HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.07.99 Council Packet
COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR
September 7,1999
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVEAGENDA
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Proclaim Pollution Prevention Week
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments)
a) Mr. Dick Graelish - Sidewalk Reconstruction Concerns
b) Everest Path Speed Survey
7. CONSENT AGENDA
I .~ a) Approve Council Minutes (8/16/99) (Regular)
b) City Participation in County Auction
c) Customer Satisfaction Report
d) Trail Maintenance - Parks and Recreation Department
e) Authorize 1999 Audit Engagement - Finance Department
f) Schools and Conference - Fire Department
g) Approve Bills
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Autumn Glen Conditional Use Permit - Grading Permit
b) Annexation by Ordinance - Benham Property
9. AWARDOFCONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Adopt Resolution - Autumn Glen Preliminary Plat
b) Planning Commission Appeal - Bible Baptist Church
c) Request to Modify Conditions of Approval- East Farmington 5th Addition
Final Plat
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
...-r a) Consider Utility Easement Agreement - Arcon Development
b) Castle Rock Township - Revised Joint Powers Agreement
c) Request for Filing Deadline Extension- Oak Place Townhomes Final Plat
Action Taken
12. NEW BUSINESS
a) Adopt Resolution - Preliminary 2000 Tax Levy/Set Date - Truth in Taxation
b) Consider Draft Council Policy - Council Workshops
13. COUNCILROUNDTABLE
a) Farmington Townhomes - Site Control Issues
b) Joint City-School District Meeting (Verbal)
14. ADJOURN
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
5CL
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administratorf'r
FROM:
James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director
SUBJECT:
Proclaim Pollution Prevention Week September 20-26, 1999
DATE:
September 7,1999
INTRODUCTION & DISCUSSION
September 20-26, 1999 has been declared Minnesota Pollution Prevention Week. To promote this, there
will be a Pollution Prevention Day with speakers and entertainment for the fourth graders of the
Farmington School District on September 15.
ACTION REQUESTED
Proclaim the week of September 20-26, 1999 to be Pollution Prevention Week in Farmington.
Respectfully submitted,
--L-~~
James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
titl' of 5armington
,
.
lDJb-n~: tfje peopCe of farmington talie great :priSe in ;ur tit1>'s naturaC 6eaut1> anS support a cCean anS safe
enmronment; anS
lDJb-n~: :}eoffution pre-<>ention, aCso linown as source reSuction, is a progressi"Oe a:p:proacfj tfjat eliminates or
reSuces poffution at its source; anS
tDJb-n~: :}eoffution pre-<>ention is tfje most enmronmentaff1> sounS metfjoS of protecting our naturaC resources;
anS
tDJb-n~: :}eoffution pre-<>ention can increase inSustriaC anS resource efficienc1>, sCt"Oe participating organi3ations
time anS mone'1', anS aCso create a more sustaina6Ce econom1>; anS
~
tD.i-n~: :}eoffution pre-<>ention measures can imprO"Oe enmronmentar conSitions anS tfje fjeaCtfj anS safet1> of
worliers in tfje worliprace wfjire increasing commerciar competiti"Oeness; anS
tDJb.a.~: t~roug~ increaseS use of :poffution pre-<>ention, farmington can meet t~e c~affenge of ~croing an
. ecoCogicaff1> fjeaCtlW communit1> anS a mgoroUs 6usiness enmronment for its citi3en5; anS
tDJb-n~: :}eoffution :}ere-<>ention tDeeli wiff 6e 06seroeS 61> state gO"Oemments anS otfjer organi3ations
tfjrougfjout tfje nation anS t~is recognition is an o:p:porlunit1> for gO"Oemment to worli togetfjer witfj
6usiness, inSustry, enmronmentar groups, communit1> organi3ations, anS citi3en5 for a prosperous
anS sustaina6re future;
JJtctrro, tJb-n~~~, 1,~ "1t>I<5<5-0.." ~tctrro, mapor of tfje tit1> of farmington, 50 fjere.&p procCaim
5e:ptem6er 20126,1999 to 6e
:}eolTution lC"re-oention Week
in tije <titl' of ;farmington an8 encourage aIT citi;ens to join in tijis oDsen>ance.
~
nrt U)ft]t~~~ u)Jba~~, I ija"Oe ijereunto set
ml' ijan8 an8 causeS tije ~ear of tije <titl' of
;farmington to 6e affixeS on tije 1tij Sal' of
~evtem6et', 1999.
'l,..ttl' J\:5m.inistrator .
,
mal'or
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
~Q..;
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator?,
FROM:
Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT:
Sidewalk Reconstruction Concerns
DATE:
September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
At the August 16, 1999 City Council meeting, Mr. Dick Graelish submitted pictures of sidewalk
on Third Street that has various cracks and settlements.
