~~i~2g~ ~~~~~i~~ ::u ::u illY.' 'i If:i/l 1f:i/lY.' :;;0
0~020Cl ~~~!2gg... lD lD
alA c: c:.., d d d ::u Jd Jd IT1
~i1l!!l!!8~2 i';i1ml!!~~~g ~~~~~~~ ~~~~l!!~~~ ~ :<m -< i:
() i1~!2!2i2~ ,,~s;-..,)>>z ~ lD m 'lD
66g:l:lo 66:1:10 .., 6 - 20 > ~ UI > > ITl
0 ~mzz22~ ~mz~~2....~ ~ 51 Sl Sl
;;;; ! i l!ii !i! :~t!l;i lDZZ :l ~mzzz22~ d Z
~snCl.......o I::snClo........2 J:SClCl........2 J:SCl Cl....02 0 If: If: lD If: If: ~
:::0 6.....,00z 12"''''~00 6.....,00 6..,'" 0... ...
l:!!2gglD~d ~z220lDmd ~z2gmmd ~zg22~;od 0 2 8 ~ n 2
(J) 9 . aiaa fii l~[.~;f E/ClZZZC> 6ClZZC:> !Zozz ~ c: c:
:J: 6Clz~S51m ..,o~""E!~m zo~~E!~~ zo~~~~ ~ ill ill ill lil 18 18
1 I ! it J ' !j.~tfl 2"'~)>12 >
m Cl2:l~zo~ ~2~:lOz ~ Clc::liZlilSl Clc::li~ ::t:X:
, f il!- !~ :.~~iiJl .., zO Cl.., "Z2~~Cllil ..,~2 ~ o~2 2::t .... n
-l OZ 0 j
f ~ fll Jii !,t;iJJ 2~"'dog." ~~dd~2elil g~""a02lil C:~"'d c:!ilil
~~o::u~ilJe ~~::u::u~~ilJe Z 0 C:::u zoo a~1"
> ;u 0 ;0 ~~;o;o~me ~z::u::u ~
id~~~~!D ~d~~",~~ilI :l ~~> 0::U :l ~~;o -<
t I ~lJ 1~1 j~l!ifl ~d :l::u!D ~d ~ c:
c:c:~::u c:c:::u2;o c:ci:o !2C Z
Jft iir ,!;!!lli ddl~~.~ ddl~~::t. ~ ....dlzz. ~ ...dl zc: 1'1
o I"!" o..,!"!"~ '"
-::I c: c;:J ~ c o:j 2 0.... n
i ill m Utihl 8m Z Om f'1 Z oj!! f'1 oj!! ~
c I" ::Ic I" ~
::I~ ::I" :::=:1
till lit 0111111 ~~ ~~ ~~ a
~. ~ UI I'l ~
J -Ir t: P!f_5~1 2 I::
i ill i~ q~ If' ~ ~ ~ !2! ~
qf ~! I ,.. ,.. :-I ~ ~
~
!
o
...
;;;;
:::0
~
;=
c
o
z
G')
:::0
o
;;;
..
~
co 'I'
i I
i
~
!ii!
~
""1'-0
!;E;i
....2~
~p~
gz
"'8
Oz
~
m
-<
"V
i
ffi
~
~
!li
2
~
"V
~
::Ul!:::UO
~~~~
1=12~~
l'1Z:0!ll
~~~
Z"V"V
I'1Q~
~~:<
>02
lI'i!!o
~~.
'"
J
III
>
a
Ii
I ~11I_I!!l!il) :z ~o-....
I
"
)>
:::0
~-o<
-:::O(Tl
ZfTl;o
G)C:~
-1~-
O-r
zZr
)>(5
3::::OZ
--<
Z-oG)
Zr;:O
"')>0
(/)z<
~(/)rr1
)>
..
...a.........a....a........... ...a.........a.
m~m~~~~~o~m~m~~~~~
....... ......
~~~~-o-oO-o-o-o-o-o_o_o_om_o~~wwo
OOOo~:;;o~~:;;o:;;o~~:;;o~~X~~~~~O
CCCC~~~~lTllTlmmlT1lT1~OOmlT1lTllT1m<
ZZZzcc_ccrCCCCC:::::iCCC ~
OOOOi:~ri:~~~i:i:i:~Z~i:i:_o_o~
~~~~ZZ~ZZZZZZZZ~ZZZ~~~
OOOO>>I>>>>>>>>O>>>ZZI
ZZZZ:;;O~IT1:;;O~~~:;;O~:;;O:;;OO:;;O~:;;O IT1
-<-<~-< -<-< -<-<-< -< -<Z-<-<-< ~
_o_o_o~r~ CCQQQQQQO_o_o_o
~~~~~Z ~~~~~~~~5>>>
~~::I~OO ~~OOOOOOZ~~~
...;.J~ ~~w ------
ZZZZOO ZZZZZZW
Q~~Q>> _o_o~~~~~~
_0 _0 _0 _0 ~ ~ s;: s;:~ _0 _0 _0 _0 _0
s;: s;: s;: s;: _0 _0 Z Z s;: s;: s;: s;: s;: s;:
ZZZZs;:s;: ZZZZZZ
ZZ
8
o
~
~
Q
z
!li
r
o
()
)>
::l
~
~
)>
"
iD
..
~
.rillll i1 !I~I
} tr\ I' 'I I I I I 8 r
. ;- * ~ U !! ! ~ ~ ~ *1 ~ i ~
."'....1.1 f11
~i~~~~i~~~~ z
~j~i'~i~i~~ 0
:!l" ~m'~~
~ ~ ~ ~
OENIIARK A
w
:r:
ITl
ITl
~
Z
o
IT1
X
r
l.
"
~~
~ ~
(jiijJ
c:::J
~
[j1jjJ
?l
..."1
N
ClC)
;
,~
VERMILUON GROVE
. .
. ~lf:
; 131
, J'~
____ _.J
L __
---- -- --
) ~~ \-I"'S~
('O~ 801'l)\ l01\d
-- - ------ --- - --- -- ~-j"" -- - - -- ---
I
---, I
, I
" I
;j
'l-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
~1Ct~ OJ I
~, ~ I
I
~ "-l~ rl ~~~ ~f1 r:;:- I - '!J!rn. ~'llt< :
II 1':'-rl-\ '~~::).fEo- )-, ~/r-t · ,r;'~' I 1'- W 011
\;1:1 L ~ J\ L,.1,l ~.-". 1 r.tf Jf.I ~ lj..il ,Tn -'-,' .- . '-""'It: ( ~H I ','
~'\~ol ',_ ~ IJ.\Pi....-..... Iii..a'.,,;a' ~"A~ ud=-'" '1'. Jr'f"' r ::1, Ir' Ml. 0"_'1// rfJt~tNf. '
:) ,~, _ _ ... ~ H ~ rr ~,Or" l ,
!,::.-_ ::- [ \-,' ~ '110;'""1 -I ~,I\!..... f-,T::'t ,,+
~:I~.f", '~l (-tfi)I~",;~. hE~ ~-r' i \~~!
. 00--- ~.:J f iiI ~tt~tffjiE r",.1I- +.J li1 (i~;;[ "I! : j!:."- ~I \
. ' ~, \ ,'='=<J ' . _"'" ; ~ ., 'r ~ ~ 'J!.i;ij ~ , /' f---.-. I r.!kJ, L"l~ R~'
~ .;{ ~'l~ ";;,,, -6f ~:~ n.!' '\ (j!"'~ '~'iJI
,~~ ~ i~,. . """Illi.- .w ~c "",Ir ,5. L::j W L ~1 ,! : A w.L:-
./ "~.~ - ~*U]lr-. ~. ,MJ 'J '~~rJ ~::i ~ --I~ -"iJfI) f
i-o-i J,J -,rr ~ " FI'" '. / "'2=....... II il '
rlfr~' .~, u -.~. "id 0 '-1.~L (.....L -- (-..1... --1 (" -J T -\ '1f. ar;;:. ~ c
t p-- ~ O-ELI, .... '" ,"",., r r" Fi rlLl / I j'" . 2l~1'
H~~!'l ~/iJ~~ ,/ ...L1 ~;I"" \ ,~.J L.... ::~+-..~I P.., r I .u.J.-, " ~'1 /d. .... I'
......~ ~. '~ <! r\.f" 1'1-' !I " :; 'iiEiD '" J:; ~ J T., ~ I ) ~ t . .t.Jj I
. ~ ,_ ."'9 .""'-" 1 ~ "I ".,. 'Ii,,-: , ~ ? ~ ",I
", ~ c ~ '[ ~ j .... ~ .... ~ \.A!,. "'I
~ t.I \ ' , .. · .--" :;; 'f~ 5'
. [] ... -- - "'';'~ ~I
~. e:'" " ~>-J ~ ~~ ~~~-~
.~ " ~~ . ~r, '7.;r
, z ~8. L~
L '-' ~ ~(~.
~ 1, r \/'1~tS
~ Q . 8(5
W\ -~
~ ~g ( "--
-~ ~ \ \ I
,." ':--'\ t · ,-
.,.,., .~ \ ,/ I
<.', \ . I
~ \. . \'
,., \ '
ri \.