DISCUSSION
Every year, the City budgets for the replacement of deteriorated sidewalk in the downtown area.
The area identified by Mr. Graelish will be evaluated for inclusion in next year's project.
BUDGET IMPACT
None at this time. Future replacement of the sidewalk will be funded by the annual sidewalk
replacement funds that are budgeted every year.
ACTION REOUESTED
For information only.
Respectfully submitted,
'Ok In ~
Lee M. Mann, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
Mr. Dick Graelish
Dave Sanocki, Engineering Division
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
~b
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers and
City Administratorq1'Z..-
FROM:
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
SUBJECT:
Everest Path Speed Study
DATE:
September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The City Council has received repeated requests for traffic enforcement and signage on Everest Path in the
area of Esquire Way. Staff recommendations and options have been presented regarding these requests.
At the regular meeting of August 2, 1999 the Council ordered a traffic study of speeds on Everest Path in
order to evaluate its response to these requests.
DISCUSSION
A speed study involves the observation of traffic in a specified area by a police officer using a radar device
and making a written record of the location, direction and maximum speed of each vehicle passing its
location. In order to minimize the affect of a police car on the study only unmarked or semi marked
squads are used. In addition the squad is parked in a location determined to be least visible from
approaching traffic, i.e. around a curve. During the course of the study the officer is an observer only.
Any enforcement activity would disrupt normal traffic speed and invalidate the study therefore, regardless
of speed observed, no tickets are issued during the study.
Obviously, in the case of reckless driving posing an imminent threat, the study is set aside, a ticket is
issued and that portion of the study is repeated. It should be noted that during the course of this study an
officer did observe a stop sign violation that was so blatant that he felt compelled to issue a ticket.
Speed violations generally fit in two categories. The first is a technical violation. That is a speed over the
legal limit but not enough to issue a ticket. This "leeway" is common practice in law enforcement and the
court system and common knowledge among the general public. The second type of violation is a
ticketable offense. Such an offense is deemed to be a true violation, sustainable in court.
The study was ordered for Monday August 9. Three time periods were identified, morning drive time,
noon and evening drive time. Because of concerns that prior observation were conducted at the wrong
time the study periods were defmed at times when previous police presence was unlikely, specifically
during shift changes in the morning and afternoon. The periods were to be a minimum of 30 minutes.
The three study periods were implemented as planned. A total of22 vehicles were observed during the
early study period. The average speed during the early period was 23.3 miles per hour (MPH) with no
violations. Two of those vehicles were moving too slowly to be detected by radar. The radar will not pick
up a vehicle traveling less than 14 miles per hour. During the noon study period a total of 18 vehicles were
observed. The average speed was 21.8 MPH with no violations. During the evening study period a total
of28 vehicles were observed. The average speed was 24.7 MPH with 5 technical violations. Two vehicles
were undetectable by radar. The total number of vehicles observed on Monday August 9 was 68. The
average speeds indicated do not include 4 vehicles undetectable by radar.
Due to early rain conditions during the initial study and its possible effect on traffic speeds and the fact that
a ticket was issued, the study was repeated on Tuesday August 10. Similar, although not identical time
periods were observed.
On Tuesday the weather conditions were clear skies and dry roads. During the morning period a total of26
vehicles were observed. The average speed was 23.3 MPH. One technical violation and one ticketable
offense were observed. During the midday study period a total of 21 vehicles were observed. The average
speed was 22.5 miles per hour with no violations. It should be noted that during this observation period the
officer made note of "several bicycles and rollerbladers" that activated the radar between 14-18 MPH.
This is noted to point out the sensitivity of the radar unit. During the evening study period a total of 21
vehicles were observed. Three of those vehicles were undetectable by radar. The average speed of the
remaining 18 vehicles was 26.6 MPH with one technical violation and one ticketable offense.
During three hours of traffic observation on Everest Path a total of 136 vehicles were recorded. The
overall average speed of those vehicles detected by radar was 23.6 MPH. A total of7 technical violations
were observed and 2 ticketable offenses were observed for a total of nine. That means a total violation rate
of 6.6% and a ticketable offense rate of 1.4%. Seven vehicles were undetectable by radar. Of those seven,
one was blocked by another vehicle and the remaining six were traveling too slowly to be detected. The
bulk of all violations observed occurred during the evening between 5:00 and 6:30 PM and, according to
officers remarks, appear to be unrelated to construction.
Patrol staffwill continue to monitor traffic in the area with particular attention to that period identified
during the evening hours. It should be noted however, that as a result of this study, it appears neither the
volume or the speed of traffic in the area warrant intensive enforcement at this time.
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only. Copies of the actual officer survey logs are available for review on request.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
~
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
August 16,1999
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, Cordes, Soderberg, Verch
Strachan
City Administrator Erar, City Attorney Jamnik, City Management
Team
4. APPROVE A GENDA
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Employee Service Recognition - Administration Department
Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager, was recognized for 30 years of
servIce.
b) County Commissioner Harris - County Update
County Commissioner Joe Harris recognized the City for 10 years with the
Recycling Program.
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
a) Citizen Complaint - East Farmington Truck Traffic and Related Activities
At the August 2, 1999 Council Meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Overfield expressed their
concerns and frustrations with a variety of issues associated with the generation of
dirt and dust being emitted from truck traffic using the lih Street access road
onto the East Farmington 6th Addition site. Staff has responded to the residents.
Mr. Dick Graelish, 1020 3rd Street, brought to Council's attention sidewalk cracks and
deterioration between 3rd and Hickory.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Cordes, second. by Verch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
a) Approved Council Minutes (8/2/99) (Regular)
b) Authorized Change Order - Fire Station Modification
c) Received information on School and Conference - Police Department
d) Authorized Change Order - Pond Maintenance Dakota County Estates
e) Adopted RESOLUTION R75-99 - 1999 Sealcoat Project Hearing Date
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 1999
Page 2
f) Adopted RESOLUTION R76-99 - Accepting Parks and Recreation Donation
g) Received information on Capital Outlay - Fire Department
h) Received information on Capital Outlay - Police Department
i) Approved 3.2 On-Sale Beer License - B&B Pizza
j) Approved bills
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Easement Vacation - Industrial Park Phase II
The City Council initiated at the July 19, 1999 Council meeting the vacation of
utility easements along the north lot line of the lot owned by Performance
Industrial Coatings and the south lot line of the lot which they are currently
purchasing from the HRA. This vacation is being requested to facilitate the
expansion of PIC's existing building to the north.
Mr. Marv Wier, 808 3rd Street, asked where the expansion is in relation to the
extended 208th Street. Staff replied the proposed expansion is south of 208th
Street.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch to close the Public Hearing. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adopt
RESOLUTION R77-99 vacating the lO-foot utility easement in Farmington
Industrial Park I st and 2nd Additions for Performance Industrial Coatings. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
b) Consider Wine License Request - B&B Pizza
B&B Pizza, 216 Elm Street has submitted a first time application for an On-Sale
Wine license. A 3.2 On-Sale Beer License for B&B Pizza has also been
approved. The restriction for serving wine and beer is 18 years of age. Ms. Betty
Goldberg, co-owner of B&B Pizza, assured Council no one under 18 would be
serving wine or beer.
MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch to close the Public Hearing. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch to approve an
On-Sale Wine License for B&B Pizza. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
c) Easement Vacation - East Farmington 6th Addition
The Developer seeks to vacate an existing drainage and utility easement within
the East Farmington 6th Addition on Lots 3, 4 and 5 in Block 5 and designate a
new easement on Lots 2 and 3 in Block 5. The area is located at the northwest
intersection of Locust Street and 12th Street. The intent of this easement was to
encompass a storm water pipe adjacent to Lots 3, 4 and 5. However, the design
has changed and the storm water pipe has been relocated between Lots 2 and 3,
therefore requiring a drainage and utility easement between Lots 2 and 3 in Block
5.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 1999
Page 3
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to close the Public Hearing. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to adopt
RESOLUTION R78-99 to vacate an existing drainage and utility easement
within the East Farmington 6th Addition on Lots 3, 4 and 5 in Block 5 and
designate a new easement in the East Farmington 6th Addition on Lots 2 and 3 in
Block 5. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Adopt Resolution - Farmington Townhomes Preliminary and Final Plat/PUD
Sherman Associates proposes a 16-unit rental townhome development on 1.6
acres ofland east of Trunk Highway 3 zoned R-2 PUD within the East
Farmington PUD development. The Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed project at their July 13, 1999 meeting and continued the public hearing
to the August 10, 1999 meeting after a number of residents from the East
Farmington PUD raised concerns regarding landscaping/screening and traffic.
Staff suggested minor changes to the original site plan in order to reduce the
number of driveway accesses proposed for the project. This is reflected in the
final revision of the site plan titled Revision #4. The Planning Commission stated
Revision #4 reduces the safety issues due to the reduction in driveways from eight
to five and allows for consistency with the East Farmington PUD design by
providing a central green space similar to the single-family blocks to the north
and east. Revision #4 also provides greater stacking distances from the driveways
to the stop signs along Larch Street and the Trunk Highway 3 Frontage Road.
Councilmember Soderberg stated a concern regarding the number of driveways
on 9th Street. He noticed some of the driveways have been combined to have one
driveway to the street, and asked why this was not done with all the driveways.