)> '.
Z '(
(:) "'
I
;
I
............ _0"
-.-.-.-'
. r
:, II
I I
, io-..
. ilj
~lj
ill
;,f
:' foJ
. ' ifl
I ii
H
fI
If
"
- _.A----1 ·
~ ------- .-
____J _ - - .- -
.- _-.---J--
.J ---
~
----.--.-
--
_~" ",!:::~1' T J...
-:\ :w , _T \.~ ~!\:" r']
~ w \-' tJ .-----. -.---
~ 1 . . _,>~" ~---
~----- oj ~.-
-.--' ~~ ~- ---- ~
~ ~E .:'._...--''-;;; ._- ;.'-", 70'
~ ,~~~ r\;,~ ~
.~
l' i1" _' '1ft r\ ''{fro I\!\- ~\
"'! (J -1.. ..!~\ ,\\ : rt!. It...
~ \\r:-~,..
\' \ ' -~. '1 \
,...
;..--
1 f
.
.
l?
.
~-
f
.
~
I
!ll
i!
rr1
::0
o
~
,C
Z
\0
<')
o
~
-U
:>
Z
-<
Q
~
~
~
-$:-f-
0-0
cf-
'--
"1
/#
-
I I
.
~ '.
,~ -
.E
, '0
Z
'"
::0
,0
;ii
v~/,
~.~'
u
r---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,0
,0
Ie
.z
:~
1:;0
10
I"
len
:41-
I
~
1
1-
'-
ICO
'01
Ii! l
I(/)
,:-f
I
I~
'(/)
l....
,........
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l_
II -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L..--
I~
Cl .
I B -----
T ~ - ~
i- ... ;z:: :Da--
li! [iiii\
,.." ~
I I @
-q- !
- .. N ffiiil
CD "t
l/I Q)
a \=::3
m b ~ ~
A
[jijU
~ 7)
-::::.~
-
I
:i!
ITl
::;u
~
~
i
~
I I
I ~ 1-
~
I
i~hJ
fit;'
~
:Ij
ill
rn
i_
tll
,0'
!.
U
11
f!
II
I f
,
I
I,J
rill
Ht
W
!
9
~
~
~
~
Cot
~ ,
I I
I
'Ql:I QO~ 1.01\<<1 \.t ~
,"'-"".'-'
u'J-J~ 0.' ~ -4-~- - _ _ f- _ _ ------ - - ~------ - >0. ~~;~~ ~t.".--:-:::::-::. -:-:-.::::-:-::::' --:-: ~ - - L- -
~ --- -------- - -
~_ _....'- ~ ~. _.--:'c
, dI!'\ .' ~~.....- -r -. rL' · _, _, ~ ,..",\ · "\ '.... ''\"1l
:fT ~,n _ ' ~ T uJ'Lrrr rL ~ ~=rv~' \.. 1
r: j rf ~ ~t" )1'0 J ?O'-J:n~ -"\. - {- --_: - f.- f- - _1'1-'" .. -!"'- ------- ---
~ ~ I {rr __~' , +" - ,.{ L ""i ,~- .'1' -- -~- ---- -- -'" ,
Ej\~~ ~ ~ ,,~ . __--------- _- \,_ I' 1 ----
J -;s " " ,:-------,----~ ----------- - -,
1:=1- ,,_ __-- _ _--- __--" "-, " \ \ ,......... L --- _..'cdti,'--
,__ ___-- _ ;iii>" . ,_------ -- - ~,'I;;------- -----. ------- l' -l '
.... __----I __----------------- ---~ .;;;J t ~\.!{ 1 ;(J"~ i\r\<
"f04-j- tr~r ,-----2?:-:{/1-\ ~: _hh ~;]~ 1\ ~Fl -r "' '<.. aIlI ~~ --~
f01 : l;;r 'j--....- >" \, \ - - '-~- 'fl "h-.Y.\\- \
~ ~. ~~ 8 r:- \ 'I . \ r,>' ..\J ~.:i! k - '" ,_c11 ""- t-1.
~l f- ~ 1. I~. I" \. .__.' ff!\'tl-' .y\ . .0 . . . 'l! "
, ",' ~ __.~__- I - - '-
!iii · ,lIP' =-- · -!lIil a L- ~
1'-: \ ~ '>l II!; ....... - - -; - ,
~~ ..\ \\-il.;I. []. IJ." ~~ \~G~' ~:~~~ -;-~ ~~~tJ;~
, " )\ _ .,... L,.JV \'. ':\ ~\\ l - " ..11 F.! j'1ifI~nr-
~_J~o~. ~ ,'v 1t1~~. .. ___ ~ 1 Ii' -,';"_r\"~'"' ~ ,,~ ~I\: ~;d
.. ~ _ _ _' _,/_Lt~. . -,_I 1"';- . .~-; ~ -, ,'t:'\ 'I -, JltIj( ~~ T-I~' I,
_ << . ,/ '-, \.!-~ \ ~ ,--~ _, __~ ',( t- . - hlr"
(_ / \,_,./" \ .,. ~r.;\' \ :l'\ ~ ,\ - - r.:. ~ ...11 -
1/ ./ _ i :/U · ~~J ~~\ \....:\.;.ii E~~~~' _.~ '~-'
,._._... ,I' · "'/ ·
,.,. i .. !.~ ~ ~'{\ : J h.,t./__ 1-
~ ( . .. . ~;-," 'l'-' \ .~ ~~V-' ~",lrE !Fj"'"
;::l , ~.~. \, \ \ y~~ ~~~ \~ . n: ~LL
> " . ' ~.. ~' _..... ...... '-'l'l ! t1 'J ~-
z ' \ _~ ,.......... ~ =..' I -
o ,-~...,:ro, ,I?) ,.. 'lJV,O- -:.. ~.-I
\ ' _,\ L: I ~ ,< \ . -".' ~ =r:.... -
i I I!~i \ ~ r-\ ""--;' . - r-f"'1"L1 ~ .~..
! I ;I <-- I . .' \ ,., .1 -- 'T i
____'___-'-----r-"'--"----'----"'-"""~i',- ~ "2 ~ ' (.\\El/ · - I " ~
"'.... _ __ ~\_ _ --c.-- _. /.-';/' i ,h F- 1 ' ,-'f'" " ,
___------- _.-,--_ /' Fc.... , '
.../ ~r.; IN ,- --.....
/./'.-'-' 0-0-.;-' ~-='1~"-+-=- 'y I~~ · -- (~
//,____.-----1..- - ., -=-=-'-= - y.e'\ ~ .~~
_ _/ -' ___..... ~--.. \ 1
_~-;-:'~,-' _______' ....-,.. l' ·
_/ \ /' ____________1~" ' ~
,)././ ;<~~\ ~ ,-;- '.' -~ .
~B \ '(.1',,- :-; ',~ \
~ ~ '. \ \\'. ro __ -;::::-- \ ·
\. "\'lI~;' \ · ~
,\%. - -
\ ~ Is l
\ :~.. ~ .
.. ~....", (.-,,~.
.,.,... ~~... ~ "-
...,r. \ I ,',7
......,~ . . \ .. 1/
-..,..'---------- -'- . \ /
_,_._,_.., __,_____ :fii "\ \ ~ ~\ /"
/ '___ .._,-'_.------ riI -. . \ ·
,_._' _______/.' ;::l
\ z> \"V'""
\ 0 \'
\ \ r~
.,........... ,/ / ~I .
....
-. .-,....
-'-
L ..
" .,. ;1
:i;)'~\fll~,~;;:;;;;;;r " .
~,~:"'~'
~Ot
. 1.' -~~.. _' "," ,. ,
· fi
· ~ J ~
1\ ... ~ ;,
. ,j af1~
'~\..L.
,~~) ~
-" .
-~
.
.
.
~
~
o
I
.
I
I
E r
~ .J-s
G i-
i - ~F
II I
_/,i~
,.~f.<
.;k'
-
I
I
N
(X)
~
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/O~
FROM:
Mayor and Council Members
City Administratorv
Michael Schultz ()
Associate Planne
TO:
SUBJECT:
Consider Resolution Approve Charleswood 3rd Addition Development
Contract
DATE:
July 17,2000
INTRODUCTION
The Development Contract for Charleswood 3rd Addition has been drafted in accordance
with the approval and conditions placed on the approval of the Final Plat.
DISCUSSION
The Charleswood 3rd Addition Development Contract requires the following conditions
to be agreed upon:
a. Developer shall execute a Development Contract with the City specifying the
Developer's obligations, and the City shall review and approve all required
plans.
b. The Developer reimburses the City for all engineering, administrative, legal
and SWCD costs.
c. The Developer agrees to furnish the City one (1) reproducible and one (1)
eight and one-half inch by eleven inch (8 !f2" x 11 ") reproducible copy of the
filed plat in accordance with Title II, Chapter 3, Section 3 (E) of the City
Code.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Charleswood 3rd Addition
Preliminary Plat on March 14, 2000 and was forwarded to the City Council on March 20,
2000 where it was approved. The Final Plat was approved at the Planning Commission
on June 13, 2000 and forwarded to the City Council on June 19, 2000 where it was
approved.