Mr. George Sherman, Sherman Associates, replied the site logistics allowed them
to pull the building in without the two buildings encroaching on the setback.
Everything has been shifted to the right. If the building in question is brought up
the same distance, the required setback is not there.
The Mayor asked if parking would be allowed on Larch Street. Staff replied the
Police Department and Engineering will have to review that issue.
Mr. Kevin Hand, 509 10th Street, stated E. Farmington homeowners presented Mr.
Sherman with their guidelines last week. He was wondering if the same
guidelines would be adopted by the townhomes. Mr. Sherman stated many of the
guidelines were reasonable, but some did not apply. However, he did not see any
problem with adopting these guidelines, in fact some of the townhome's
guidelines would be stricter.
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 1999
Page 4
Ms. Karen Nichols, 604 Fairview Circle, co-owner of713 9th Street, stated Mr.
Sherman had made good amendments to the parking problem. However, she still
does not see the benefit to the project. She wants to keep the small town
atmosphere and low crime. Current homes in Minneapolis are not kept up to
standards and she does not see how the lenders will make sure they are
maintained. She would like the City to take another look at the project. The
Mayor replied the number of townhomes has been reduced from 20 to 16. The
only reason for denial would be if they did not meet the City codes and
ordinances.
Ms. Corrine Horseman, 713 9th Street, stated when the plans from 1992 and 1994
were made, there were no homes in the area. The Mayor replied the townhomes
could have been built before the homes.
Mr. Paul McHenry, 708 9th Street, questioned how the 24 foot variance will fit
between the buildings, and could the building be slid back to eliminate a driveway
on Larch. Mr. Sherman replied the buildings are offset so they do not run into
each other. The 24-foot variance aligns if the buildings are offset. Mr. McHenry
stated parking is also a concern. There are 8 houses entering on Larch Street. He
would like to see no parking on Larch Street to eliminate the possibility of blind
spots.
Councilmember Cordes asked how many driveways access Spruce Street. There
are eight entrances on Spruce Street and four on Larch Street. The Mayor replied
on Larch Street there is a commercial business, and more traffic.
Mr. Darin Olson, 709 9th Street, is concerned with the traffic on Larch Street. He
would like one entrance on the frontage road with fencing or trees around the
townhouse development.
Ms. Corrine Horseman, 713 9th Street, stated she is a loan officer and has talked
with two appraisers regarding what would happen to the value of her home if a
multi-use is mixed with a single-family. She was told it would decrease the value
of the homes $10,000-$15,000 if a multi-use was next to a single-family
development. Councilmember Soderberg replied the multi-use was approved as
part ofthe original PUD.
Ms. Karen Nichols, co-owner of 713 9th Street, had questions regarding the
project being approved seven years ago. The Mayor replied the developer elected
to build the houses before the townhomes.. Ms. Nichols asked if Cities do not
have legal recourse on things that were not anticipated seven years ago. City
Attorney Jamnik replied it is not so much the approval in 1992, but that it is still
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff stated this has been before the Development Committee on several
occasions. This type of housing provides a buffer for single family housing to the
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 1999
Page 5
east and is very consistent and less dense from the original PUD. The quality of
the properties being constructed are 3-bedroom units. These will be working
class families who do not have an income level that will allow them to buy. This
does not mean they are anything less or more than anyone else in the community.
This type of housing is in need in many communities. Council has been very
careful relative to insuring the development will be maintained.
Mr. Paul McHenry, 708 9th Street, stated he wished he would have known about
this project before he bought his home. Mr. Rod Hardy stated each builder was
required to place this plan in their model homes. Mr. McHenry also stated these
are 3-bedroom units in which City Code states there can be four non-related
adults living together and an unlimited number of related adults living in a unit. If
there are that many adults with vehicles, the parking and traffic is a great concern.
Councilmember Cord~s asked Mr. Sherman regarding the application process
renters go through which would address or eliminate some of the concerns. Mr.
Sherman replied they are required to do extensive income c11ecks and criminal
background checks. He also stated they are required to rent to families or two
related adults. They cannot have multiple related adults. It cannot be unrelated
adults raising children. These are requirements of their lease and each family has
to be re-qualified each year. The units are inspected by Sherman Associates and
the lenders twice a year.
Marilyn Weinhold, Chamber of Commerce, stated the homeowners concerns are
understandable, but there is a need for rental housing in Farmington. There are a
lot of good rental families and asked the homeowners to keep an open mind.
Many renters are new to the community and are not able to buy right away. She
complimented the City on moving forward on this need in the City.
Councilmember Soderberg felt this is a nice transition between single family
homes and would be more appealing than a multi-story rental unit. Granted they
are rental units, but there is a procedure in place to ensure there will be quality
renters. By eliminating some of the driveways they have indicated they are
willing to make it safe.