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Development Contract for the
Charleswood 3rd Addition.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing its signing contingent upon the above
conditions and approval by the Engineering Division.
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
Respectfully submitted,
~
cc: Steve Juetten, Genstar Land Company
RESOLUTION NO. R- 00
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
CHARLESWOOD 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 17th day of July,
2000 at 7:00 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R44-00, the City Council approved the Charleswood
3rd Addition Final Plat subject to the following conditions.
a. Developer shall execute a Development Contract with the City specifying the
Developer's obligations, and the City shall review and approve all required plans.
b. The Developer reimburses the City for all engineering, administrative, legal and
SWCD costs.
c. The Developer agrees to furnish the City one (1) reproducible and one (1) eight and
one-half inch by eleven inch (8 Y2" x 11") reproducible copy of the filed plat in
accordance with Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3 (E) of the City Code.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Development Contract for the aforementioned subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the
Clerk's office is hereby approved.
The Mayor and Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
17th day of July, 2000.
Mayor
Attested to this _ day of
, 2000.
City Administrator
SEAL
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
AGREEMENT dated this 17 th day of July, 2000, by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(CITY) and Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P., a Limited Liability Partnership (DEVELOPER).
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for CHARLESWOOD 3RD ADDITION
(also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is legally
described as:
See Exhibit A
2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on the condition that:
a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and
b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
3. Development Plans. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be
attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this
Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract,
subject to paragraphs 6 and 31 G, the plans shall control. The required plans are:
Plan A - Final Plat
Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans
Plan C - Landscape Plan
Plan D - ZoninglDevelopment Map
Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City
Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications
The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities:
underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone.
4. Sales Office Requirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this
subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, fmal utility plan and a zoning
map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining
neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet ofthe plat shall
be included.
1
5. Zonin!!:/Development Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 112" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of
the plat containing the following information:
a. platted property;
b. existing and future roads;
c. future phases;
d. existing and proposed land uses; and
e. future ponds.
6. Required Public Improvements and CSAH 31 Assessments. The Developer shall install and pay for the following:
a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System
b. Water System (trunk and lateral)
c. Storm Sewer
d. Streets
e. Concrete Curb and Gutter
f. Street Signs
g. Street Lights
h. Sidewalks and Trails
i. Erosion Control, Site Grading and Ponding
j. Traffic Control Devices
k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments
1. Surveying and Staking
m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees
The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in accordance with City standards, engineering
guidelines, ordinances and plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer
furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications, without prior authorization of the City Engineer, shall be considered a violation of this agreement and a Default
of the Contract. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before
proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to
assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the
construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's
discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or
part time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the
City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work.
Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply
the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans as specified in the City's Engineering Guidelines.
If the Developer does not provide such information, the City will produce the as-built drawings. All costs associated with
producing the as-built drawings will be the responsibility of the Developer.
Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with M.S.
~505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed.
CSAH 31 Assessments
The parent parcel of Charleswood 3rd Addition was previously assessed for improvements to CSAH 31. The current levied
assessment amount is:
Parcel No. 141650002100
$343,906.76
A portion of the levied assessment becomes due with the fmal platting of Charleswood 3rd Addition. The amount due with
Charleswood 3rd Addition is $79,352.33. The remaining balance of the levied assessment, $264,554.45, shall remain levied
against the unplatted portion ofthe parent parcel. The Developer may elect to pay the $79,352.33 in cash at the time of fmal
plat approval or have it prorated and reassessed to the lots and blocks of Charleswood 3rd Addition. If assessed, the
assessments shall be spread over a 10-year period with 6.5% interest on the unpaid balance from the time of the initial adoption
of the assessment to the parent parcel. The reassessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this Contract is signed by the
City. The Developer and any successors or assigns waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special
assessments, including but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the
property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. 429.081.
2
7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public improvements by July 1,2002, in accordance with
the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time
from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect
cost increases. An extension of the security shall be considered an extension of this contract and the extension of the contract
will coincide with the date of the extension of the security.
8. Ownership ofImprovements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement,
and written acceptance by the City Engineer, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property,
except for cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action.
9. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor
material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is
two years. The warranty period for the streets shall commence after the final wear course has been completed and the streets
have been accepted by City Council resolution. The warranty period on underground utilities shall commence following their
completion and acceptance by the City Engineer in writing. It is the responsibility of the Developer to complete the required
testing of the underground utilities and request, in writing, City acceptance of the utilities. Failure of the Developer to
complete the required testing or request acceptance of the utilities in a timely manner shall not in any way constitute cause for
the warranty period to be modified from the stipulations set forth above. All trees shall be warranted to be alive, of good
quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after the security for the trees is released. Any replacements shall be
warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety
acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security posted by the Developer
until the bonds or other acceptable surety are furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever
first occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identify the procedures
for final acceptance of streets and utilities.
10. Gradinl!: Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile
and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid and the City has been
furnished the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City
Engineer.
If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notify all property
owners/residents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has approved
the proposed grading changes.
11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building
permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the
City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are
insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re-seeded
forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as
necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not
comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, or in an emergency
determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion
immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed
action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the
Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may
draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless
the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements.
The Developer is responsible for Erosion Control inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for
a Water Quality Management Fe-b of $ 1,445 based upon the number of acres in the plat.
12. Landscapinl!:. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished
in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. Retaining walls with I) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a
combination oftiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to 1 shall be constructed in
accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota.
Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the
3
retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the
development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be constructed, shall be constructed
and certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built.
13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one (I) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. No earth moving,
construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a final plat for the
phase has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may
refuse to approve [mal plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily
completed. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes approval to develop the plat.
Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until development agreements for such phases are approved by the City.
14. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or removing any part thereof
which has not been [mal platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or
dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal law or agreed
to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full
extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan
(including removing unplatted property from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements
enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat.
15. Surface Water Manae:ement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of $ 137,844 in lieu
of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat
over a 10 year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be
deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time.
The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA
429.081. Storm sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time
the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
16. Wetland Conservation and Mitie:ation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act, as
amended, and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with wetlands conservation and the
Wetlands Mitigation Plan.
17. Water Main Trunk Area Chare:e. The Developer shall pay a water area charge of $ 46,178 for the plat in lieu of the
property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a
ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be
deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time.
The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA
429.081. Water area charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time
the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The Developer shall pay a water treatment plant fee of $ 32,175 for the plat in lieu of the
property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a
ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be
deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time.
The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA
429.081. Water treatment plant fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at
the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
19. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Chare:e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge of$ 43,912 for the plat
in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the
plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The
assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or
prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any
claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available
4
pursuant to MSA 429.081. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon
requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay a park dedication fee of $ 50,511 in satisfaction of the City's park dedication
requirements for the plat. The Developer shall furnish the City with an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the City
Administrator, from a bank (security) for the Park Dedication Fee of $ 50,511.00. The bank and form of the security shall be
subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The security shall be automatically renewing. It is understood that the
Developer will dedicate land and construct improvements in a future phase and that the above letter of credit may be reduced
or released as part of a subsequent development contract. The park dedication fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated
and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
21. Sealcoatine:. In lieu of assessing sealcoating three years from completion of the road construction, the Developer agrees
to pay a fee of $ 3,965 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall be deposited in the City Road and
Bridge Fund upon execution of this Agreement.
22. GIS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Government Information System fee of $ 1,725 based upon the number of
lots within the subdivision.
23. Easements. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of this Agreement with the easements
designated on the plat.
24. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the plat
to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of public
improvements by the City. The license shall expire after the public improvements installed pursuant to the Development
Contract have been installed and accepted by the City.
25. Clean UP. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City Engineer, clear from the public streets and
property any soil, earth or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. All debris,
including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall
be prohibited, except for fIre training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to
clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs.
26. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of real estate taxes including interest and
penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all
public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or
alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $ 980,458. The bank and form of the
security shall be subject to the approval ofthe City Administrator. The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of
the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty-fIve (45)
days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the
Agreement are not satisfIed, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the
letter of credit. The City may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this Agreement or Default of
the Contract. The amount of the security was calculated as follows:
GradinglErosion Control
Sanitary Sewer
Water Main
Storm Sewer
Street Construction
$N/A*
$158,750
$ 148,750
$ 161,250
$ 298,750
Monuments
St. Lights/Signs
Blvd. Trees
Blvd. Sodding
Wetland Mitigation
$17,250
$ 25,625
$ 27,500
$ 12,500
$ 37,500
Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 92,583
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security.
* The GradinglErosion Control is secured by a separate letter of credit.
5
27. Responsibilitv for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but
not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, engineering,
easements, inspection and utility testing expenses incurred in connection with approval, acceptance and development of the
plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and
inspecting the construction for the development of the plat.
B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development.
The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may
payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees.
C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement ofthis Agreement, including engineering and
attorney's fees. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that have performed work
required by this Contract, that the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking
payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22,
Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the
claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and
dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that
the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract.
D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not
paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days
shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum. If the bills are not paid within sixty (60) days, the City has the
right to draw from the Developers security to pay the bills.
28. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all
construction debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
29. Existin2 Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees
which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading
options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing
and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site.
30. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the
City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the
City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this
agreement, is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license
for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the
City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part.
31. Miscellaneous.
A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer
may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall
continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties
shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement.
B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold
to third parties.
C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement.
D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of
erosion control devices, retaining walls, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate
6
denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until
the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the
Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public
improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties.
Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before
certificates of occupancy may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather
related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is
responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such
a waiver is granted.
E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or
remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and
each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often
and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time
thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to
the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and
approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement
shall not be a waiver or release.
F. The City has determined through the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet that an Environmental Impact
Statement for the project is not required.
G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County,
Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances
and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow
any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer
shall cease work until there is compliance.
H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants
with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being fmal platted and/or
has obtained Consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that
there are no unrecorded interests in the property being fmal platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City
harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this
Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer.
I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability
and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out
of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for
bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for
property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named
insured on said policy, the insurance certificate shall provide that the City must be given 10 days advance written notice of the
cancellation of the insurance and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City
signing the plat.
1. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City.
K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to the Developer, draw down the Developer's
cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 26 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this
security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine
whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 30 hereof, this determination
may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City
in an amount which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a
reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages.
7
L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of
operation:
Monday - Friday
Saturday
Sunday
7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M.
8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M.
Not Allowed
This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24 hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviation from the above
hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer.
M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for
every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of
the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements.
N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards
within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as
outlined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defined in said Paragraph 30.
32. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its
employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address:
Mr. Peter Gualtieri
Genstar Land Company Midwest
11000 West 78th Street
Suite 201
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by
certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address:
John F. Erar, City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
8
SIGNATURE PAGE
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
By:
John F. Erar, City Administrator
DEVELOPER: Astra Genstar Partnership L.L.P.
By: Genstar Land Company Midwest Its: Managing General Partner
By:
Its: Vice President
Peter Gualtieri
Drafted by:
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota 55024
(651)463-7111
9
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2000 by Gerald Ristow,
Mayor, and by John F. Erar, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of
the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2000, by Peter
Gualtieri, the Vice President of Genstar Land Company Midwest, a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the
corporation,
Notary Public
10
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/oJ
FROM:
Mayor and Council>>~rs
City Administrator/,"
Michael Schultz Nn
Associate Planner ~
TO:
SUBJECT:
Consider Resolution Approve Bristol Square 2nd Addition Development Contract
DATE:
July 17,2000
INTRODUCTION
The Development Contract for Bristol Square 2nd Addition has been drafted in accordance with the
approval and conditions placed on the approval of the Final Plat.
DISCUSSION
The Charleswood 3rd Addition Development Contract requires the following conditions to be
agreed upon:
a. The Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the
Development Contract and approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water
and utilities by the Engineering Division.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Bristol Square Preliminary Plat on July
28, 1998; the preliminary plat included the entire subdivision and the developer has phased the
development with the submittal of each final addition. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the Final Plat on June 13, 2000 and forwarded it to the City Council where it was
approved on June 19,2000.
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Development Contract for the Bristol Square 2nd
Addition.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing its signing contingent upon the above conditions and
approval by the Engineering Division.
Res" P, ectfully SUbm~'tte "
//;4 7
/1/'/1,- '
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
cc: Jim Allen, Allen Homes Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. R -00
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
BRISTOL SQUARE 2ND ADDITION
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 17th day of July,
2000 at 7:00 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R45-00, the City Council approved the Bristol Square
2nd Addition final Plat subject to the following conditions.
a. The Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the
Development Contract and approval of the construction plans for grading, storm
water and utilities by the Engineering Division.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Development Contract for the aforementioned subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the
Clerk's office is hereby approved.
The Mayor and Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such contract.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
17th day of July, 2000.
Mayor
Attested to this _ day of
, 2000.
City Administrator
SEAL
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
AGREEMENT dated this 17 th day of July, 2000, by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(CITY) and Bristol Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (DEVELOPER).
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for BRISTOL SQUARE SECOND
ADDITION (also referred to in this Development Contract [CONTRACT or AGREEMENT] as the PLAT). The land is
legally described as:
Outlots B,C,D,E,F, and N, BRISTOL SQUARE FIRST ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota
2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on the condition that:
a) the Developer enter into this Agreement; and
b) the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
c) the Developer participates in the costs for the improvements to County Road 72 proposed in the feasibility report accepted
by the City Council June 15th, 1998. The Developer will be responsible for its proportionate share of the Street and Utility
costs. The improvement of County Road 72 is hereby agreed by the parties to confer special benefit to the Bristol Square
Plat. The City shall assess the costs of the improvements to County Road 72 against the plat in accordance with the City's
local improvement policy based on the final project costs. The Developer and any successors or assigns waives any and all
procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments for the construction of County Road 72, including but not
limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer
waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. 429.081.
3. Development Plans. The Developer shall develop the plat in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be
attached to this Agreement. The plans may be prepared by the Developer, subject to City approval, after entering into this
Agreement but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract,
subject to paragraphs 6 and 31 G, the plans shall control. The required plans are:
Plan A - Final Plat
Plan B - Soil Erosion Control and Grading Plans
Plan C - Landscape Plan
Plan D - ZoninglDevelopment Map
Plan E - Wetlands Mitigation as required by the City
Plan F - Final Street and Utility Plans and Specifications
The Developer shall use its best efforts to assure timely application to the utility companies for the following utilities:
underground natural gas, electrical, cable television, and telephone.
1
4. Sales Office Requirements. At any location within the plat where lots and/or homes are sold which are part of this
subdivision, the Developer agrees to install a sales board on which a copy of the approved plat, fmal utility plan and a zoning
map or planned unit development plan are displayed, showing the relationship between this subdivision and the adjoining
neighborhood. The zoning and land use classification of all land and network of major streets within 350 feet of the plat shall
be included.
5. Zonine/Development Map. The Developer shall provide an 8 1/2" x 14" scaled map of the plat and land within 350' of
the plat containing the following information:
a. platted property;
b. existing and future roads;
c. future phases;
d. existing and proposed land uses; and
e. future ponds.
6. Required Public Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following:
a. Sanitary Sewer Lateral System
b. Water System (trunk and lateral)
c. Storm Sewer
d. Streets
e. Concrete Curb and Gutter
f. Street Signs
g. Street Lights
h. Sidewalks and Trails
i. Erosion Control, Site Grading and Ponding
j. Traffic Control Devices
k. Setting of Lot & Block Monuments
1. Surveying and Staking
m. Landscaping, Screening, Blvd. Trees
The improvements shall be installed in accordance with Plans A through F, and in accordance with City standards, engineering
guidelines, ordinances and plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer
furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. Work done not in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications, without prior authorization of the City Engineer, shall be considered a violation of this agreement and a Default
of the Contract. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council and other agencies before
proceeding with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to
assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able to certify that the
construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's
discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspector(s) and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or
part time basis. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a pre-construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the
City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work.
Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply
the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans as specified in the City's Engineering Guidelines.
If the Developer does not provide such information, the City will produce the as-built drawings. All costs associated with
producing the as-built drawings will be the responsibility of the Developer.
Before the security for the completion of the utilities is released, iron monuments must be installed in accordance with M.S.
S505.02. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed.
7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required public improvements by July 1,2001, in accordance with
the requirements set forth in the City's Engineering Guidelines. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time
from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect
cost increases. An extension of the security shall be considered an extension of this contract and the extension of the contract
will coincide with the date of the extension of the security.
8. Ownership ofImprovements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement,
and written acceptance by the City Engineer, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property,
except for cable TV, electrical, gas, and telephone, without further notice or action.
2
9. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor
material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is
two years. The warranty period for the streets shall commence after the fmal wear course has been completed and the streets
have been accepted by City Council resolution. The warranty period on underground utilities shall commence following their
completion and acceptance by the City Engineer in writing. It is the responsibility of the Developer to complete the required
testing of the underground utilities and request, in writing, City acceptance of the utilities. Failure of the Developer to
complete the required testing or request acceptance of the utilities in a timely manner shall not in any way constitute cause for
the warranty period to be modified from the stipulations set forth above. All trees shall be warranted to be alive, of good
quality, and disease free for twelve (12) months after the security for the trees is released. Any replacements shall be
warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other surety
acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security posted by the Developer
until the bonds or other acceptable surety are furnished to the City or until the warranty period has been completed, whichever
first occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City's Engineering Guidelines identify the procedures
for fmal acceptance of streets and utilities.
10. Gradin2 Plan. The plat shall be graded and drainage provided by the Developer in accordance with Plan B.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Developer may start rough grading the lots within the stockpile
and easement areas in conformance with Plan B before the plat is filed if all fees have been paid and the City has been
furnished the required security. Additional rough grading may be allowed upon obtaining written authorization from the City
Engineer.
If the developer needs to change grading affecting drainage after homeowners are on site, he must notify all property
owners/residents of this work prior to its initiation. This notification cannot take place until the City Engineer has approved
the proposed grading changes.