Councilmember Cordes asked if restrictions can be put in the Development
Contract as far as upkeep. City Attorney Jamnik replied restrictive covenants are
usually not in a Development Contract, but a reference is made to restrictive
covenants. The covenants are enforced by the townhome association.
Mayor Ristow stated he is still concerned about the traffic on Larch Street and
hoped the traffic engineer would look at the issue thoroughly. The other issue is
the setback. The houses are usually lined up evenly. Staff replied the buildings
were originally in line. One of the compromises to achieve the driveway
combinations and to get the turnarounds in front was to set the building back
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 1999
Page 6
further. The Mayor also wanted a contingency added to the resolution to receive
approval from the Fire Department and Solid Waste.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R79-99
approving the Farmington Townhomes 1st Addition Preliminary and Final
Plat/Final PUD Revision #4 contingent on requirements. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
b) Communications - Farmington Area Senior Center Advisory Committee
The City received communications from the Senior Center Advisory Committee
requesting that the City's Fee Schedule be revised in 2000 relative to membership
rates and facility rental fees for non-resident users. The rationale for separate
rates for residents and non-residents is based on the fact that Senior Center facility
operations, as with the Pool, are funded almost entirely through the City tax levy
and special agency grants. The City receives no financial support from outlying
service areas to fund basic operating costs such as capital improvements, staff
salaries, equipment costs, etc. There is no difference between an individual living
in a township or in another city as in both cases, neither cOf'tributes financial
support through property tax levies to this facility. The membership rates do not
figure prominently into the cost of running the center. It is specifically to know
whether a member is active or not in terms of receiving the newsletter. The
Senior Center Advisory Commission should explain why non-residents should
enjoy the same benefits as residents at the same rate.
Councilmember Cordes asked as far as Pool rates, what constitutes a resident and
non-resident? Staff replied City boundaries. Councilmember Cordes stated there
are many cities that charge resident and non-resident rates. Farmington is not
unIque.
Marilyn Weinhold, member of the Senior Center Advisory Committee, stated as a
board member, they have also discussed the same issues. The reason the issue
was addressed, is there are a number of seniors who were very active in the senior
center, and raised money to buy the building. A lot of the people feel like they
belong to the City. They do not have a problem paying the extra fee, they are hurt
by the us and them feeling it gives that they are not part ofthe City. There are
many members who attend regularly and do not live in the City, but feel very
much a part of what happens at the Center. The members do realize the expenses
are paid by the tax payers.
Councilmember Cordes stated it would be great to charge everyone the same, but
fees need to be consistent across the board. Council reached a consensus to leave
the fee structure as is.
c) Arcon Development Request - Initiate City Condemnation Action
The City has received a letter from Larry Frank of Arcon Development requesting
the City to initiate condemnation of the necessary utility easement in order for
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 1999
Page 7
Arcon to access the trunk sanitary sewer located on the Progress Land Company
property to the north. Arcon Development has been in discussions with Progress
Land Company for several months, but have not been able to reach an agreement.
Arcon is now requesting that the City utilize its power of Eminent Domain to
condemn the necessary easement. Arcon has indicated a willingness to cover all
costs associated with obtaining the required easement including legal fees,
appraisals, and the actual cost of the easement. Council granted the request from
Arcon Development and the agreement and final resolution will be brought back
to Council at the September 7, 1999 Council Meeting.
d) Appointment to ISD 192 Growth Planning Task Force
The Farmington School District is requesting a representative of the City Council
to serve on their Growth Planning Task Force. The Task Force will provide short
and long range recommendations to the School Board concerning strategies to
accommodate projected growth in the District. Staff requested a member of the
City Council be appointed to serve on the Task Force. Councilmember Verch
agreed to be an alternate. (In a later conversation, Councilmember Strachan
agreed to represent the Council on the Task Force).
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Henderson Storm Sewer Project - Feasibility Report Update
The Henderson Area Storm Sewer Project was originally presented to Council in
1997 to discuss the feasibility of providing storm sewer ser/ice to the Henderson
Area of Farmington between 7th and lOth Street, including the location of an
existing low point located on Hickory Street midway between 7th Street and
Highway 3. The combination of storm sewer and drain tile in the Henderson Area
will reduce overland flow and maintain the groundwater table at the same
subsurface elevation of the storm sewer. In the original report, it was proposed
that storm sewer be extended to the intersection of 7th and Hickory from the low
point on Hickory Street just west of TH 3. This section of storm sewer has been
eliminated from the scope of the project. In the future, this section of storm sewer
can be installed when Hickory Street and/or 7th Street is reconstructed. The total
estimated project cost for the Henderson Storm Sewer project is $404,000. The
cost of the improvements proposed would be split between MnDOT, the
benefiting City properties and the City. The estimated assessment amount for
benefiting single family residential properties is approximately $1,520 per
residential unit. The estimated assessment amount for commercial, multi-family
and the MnDOT properties is approximately $5,620 per acre. MOTION by
Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R80-99 accepting the
Henderson Area Storm Sewer feasibility report and directing staff to schedule a
neighborhood meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
b) Set Public Hearing - CSAH 31 Project
The City Council authorized the award of contracts by Dakota County for the
improvement of CSAH 31 on March 16, 1998. The improvements for the CSAH
31 project are substantially complete and the project costs are being finalized by
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 1999
Page 8
Dakota County. In order that the assessments can be certified to the 2000 taxes,
the hearing needs to be held at the October 18, 1999 City Council meeting.