11. Erosion Control and Fees. After the site is rough graded, but before any utility construction is commenced or building
permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the
City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if it is determined that the methods implemented are
insufficient to properly control erosion. All areas disturbed by the excavation and back-filling operations shall be re-seeded
forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched and disc anchored as
necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not
comply with the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, or in an emergency
determined at the sole discretion of the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion
immediately, without notice to the Developer. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed
action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and the City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the
Developer does not reimburse the City for any costs of the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may
draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless
the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements.
The Developer is responsible for Erosion Control inspection fees at the current rates. The Developer is also responsible for
a Water Quality Management Fee of $ 227 based upon the number of acres in the plat.
12. Landscapin2. The Developer shall landscape the plat in accordance with Plan C. The landscaping shall be accomplished
in accordance with a time schedule approved by the City. Retaining walls with I) a height that exceeds four feet or 2) a
combination of tiers that exceed four feet or 3) a three foot wall with a back slope greater than 4 to I shall be constructed in
accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota.
Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the
retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls that are part of the
development plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract that are required to be constructed, shall be constructed
and certified before any building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built.
13. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one (1) phase in accordance with Plans A-F. No earth moving,
construction of public improvements or other development shall be done in any subsequent phase until a fmal plat for the
phase has been filed in the County Recorder's office and the necessary security has been furnished to the City. The City may
refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases until public improvements for all prior phases have been satisfactorily
3
completed. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, this Development Contract constitutes approval to develop the plat.
Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until development agreements for such phases are approved by the City.
14. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or removing any part thereof
which has not been fmal platted, or official controls, shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or
dedications or platting required or permitted by the approved preliminary plat unless required by State or Federal law or agreed
to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full
extent permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan
(including removing unplatted property from the urban service area), official controls, platting or dedication requirements
enacted after the date of this Agreement and may require submission of a new plat.
15. Surface Water Mana2ement Fee. The Developer shall pay an area storm water management charge of $37,865 in lieu
of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat
over a 10 year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be
deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time.
The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA
429.081. Storm sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time
the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of $10,779 will be given to the Developer for storm
water improvements related to drainage from County Road 72 within the plat. The net result is that the assessments will be
based on a charge of $ 27,086.
16. Wetland Conservation and Miti2ation. The Developer shall comply with the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act, as
amended, and the Wetlands Mitigation Plan. The Developer shall pay all costs associated with wetlands conservation and the
Wetlands Mitigation Plan.
17. Water Main Trunk Area Char2e. The Developer shall pay a water area charge of $8,813 for the plat in lieu of the
property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a
ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be
deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time.
The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA
429.081. Water area charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the time
the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of$4,211 will be given to the Developer for water main
installation in County Road 72, completed with Bristol Square First Addition. A credit of $4,132 will be given to the Developer
for Water Main Trunk oversizing installed within the Bristol Square First Addition plat. A credit of $10,607 will be given to
the Developer for Water Main Trunk oversizing within the plat. The net result is a credit to the Developer in the amount of
$10,137.
18. Water Treatment Plant Fee. The Developer shall pay a water treatment plant fee of $21,336 for the plat in lieu of the
property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a
ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be
deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time.
The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA
429.081. Water treatment plant fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at
the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
19. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Area Char2e. The Developer shall pay a sanitary sewer trunk area charge of $6,805 for the plat
in lieu of the property paying a like assessment at a later date. The charge shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the
plat over a ten (10) year period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The
assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or
prepaid at any time. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any
claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available
4
pursuant to MSA 429.081. Sanitary Trunk Sewer charges for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon
requirements in effect at the time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into. A credit of$640 will be given to
the Developer for Sanitary Sewer Trunk oversizing that was installed within Bristol Square First Addition. The net result is
that the assessments will be based on a charge of $6,165.
20. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay a park dedication fee of $15,515 in satisfaction of the City's park dedication
requirements for the plat. The park dedication fee shall be assessed against the lots (not outlots) in the plat over a ten (10) year
period with interest on the unpaid balance calculated at eight percent (8%) per annum. The assessment shall be deemed
adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The assessments may be assumed or prepaid at any time. The
Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessments including any claim that the
assessments exceed the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA
429.081. The park dedication fees for subsequent phases shall be calculated and paid based upon requirements in effect at the
time the Development Contracts for those phases are entered into.
21. Sealcoating:. In lieu of assessing sealcoating three years from completion ofthe road construction, the Developer agrees
to pay a fee of $0 for initial sealcoating of streets in the subdivision. This fee shall be deposited in the City Road and Bridge
Fund upon execution of this Agreement.
22. GIS Fees. The Developer is responsible for a Government Information System fee of $1,290 based upon the number of
lots within the subdivision.
23. Easements. The Developer shall furnish the City at the time of execution of this Agreement with the easements
designated on the plat.
24. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors, a license to enter the plat
to perform all necessary work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation of public
improvements by the City. The license shall expire after the public improvements installed pursuant to the Development
Contract have been installed and accepted by the City.
25. Clean Uo. The Developer shall weekly, or more often if required by the City Engineer, clear from the public streets and
property any soil, earth or debris resulting from construction work by the Developer or its agents or assigns. All debris,
including brush, vegetation, trees and demolition materials, shall be disposed of off site. Burning of trees and structures shall
be prohibited, except for fire training only. The City has a contract for street cleaning services. The City will have the right to
clean the streets as outlined in current City policy. The Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for street cleaning costs.
26. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, payment of real estate taxes including interest and
penalties, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements in the plat and construction of all
public improvements in the plat, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow, irrevocable letter of credit, or
alternative security acceptable to the City Administrator, from a bank (security) for $366,300. The bank and form of the
security shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The security shall be automatically renewing. The term of
the security may be extended from time to time if the extension is furnished to the City Administrator at least forty-five (45)
days prior to the stated expiration date of the security. If the required public improvements are not completed, or terms of the
Agreement are not satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City may draw down the
letter of credit. The City may draw down the security, without prior notice, for any violation of this Agreement or Default of
the Contract. The amount of the security was calculated as follows:
Grading/Erosion Control
Sanitary Sewer
Water Main
Storm Sewer
Street Construction
$9,250
$45,500
$79,125
$32,875
$133,375
Monuments
St. Lights/Signs
Blvd. Trees
Blvd. Sodding
Wetland Mitigation
$10,500
$13,125
$15,125
$500
$N/A
Two Years Principal and Interest on Assessments $ 26,925
*This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security.
5
27. Responsibilitv for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but
not limited to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, administrative, construction costs, engineering,
easements, inspection and utility testing expenses incurred in connection with approval, acceptance and development of the
plat, the preparation of this Agreement, and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and
inspecting the construction for the development of the plat.
B. The Developer, except for City's willful misconduct, shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development.
The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may
payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees.
C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and
attorney's fees. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that have performed work
required by this Contract, that the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking
payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22,
Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the
claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and
dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that
the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract.
D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not
paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days
shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum. If the bills are not paid within sixty (60) days, the City has the
right to draw from the Developers security to pay the bills.
E. The Developer shall pay, or cause to be paid when due, and in any event before such penalties attach, all special
assessments referred to in this Agreement. This is a personal obligation of the Developer and shall continue in full force and
affect even if the Developer sells one or more ofthe lots, the entire plat, or any part thereof.
28. Trash Enclosures. The Developer is responsible to require each builder to provide on site trash enclosures to contain all
construction debris, thereby preventing it from being blown off site, except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
29. Existine: Tree Preservation. The Developer will walk the site with the City Forester and identify all significant trees
which will be removed by on site grading. A dialogue between the Developer and City Forester regarding alternative grading
options will take place before any disputed tree is removed. All trees, stumps, brush and other debris removed during clearing
and grubbing operations shall be disposed of off site.
30. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the
City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the
City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City or as otherwise provided for in this
agreement, is first given written notice of the work in default, not less than 72 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license
for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the
City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part.
31. Miscellaneous.
A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. The Developer
may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall
continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Third parties
shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement.
6
B. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold
to third parties.
C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement.
D. Building permits shall not be issued prior to completion of site grading, utility installation, curb and gutter, installation of
erosion control devices, retaining walls, site seeding, mulching, disk anchoring and submittal of a surveyor's certificate
denoting all appropriate monuments have been installed. Only construction of noncombustible materials shall be allowed until
the water system is operational. If permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the
Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public
improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties.
Normal procedure requires that streets needed for access to approved uses shall be paved with a bituminous surface before
certificates of occupancy may be issued. However, the City Engineer is authorized to waive this requirement when weather
related circumstances prevent completion of street projects before the end of the construction season. The Developer is
responsible for maintaining said streets in a condition that will assure the access of emergency vehicles at all times when such
a waiver is granted.
E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or
remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and
each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often
and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time
thereafter any other right, power or remedy. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to
the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and
approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement
shall not be a waiver or release.
F. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of its knowledge, that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and
that an environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency
determines that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal requirements so issued from
said agency. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney fees, that the City
incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review.
G. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all City, County,
Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances
and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow
any construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer
shall cease work until there is compliance.
H. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants
with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the property being fmal platted and/or
has obtained Consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that
there are no unrecorded interests in the property being final platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City
harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this
Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer.
I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability
and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out
of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for
bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for
property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named
insured on said policy, the insurance certificate shall provide that the City must be given 10 days advance written notice of the
cancellation of the insurance and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City
signing the plat.
7
1. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City.
K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to the Developer, draw down the Developer's
cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 26 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this
security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine
whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 30 hereof, this determination
may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City
in an amount which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a
reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages.
L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of
operation:
Monday - Friday
Saturday
Sunday
7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M.
8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M.
Not Allowed
This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24 hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviation from the above
hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer.
M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for
every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of
the home. See City Standard Plate ERO-09 for construction requirements.
N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards
within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as
outlined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defmed in said Paragraph 30.
O. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract.
32. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its
employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address:
Jim Allen
Bristol Development Corporation
12433 Princeton Avenue
Savage, MN 55378
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by
certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address:
John F. Erar, City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
8
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
By:
DEVELOPER:
Bristol Development Corporation
By:
Drafted by:
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota 55024
(651) 463-7111
SIGNATURE PAGE
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
John F. Erar, City Administrator
Its:
9
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20
by Gerald Ristow, Mayor, and by John F. Erar, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of
,20_
by , the
Corporation, a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation.
of Bristol Development
Notary Public
10
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
IOe
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
City Administrat01~
FROM: David L. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 2000-2005 MUSA Staging Plan - Schedule Council-Planning Commission
Workshop
DATE: July 17,2000
INTRODUCTION
As a result of approval of the City's Comprehensive Plan, a determination needs to be made as to
the allocation of the City's 2000-2005 MUSA expansion. In addition, this workshop session will
also allow for discussion of planning issues associated with updating the City's Zoning Code in
support of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
Attached is a memo to the Planning Commission that outlines the properties in the City that have
requested MUSA designation for their property and also suggested guidelines and criteria to
consider in the determination as to where MUSA should be extended.
The Planning Commission has discussed this issue and has requested that a joint City Council -
Planning Workshop be held in order to discuss this important issue further prior to forwarding
their recommendation on this issue.
In accordance with Council policy, the suggested date for the Joint Workshop is Wednesday,
August 16,2000 at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall. This is the third Wednesday of the month. Council,
however, may choose to reschedule this workshop to best fit the need of the Council as a whole.
ACTION REOUESTED
Authorize the scheduling of a Joint City Council - Planning Commission Workshop for
Wednesday, August 16,2000 at 7:00 p.m.
~~I~L
Qn
Community Development Director
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
Lee Smick, AICP n.. 0
Planning Coordinator\r
FROM:
DATE:
July 11,2000
SUBJECT:
Proposed MUSA Expansion
INTRODUCTION
On June 27, 2000, the Planning Commission began discussions concerning the review of
properties that may be considered for MUSA designation between 2000-2005 that was provided
in Table 4.1 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
The discussions consisted ofthe review of property within the City limits of Farmington that may
receive MUSA within the next five years. This review was generated because of the number of
requests by property owners to expand MUSA to their property.
At the meeting, the Planning Commission made no decision concerning the allotment of MUSA
to various properties knowing that a joint City CouncillPlanning Commission meeting would be
required to review the MUSA requests.
Additional discussions and dialogue will continue on July 11, 2000 concerning questions that the
Planning Commission may have for staff. Attached is information from the June 27, 2000
Planning Commission meeting for review and reference.
The joint City CouncillPlanning Commission meeting is proposed for Wednesday, August 16,
2000 at 7:00 PM. Staff is requesting that the Commissioners review their schedules and
determine if this date meets the approval of the Commission or another date should be proposed
to the City Council.
ACTION REOUESTED
Approve the joint City CouncillPlanning Commission meeting scheduled for August 16, 2000 or
propose another meeting date.
~u~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmin..on.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
Lee Smick, AICP IV I?
Planning Coordinato~
FROM:
DATE:
June 27, 2000
SUBJECT:
Proposed MUSA Expansion
INTRODUCTION
On March 22,2000 the Metropolitan Council approved Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
In the plan, the City opted to illustrate the proposed MUSA areas as "undesignated MUSA
reserve" rather than designating a fixed staging area. Under this scenario, the City chose to
designate the acreage, types and density of land uses and local/regional service levels for each
five-year stage to 2020, with the exact location of each stage unspecified to avoid land
speculation.
However, the City has recently been approached by a number of land owners who have requested
MUSA for their property. Additionally, the attached letter from the Metropolitan Council dated
April 3, 2000 advised the City that there are regional sewer system capacity limitations, therefore
any development occurring in the City within the 2005-2010 staging area would be required to go
through a plan amendment process.
Because of the above-mentioned events, the City has recently taken steps to begin reviewing the
designation of MUSA in the acreage, types and density of land uses between 2000-2005 that was
provided in Table 4.1 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
In review, the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) provides Farmington with a regional
sanitary sewer system that currently consists of 3,650 gross acres. As the City continues to grow
at 275 housing units per year, additional MUSA will be required to service newly expanded areas
of the City in order to provide for this growth. Farmington currently forecasts 5,775 household
units to be added within the City over the next twenty years, which requires 1,750 additional
residential acres of MUS A at 3.3 duJacre to satisfy the growth needs. As the Table 4.1 indicates,
1,620 acres of additional MUSA acres will be requested by the City by the year 2020 to meet the
forecasted growth rates.
In 1999, the City had 735 vacant residential acres within the MUSA. In terms of residential
MUSA, an additional 1,060 residential MUSA acres, along with the current 735 vacant residential
acres within the MUSA, provides for a total of 1,795 residential acres of MUS A that the City will
need to meet the forecasted residential growth. Therefore, 1,750 additional MUSA acres will be
consumed by 2020 leaving 45 acres of undeveloped residential land for "unanticipated growth."
Between 2000 and 2005, a total of 610 acres has been allotted for MUSA expansion. Land use
categories included in the first five-year cycle are low, low/medium and medium residential,
industrial and unanticipated growth.
MUSA Staging Plan
Table 4.1
Land Use Acres
Year Low Low/ Med High Indust. Business Corom. Unanticipated Total
Med Park Growth
2005 400 30 60 0 40 0 0 80 610
2010 300 0 50 0 40 0 22 120 532
2015 105 0 50 0 50 60 0 75 340
2020 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 75 138
Totals 805 30 223 0 130 60 22 350 1620
Within the table, 350 acres of additional MUSA will be spread throughout the twenty-year time
frame in order to provide for "unanticipated growth." This unanticipated growth may come from
annexation petitions or an unanticipated increase in building permits requiring additional acreage
for development. Consequently, the City will request a total of 1,620 acres of MUSA for all land
use categories until 2020. Map 4.1 indicates the locations of the proposed areas for MUSA
expansion.
City staff has prepared a list defining the criteria utilized in determining the MUSA expansion
between 2000 and 2005 in the City of Farmington.
Criteria for MUSA Expansion - 2000-2005
1. Proximity of property to transportation corridors (i.e. 195th 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 is economically feasible to connect to existing or
planned infrastructure.
3. Property within the IndustriallBusiness Park or other industrial/commercial areas to
promote tax base as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
4. Proximity to central area of City (east of Akin 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
proposed property.
2
7. 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.
8. MUSA expansion areas should generally follow section lines, natural drainage ways and
sanitary sewer districts.
9. Property cannot be considered for MUSA until an annexation petition has been filed and
approved.
As mentioned above, the City has received numerous requests from property owners both inside
and outside of the corporate limits to designate MUSA to their properties for the opportunity of
future development. The following table identifies requests made by the property owner,
developable acres, land uses and location of the property. A detailed summary and analysis of
each property is attached.
PROPERTY WITHIN CITY/OWNER REQUESTS MUSA
Property/ Developable Land Use Location Comments
Developer Acres
A Fisher 10.16 Med. Res. East of TH 3 Redesignate
MUSA
B Devney 30.74 Industrial Industrial Park
C Farmington 17.5 Low Res. East of Akin Road Request
Lutheran Received
D Robert Adelman 26 Med. Res. South of St. Michael's Request
Received
E Murphy/Horton 64 Med. Res. East of CSAH 3 1 Request
Received
F Jim Allen 43.8 Low/Med. West of Denmark Request
Med.Res. Received
G Nordseth/ 34 Low Res. South of 195u1/W est of Request
Benedict Charleswood Received
H Seed/Genstar 211.45 Low-Med. West ofTH 3 Request
Res. Received
I Bill Adelman 38.4 Low Res. West of Allen Request
Received
J Murphy/208m 16.15 Industrial South of Murphy Farm Roadway
Corridor
TOTAL 492.2
K Devney 25.9 Low Res. West of Ag Preserve
Nelson Hills
L Devney 30 Low Res. West-CSAH 31 Ag Preserve
M Donnelly 48 Low Res. North of 195W Ag Preserve
N Finnegan 86 Restricted South of 195U1 - Conservation
Dev.