Residents would have 30 days to pay the assessment without any interest or
penalty. After that, assessments would be certified to the County and payable
over a period of 15 years beginning with the 2000 taxes. MOTION by
Soderberg, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R81-99 setting the CSAH
31 project assessment hearing for October 18, 1999, at the Farmington Senior
High School at 7:00 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
c) Adopt Ordinance - Water Use Restrictions
The ordinance outlines odd-even water use restrictions corresponding to property
address, effective year round. The ordinance is limited in its restrictions to lawn
and garden sprinkling or irrigation. Upon adoption of the ordinance, the water
use restrictions become effective January 1,2000. Enforcement of the policy
would be through penalties included as a surcharge on the water bill. MOTION
by Cordes, action died for lack of a second.
d) Authorize Submittal of Comments - Empire Township Comprehensive Plan
(Supplemental)
The City Council previously received a copy of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
update for Empire Township. Mayor Ristow and Councilmember Strachan met
with representatives of Empire Township on August 11, 1999 to discuss a range
of concerns associated with continued township urbanization and population
growth. There were five major issues that were discussed with Empire Township
on August 11, 1999.
Agreement Regarding Discontinuance of Previous Annexation Efforts - City
representatives expressed concerns to Empire Township representatives that it had
been the understanding of the City Council that Empire's growth rate would be
limited to approximately five new households per year. In contrast to this
previously held understanding, Township forecasts contained in the proposed
Comprehensive Plan call for a growth of 50 households per year over the next 20
years.
MUSA - Wastewater Flows to Empire Treatment Plant - The proposed level
of residential development contained in the Comprehensive Plan update is
approximately four times greater than what the Metropolitan Council's Projected
Preferred Flows to the Empire Treatment Plant was previously based on. Sewer
flows from Empire Township will put additional strain on capacity treatment
conditions at the treatment facility, and further limit sewer flows being generated
by the cities ofLakeville and Farmington.
Implication of Increased Township Development on Municipal Services and
Infrastructure - This growth will continue to place increased demand on
municipal services from new township residents. In addition, the level of traffic
generated by this additional development will place additional demands and
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 1999
Page 9
strains on both the City and County's road systems. In particular the need for
additional east-west transportation corridors in the City will be of critical
importance.
Township Development Standards and Infrastructure Compatibility - Empire
Township had developed its own water and sewer utility systems including the
recently completed water tower. Non-compatibility issues continue to be a focus
with respect to interconnectivity. Empire's water system operates at a different
pressure level than the City of Farmington's system and thus any future
connection would req'Jire installation of equipment to establish a new pressure
zone for the abandonment of existing water service infrastructure.
Urbanization of Empire Township - Future Township Objectives - Empire
Township representatives place considerable emphasis on retaining Empire
Township's identity. Discussion of this issue at the August II, 1999 meeting led
to the question of whether Empire was contemplating incorporating as a city.
Empire representatives pointed out that as an "Urban Township" they have
powers almost identical to those of a city. While it was not the stated intent of the
Township to incorporate as a City, they did not rule out the possibility in the
future.
Both State Statute and previous positions of the Metropolitan Council have
confirmed that cities are the most appropriate political jurisdiction for intensive
residential, commercial or industrial development and that the Metropolitan
Council has in the past indicated that creation of new cities is not consistent with
Regional Policy.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes authorizing staff comments be
submitted to the Metropolitan Council regarding the Empire Township
Comprehensive Plan. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
e) Adopt Resolution - Cable Communication Systems Joint Powers Agreement
Efforts to support the televising of government programming in the City have
been in process with the cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount. Objectives
identified in this cooperative effort would include the design, acquisition and
installation of appropriate audio/visual equipment in each jurisdiction's Council
Chambers, would provide for the staffing, production and televising of Council
and Planning Commission meetings, and would be responsible for jointly
overseeing the administration and enforcement of the City's cable franchise
ordinance and telecommunications system. The three cities have developed a
joint powers agreement that would create a Cable and Telecommunications
Advisory Commission to address issues associated with community television
operations. Each city would designate their City Administrator and designee to
represent their jurisdiction in overseeing the operations of the three-city cable and
telecommunications system. MOTION by Verch, second by Cordes adopting
RESOLUTION R82-99 approving a Joint and Cooperative Agreement
Council Minutes (Regular)
August 16, 1999
Page 10
establishing a Commission to serve as a Cable and Telecommunications Advisory
Body. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
a) King Property 300 1st Street - Update
The City Council inquired as to the status of the demolition of the property which
was damaged by fire over a year ago and has since been purchased by Dave King.