TOTAL 189.9
3
In reviewing if the land uses fall within the required acres allotted in Table 4.1, it is important to
calculate the total acres by land use type as show in the following table. As witnessed below, the
276.35 acres oflow density residential is below the 400 acres allotted in Table 4.1. Similarly, the
low/medium residential category showing 22.8 acres falls below the 30 acres allotted.
PROPERTY WITHIN CITY - RUNNING TOTALS
Low Low/ Medium High Industrial Business Comm. Unanticipated Total
Medium Park Growth
276.35 22.8 146.16 0 46.89 0 0 0 492.2
189.9 95
However, the medium residential category shows 146.16 acres compared to the 60 acres allotted
in Table 4.1. This large separation in allotted acres is most likely explained because of the time
period of 1998-1999 in which Table 4.1 was formulated. At that time, all of the developments
proposed in the City were single-family residential projects, excluding Nelson Hills Townhomes.
The first townhome projects of any size were Bristol Square and Glenview Townhomes that were
developing in the summer of 1999. Therefore, the City did not forecast larger acreages for
medium density land uses at the time the table was prepared.
The City will be working with the Metropolitan Council to determine if some of the land use
acreages may be shifted to other categories to project a more up-to-date profile of proposed
developments in the City.
The 46.89 acres of industrial land use is close to the 40 acres allotted, however a shift in land
acreage needs to occur to incorporate the additional 6.89 acres required for MUSA in the
Industrial Park and the construction of 20Sth Street.
The remammg 80 acres of unanticipated growth has yet to be determined. Once again,
unanticipated growth may include areas for which annexation petitions have been approved or an
unanticipated increase in building permits requiring additional acreage for development. This
allotment will most likely be determined subsequent to any future annexation petitions being
approved.
ACTION REOUESTED
Review the above information with City staff. An additional meeting will be held on July 11,
2000 to further discuss these issues and a joint City CounciVPlanning Commission meeting will
be scheduled.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
4
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ctfarmington.mn.us
//(1)
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Approve Joint Powers Agreement - Empire Township (Revised)
DATE: July 17, 2000
INTRODUCTION
At the July 3, 2000 Council meeting, Council approved an Orderz Annexation Agreement with
Empire Township for properties located on the southside of 209 Street that will be receiving
City water services.
DISCUSSION
Staff attended the Empire Township Board meeting on July 11,2000 to address any issues that
the township had with the agreement. At this meeting, the Township Board's attorney had made
several suggestions to the agreement that were relatively minor in scope, but appropriate in terms
of the orderly annexation of the properties in question. In addition, it was suggested by the
Township attorney that a separate provision be inserted to address liability issues associated with
the transfer of ownership of the sanitary sewer line. This provision has been reviewed by the City
Attorney and he concurs that these changes do not negatively affect the City's interests.
With respect to the two properties located on Highway 3, the City has received confirmation that
only one of the two properties contacted desires water services at this time. In review, ownership
of only a portion of the total line that services properties in two separate jurisdictions requires
additional study and analysis relative to long-term maintenance, future repair and liability issues
associated with having one service line being utilized by properties in two separate jurisdictions.
Accordingly, staff will need to prepare a more in-depth analysis of this situation, along with
additional discussions with Empire Township before making a fmal recommendation to Council.
Consequently, the revised joint powers agreement does not include either of the two properties at
this time.
ACTION REOUESTED
Approve the revised Joint powers agreement as presented. Empire Township has indicated that
they will act on the agreement at their July 25, 2000 Board meeting.
Cc: Empire Township Board
Empire Township Clerk
Ron Roetzel, Township Engineer, Bolton & Menk, Inc., 1515 East Highway 13, Burnsville, MN
55337-6857
John Ophaug, Township Attorney Schmitx, Ophaug and Dowd, P.O. 237, 220 Division Street,
Northfield, MN 55057
file
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-1
TOWN OF EMPIRE AND CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY
A JOINT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR ORDERLY
ANNEXATION AND THE EXERCISE OF JOINT POWERS
WHEREAS, Empire Township (the "Township") and the City of
Farmington (the "City") desire to plan appropriately for growth and
development in each community; and to provide for the efficient delivery of
public services to residents of both political subdivisions, and
WHEREAS, the Township and City acknowledge it is in the best
interests of the residents of each community to work cooperatively in the
planning and development of the areas abutting the common borders of the
communities and to align and/or realign services as necessary to provide for
the efficient delivery of public services to areas affected by boundary
adjustments, and;
WHEREAS, certain areas shown on Exhibits A and B attached
hereto, which exist in the Township currently have Sanitary Sewer service
provided by the Township, but no municipal water, and;
WHEREAS, as a result of a new development to be undertaken in the
City, known as the Tamarack Development, it is possible that the wells used
by the owners of property on Exhibits A and B may experience well failure,
necessitating the installation of municipal water, and
WHEREAS, due to the location of existing municipal water lines, it is
less expensive to provide municipal water for land shown on Exhibits A and B
from the City than from the Township, and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. ~414.033 authorizes orderly annexation
agreements, and Minn. Stat. ~4 71.59 authorizes two or more governmental
units to enter into agreements to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power
common to the contracting parties or any similar power
WHEREAS, the governing boards of both the Township and the City
have concluded that, following annexation of the properties, continued
sanitary sewer service to the affected area can best be accomplished through
the cooperative and joint efforts of the Township and the City
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Township and City
agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. The Township and City hereby establish an Orderly Annexation
Area ("OAA") as authorized by Minnesota Statute ~414.0325,
Subdivision 1, as shown on the attached Exhibit A and legally
described on Exhibit B.
2. Properties located within the OAA, shown on Exhibit A and
described in Exhibit B, shall be immediately annexed to the
City without contest by the Township upon adoption of this
joint resolution and filing with the State of Minnesota, Office of
Strategic and Long-Range Planning, as provided by law.
3. Upon approval by the respective governing bodies of the City
and the Township, this joint resolution and agreement shall
confer jurisdiction upon the State of Minnesota, Office of
Strategic and Long-Range Planning so as to accomplish the
orderly annexation of the lands shown on the attached Exhibit
A and legally described on Exhibit B in accordance with the
terms of this joint resolution and agreement.
4. The City and the Township mutually state that no alteration by
the Office of Strategic and Long-Range Planning to the OAA
boundaries, as shown on Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B,
is appropriate or permitted.
5. The City and the Township mutually state that the annexation
will not affect electric service delivery, and that the current
population of the affected area is approximately 15 persons.
6. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~414.035 the Parties have determined
the tax rate of the City on the area annexed shall be increased in
substantially equal proportions over not more than six years to
equality with the tax rate on the property already within the
City. The appropriate period, if any, shall be based on the time
reasonably required to effectively provide full municipal
services to the annexed area.
7. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~414.036, upon annexation the City
shall reimburse the Township for the taxable property annexed
as part of this proceeding in accordance with the procedures
specified in Minn. Stat. ~414.033, Subd. 12. Property taxes
payable on the annexed land shall continue to be paid to the
affected town or towns for the year in which the annexation
becomes effective. If the annexation becomes effective on or
before August 1 of a levy year, the municipality shall levy on
the annexed area beginning with that same levy year. If the
annexation becomes effective after August 1 of a levy year, the
town may continue to levy on the annexed area for that levy
year, and the municipality may not levy on the annexed area
until the following levy year. In the first year following the
year when the municipality could first levy on the annexed area
under this subdivision, and thereafter, property taxes on the
annexed land shall be paid to the municipality. In the first year
following the year the municipality could first levy on the
annexed area, the municipality shall make a cash payment to
the affected town or towns in an amount equal to 90 percent of
the property taxes distributed to the town in regard to the
annexed area in the last year the property taxes from the
annexed area were payable to the town; in the second year, an
amount equal to 70 percent; in the third year, an amount equal
to 50 percent; in the fourth year, an amount equal to 30
percent; and in the fifth year, an amount equal to ten percent.
The municipality and the affected township may agree to a
different payment.
8. The Parties agree that, upon annexation of the lands shown on
the attached Exhibit A and legally described on Exhibit B
ownership of all public utilities serving those lands shall
transfer from the Township to the City without further action or
consideration. The City shall thereafter assume all ownership
and responsibility for the repair, maintenance and upgrade of
the public sanitary sewer facilities serving those properties in
the annexed area. The sanitary sewer facilities to be transferred
to the City shall be the sanitary sewer line Manhole 158 in TH 3
to and including Manhole 156 at 209th and Cantata Avenue
(Manhole numbering per record plans of Empire Township
dated March 2000.) The Township will retain ownership and
maintenance responsibility for Manhole 158, but the City
agrees to reimburse the Township fifty percent (50%) of the
maintenance, repair, and replacement costs of Manhole 158 at
TH 3 upon submittal of a bill by the Township to the City and
audit by the Council.
9. The City has examined the Sanitary Sewer Facilities to be
transferred to the City as described in 8 above and finds them to
be in proper working order. The City agrees that it shall hold
the township harmless for all future costs of repair, maintenance
and upgrade of those Sanitary Sewer Facilities to be transferred
to the City as described in 8 above. The City agrees not to
charge or assess any of the property owners of the land shown
on the attached Exhibits A and B for the Sanitary Sewer
Facilities to be transferred to the City, except for future repair,
maintenance, replacement and/or upgrade of them.
10. The Parties further agree that the City may continue the existing
connection of the affected properties to the Township sanitary
system. The Township shall bill the City for sanitary sewer
service on the same basis as other customers, and the City shall
bill the owners of the properties so served based on the City
sanitary sewer charges.
11. Having designated the area illustrated on Exhibit A and
described in Exhibit B as in need of orderly annexation, and
having provided for all of the conditions of its annexation
within this document, the parties to this agreement agree that no
consideration by the Office of Strategic and Long-Range
Planning is necessary.
12. The parties may amend this joint resolution by mutual consent
at any time.
Approved and Adopted
this _ day of , 2000.
EMPIRE TOWNSHIP
Chair
Clerk
Approved and Adopted
this _ day of , 2000.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
Mayor
Administrator
~ CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
z+oo CD Lt) Lt) ." ." ." ." ."
E-i Lt) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
l!l 0 CO t-- CD ." . (II) N
H en
::t: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 en en en en en en en
en N N N N N N N
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 N N N N N N N
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fn =It =It =It =It =It =It =It =It
(1) ZZZZZZZZ
.-
~ --------
(1) " D..D..D..D..D..D..D..D..
C. <taiocwa:LC):I:
0
~ - - - - - - - -
D.. u. (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) CD CD
C CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 ftS ftS ftS ftS ftS ftS ftS ftS
.- W D.. D.. D.. D.. D.. D.. D.. D..
..
- ~l
c ...
~ en c
:J:,
.. ~i 0
(1)
CD en .
~ o ~ In
.. N
tJ)
J:
..
en
0 <C
N
TRUNK HWY 3
.-------
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Ii1I 008/009
08129/00 13:30 FAX 851 452 5550
EXHIBIT "B"
parcel A - PIN #120290009056
The West 'fhree Hundred Fifty-three feet (353') of the North One Hundred
Fifty-five feet (155') of the South Six Hundred Sixty-five feet (665') of the
South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section Twenty-nine (29)~
Township One Hundred Fourteen (114), Range Nineteen (19). according to
the Government Survey thereof. Dakota County. Minnesota.
(I'orrens Property)
Parcel B - PIN #120290008056
All that part of the West Four Hundred Forty-nine and two-tenths feet
(449.2') of the North One Hundred Ninety feet (290') of the South Six
Hundred Sixty-five feet (665') of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter
of Section Twenty-nine (29)~ Township One Hundred Fourteen (114),
Range Nineteen (19), excepting the West Three Hundred Fifty-three feet
(353') thereof, all according to the Government Survey thereof, Daka1:a
County. Minnesota. (The foregoing being measured from the monument
designating the Southwest comer of said section as described in Document
No. 207921 fued May 11, 1950, in the office of the Register of Deeds
within and for Dakota County t Minnesota.)
(Abstract Property)
Parcel C -- PIN #120290007056
The East 80.00 feet of the North 190.0 feet of the West 529.2 feet of the
South 665.0 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter, Section
Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred. Fourteen (114), Range .
08/29/00 13:31 FAX 851 452 5~__CAMPB.EIJ....KNUTSON
---------
Ii1I 0071009
~meteen (19), according to the Government Survey thereof~ Dakota
County Minnesota.
(Torrens Property)
Parcel 0 - PIN #120290006056
The East 60.0 feet of the North 190.0 feet of the West 589.2 feet of the
South 665.0 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter. Section 29,
Township 114. Range 19, according to the U.S. Government Survey
thereof, Dakota County. Minnesota.
(I'orrens Property)
Parcel E - PIN #120290005056
The East 80.0 feet of the North 190.0 feet of the West 739.2 feet of the
South 665.0 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section
Twenty-nine (29). Township One Hundred Fourteen (114), Range
Nineteen (19), according to the Government Survey thereof, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
(Iorrens Property)
Parcel F -- PIN #120290004056
The East One Hundred Fifty feet (150') of the North One Hundred Ninety
feet (190') of the West Nine Hundred Two and seven-tenths feet (902.7')
of the South. Six Hundred Sixty-five feet (665') of the Southwest Quarter of
Section Twenty-nine (29). Township One Hundred Fourteen (114), Range-
Nineteen (19). Dakota County, Minnesota.
13: 31 FAX 851 ~ ~~_---f..A?mm..LL KNUTSON
---
iii 008/009
08/29/00
, '
parcel G - PIN #120290003056
The West Eighty feet (80') of the East One Hundred Sixty feet (160') of
the North One Hundred Ninety feet (190') of the West Ten Hundred Sixty-
two and seven-tenths feet (1062.7') of the South Six Hundred Sixty-five
feet (66S~) of the Southwest Quarter of Section Twenty-nine (29),
Township One Hundred Fourteen (114). Range Nineteen (19), according to
the Government Survey thereof, Dakota County I Minnesota.
(Torrens Property)
Parcel H ..- PIN #120290002056
The East 80 feet of the North 190 feet of the West 1062.7 feet of the South
665 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section Twenty-
nine (29), Township One Hundred Fourteen (114), Range Nineteen (19),
according to the Government Smvey thereof. Dakota County, Minnesota.
AND
Commencing at the Southwest comer of Section 29, Township 114, Range
19, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian; thence north along and parallel
with section line 665 feet; thence east and parallel with section line 1828.3
feet; thence south and parallel with section line 554 feet to the Chicago,
Milwaukee and St. Paul right-of-way; thence westerly along said right-of-
way to the intersection of the section line along the south side of said
Section 29; thence west and parallel with section line to the place of
beginning and cont~lning 27.50 acres, more or less, all in the South Half
of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 114, Range 19 West of
the Fifth Principal Meridian, according to the Government Survey thereof,
Dakota. County, Minnesota.
Excepting therefrom the east 699.6 feet of the north 190 feet of the west
1828.3 feet thereof; and also excepting therefrom the east 310 feet of the
west 1062.7 feet of the north 190 feet thereof; and also excepting
therefrom the east 80 feet of the north 190 feet of the west 739.2 feet of
08/29/00 13:31 FAX 851 452 5550 __~..mJ..KNUTSON
--------
""1Icn",~
the south 6'65 feet of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section
29, Township 114, Range 19, according to the Government Survey
thereof; also excepting the east 96.2 feet of the west 449.2 feet of the north
190 feet thereof; also excepting therefrom the west 353 feet of the north
155 feet of the south 665 feet thereof; also excepting therefrom the west
605 feet of the south 216 feet of the Southwest Quarter, all in Section 29,
Township 114, Range 19, according to the Government Survey thereof;
also excepting therefrom the east 80 feet of the north 190 feet of the west
529.2 feet of the south 665 feet of the South Half of the Southwest
Quarter; and also excepting therefrom the east 60 feet of the north 190 feet
of the west 589.2 feet of the south 665 feet of the South Half of the
Southwest Quarter, Section 29, Township 114, Range 19, according to the
Government Survey thereof. Also excepting therefrom the east 699.6 feet
of the west 1828.3 feet of the south 475 feet of that part of the South Half
of the Southwest Quarter lying northerly of the right-of-way line of the
Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad, in Section 29, Township 114,
Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota. Also excepting part of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 114, Range 19, Dakota
County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of
the west line of the said Southwest Quarter with the north line of the south
356 feet of said Southwest Quarter; thence north along the west line of the
said Southwest Quarter 154 feet; thence east, parallel with the south line of
the said Southwest Quarter 353 feet; thence south, parallel with the west
line of the said Southwest Quarter 35 feet; thence east, parallel with the
south. line of the said Southwest Quarter 27 feet; thence south, parallel with
the west line of the said Southwest Quarter 119 feet, more or less, to the
north line of the south 356 feet of said Southwest Quarter; thence west,
along said north line of the south 356 feet, a distance of 380 feet to the
point of beginning. Also excepting the west 380 feet of the north 140 feet
of the south 356 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Section 29, Township
114, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota.
(Torrens Property)
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.fal.Jllington.mn.us
/ t?? Q-
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
City Administrato~
FROM: David L. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Request for Proposals - Zoning Code Update Consultant
DATE: July 17, 2000
INTRODUCTION
Approval of the City's Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council also requires that the
City's Zoning Ordinance and Map be made consistent with the newly approved Comprehensive
Plan.
DISCUSSION
During the preparation of the 2000 City Budget, it was anticipated that the City would need to
retain a consultant to assist the City in the update of its Zoning Code upon the approval of the
Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that the City obtain proposals from a number of
Planning consulting firms to assist in this project.
Once a consulting firm is selected, it is anticipated that it will take between 6-9 months to
complete the ordinance update process. Several provisions of the ordinance that will require
revisions and updating include the subdivision ordinance, the PUD ordinance, the new Business
Park guidelines and sign ordinance to name a few.
BUDGET IMPACT
As indicated above, funding for the Zoning Code update was provided for in the Adopted 2000
Budget.
ACTION REOUESTED
Authorize the request for proposals for professional services to update the City Zoning Code.
Respectfully submitted,
Q~ff
Community Development Director