The owner has obtained the necessary demolition permit and is scheduled to begin
demolition on August 14. The entire demolition should be completed by the end
of August.
b) Railroad Mitigation Issues
At the last meeting, the Mayor inquired if the gate arms could be extended. Staff
has checked with the railroad and they indicated the arms could not be extended
because of the possibility of trapping cars between the gates. As far as mitigation
measures for train whistles, the railroad is looking at median barriers. The FRA
will be publishing their mitigation measures by the end of the year. Putting
stationary horns at the crossings was also discussed, however, the cars do not
have a sense of direction as to where the train is coming from.
Councilmember Cordes:
the end of the year.
She and Mayor Ristow will resign from the HRA Board at
City Administrator Erar: The Mayor has been contacted by Congressman Luther's
office as to whether the City would be interested in purchasing the Nike missile base.
There are several issues to be considered. Castle Rock Township has notified the City
they will not sign the Joint Powers Agreement. Council can end negotiations, or schedule
another meeting to discuss the language changes, or write a letter to Castle Rock asking
for an explanation. Council agreed to a full board meeting on August 30, 1999.
Community Development
Director Olson: The re-scheduled HRA Board meeting will be August 23,
1999.
14. ADJOURN
MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 11 :15 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
~ /77~
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/~
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~
FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Service Manager
SUBJECT: City Participation in County Auction
DATE: September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Dakota County is again this year holding a public auction to dispose of surplus equipment and is
giving cities the opportunity to participate.
DISCUSSION
The auction is scheduled to take place on Saturday, October 2, 1999, on the grounds of the
Highway Garage on County Road 47 in Hastings.
Items to be sold include four vehicles, bicycles, and numerous items of surplus equipment.
BUDGET IMPACT
Proceeds from this auction will have a positive impact on the budget. The Auctioneer's
commission is $65.00 per vehicle and 20% of the sale price for miscellaneous items. The City
will receive a proceeds check minus commissions and fees shortly after the sale.
ACTION REQUESTED
Acknowledge the City's participation in the County Auction to be held October 2, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Service Manager
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
lc
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Customer Satisfaction Report
DATE: September 7, 1999
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 through May 1999. Summary response percentages are generated
through the analysis of monthly reports and include response data from all operating City
departments.
On average, over ninety-five percent (95%) 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.
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 a 91% in "prompt service"
regardless of how personally satisfied a resident was with service outcomes. This underscores
the organization's commitment to treat each resident contact as a highly valued customer
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 five month period for how satisfied a resident was
with a City service response is a very respectable response ratio given the range of resident
COilcerns. In review of survey comments, residents commented on a variety of environmental
concerns such as snow plowing, garbage service and staff responsiveness.
BUDGET IMP ACT
None.
ACTION REQUESTED
Acknowledge the Customer Service Satisfaction reports from January through May 1999. 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.
file
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
lei
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~
James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Trail Maintenance - Parks and Recreation Department
DATE:
September 7,1999
INTRODUCTION
Staff has reviewed the C.I.P. for the trail seal coating maintenance needs for this year.
DISCUSSION
The following trails are on the 1999 maintenance schedule for seal coating:
. Middle School Extension Trail
. Westview Park Trail
. Akin park Estates Trail
. Prairie Waterway Trail
. Pine Knoll Park Trail
. Lime rock Ridge Trail
After contacting five companies requesting quotations, staff received two valid quotes.
1. Chem Seal, Inc. $2266.00
2. All Metro Sealcoating $3600.00
BUDGET IMPACT
The budgeted dollars for the trail maintenance will come from the Road and Bridge Fund as outlined in the
1999 C.I.P.
ACTION REQUESTED
For information only.
Respectfully submitted,
-L~
James Bell
Parks and Recreation Director
99 trailmaint
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
?e
FROM:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~
Robin Roland, Finance Director
TO:
SUBJECT:
Engagement of Audit Firm for December 31, 1999
DATE:
September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. has presented the City with its engagement letter for auditing services for the
year ended December 31, 1999.
DISCUSSION
Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. has satisfactorily completed two years of Audit engagement with the
December 31, 1998 Annual Financial Statements. Their proposal for the 1999 audit remains consistent
with the services performed for the 1998 audit.
BUDGET IMPACT
KDV proposes a fee of$14,200 for professional auditing services of the December 31, 1999 [mancial
records. This 2.9% increase is consisteIl;t with their original engagement commitment. The Proposed
1999 Budget includes $15,000 for auditing services.
ACTION REQUIRED
Authorize engagement of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. for the December 31, 1999 audit at a fee of
$14,200.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Robin Roland
Finance Director
~"...,. =1 Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd.
.~~ Certified Public Accountants
August 25, 1999
Ms. Robin Roland
Finance Director
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide to the City of
Farmington for the year ending December 31, 1999. We will audit the general purpose financial
statements ofthe City of Farmington as of and for the year ending December 31, 1999. Also, the
document we submit to you will include the following additional information that will be
subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the general purpose financial
statements:
I. Combining and Individual Fund Financial Statements
The document will also include the following additional information that will not be subjected to
the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the general purpose financial statements, and for
which our accountant's report will disclaim an opinion:
1. General Fixed Assets Account Group
2. Supplementary and Statistical Information
Throughout the remainder of this letter, references to Government Auditing Standards apply only
if the City has received any federal funding; whereas references to the Single Audit Act of 1996,
OMB Circular A-133, OMB Compliance Supplement, major programs and grant agreements
apply only ifthe City has received $300,000 or more of federal financial assistance.
The objective of our audit is the expression of an opinion as to whether the general purpose
financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles and to report on the fairness of the additional information referred
to in the first paragraph when considered in relation to the general purpose financial statements
taken as a whole. The objective also includes reporting on the City of Farmington's compliance
with laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements and its internal
controls as required by the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular A -133,
Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Our audit will be
conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; the standards for financial
audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the
United States; the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996; and the provisions ofOMB Circular
A-133, and will include tests of the accounting records of the City of Farmington and other
procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such an opinion and to render the
required Single Audit reports. If our opinion on the general purpose financial statements or the
Single Audit compliance opinion is other than unqualified, we will fully discuss the reasons with
you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to express
220 Park Avenue South, P.G. Box 1304
St. Cloud, MN 56302
320-251-7010 · Fax:320-251-1784
7600 Bass Lake Road, Suite 104
Minneapolis, MN 55428
612-537-3011 · Fax: 612-537-9682
www.kdv.com
2
an opinion, we may decline to express an opinion or may not issue a report as a result ofthis
engagement.
The management of the City of Farmington is responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related costs ofthe controls. The objectives of
internal control are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that
assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, that transactions are
executed in accordance with management's authorizations and recorded properly to permit the
preparation of general purpose financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, and that federal award programs are managed in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements.
In planning and performing our audits, we will consider the internal control sufficient to plan the
audit in order to determine the nature, timing, and extent of our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinions on the City's general purpose financial statements and on its
compliance with requirements applicable to major programs.
We will obtain an understanding of the design of the relevant controls and whether they have
been placed in operation, and we will assess control risk. Tests of controls may be performed to
test the effectiveness of certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting
errors and fraud that are material to the general purpose financial statements and to preventing
and detecting misstatements resulting from illegal acts and other noncompliance matters that
have a direct and material effect on the general purpose financial statements. (Tests of controls
are required only if control risk is assessed below the maximum level.) Our tests, if performed,
will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on internal control and,
accordingly, no opinion will be expressed.
We will perform tests of controls, as required by OMB Circular A-133, to evaluate the
effectiveness of the design and operation of controls that we consider relevant to preventing or
detecting material noncompliance with compliance requirements, applicable to each of the City's
major federal award programs. Our tests will be less in scope that would be necessary to render
an opinion on these controls and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed.
An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify reportable
conditions. However, we will inform the governing body or audit committee of any matters
involving internal control and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions under
standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Reportable
conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the
design or operation ofthe internal control that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the
entity's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the
assertions of management in the general purpose financial statements. We will also inform you
of any nonreportable conditions or other matters involving internal control, if any, as required by
OMB Circular A-B3.
Identifying and ensuring that the City of Farmington complies with laws, regulations, contracts,
and agreements, including grant agreements, is the responsibility of management. As part of
obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free
of material misstatement, we will perform tests of the City's compliance with applicable laws
and regulations and the provisions of contracts and agreements, including grant agreements.
However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and
we will not express such an opinion.
Our audit will be conducted in accordance with the standards referred to in the second paragraph.
OMB Circular A-133 requires that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance
3
about whether the auditee has complied with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions
of contracts and grant agreements applicable to major programs. Our procedures will consist of
the applicable procedures described in the OMB's compliance supplement. The purpose of these
procedures will be to express an opinion on the City's compliance with requirements applicable
to major programs.
Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded
in the accounts, and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories, and direct
confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with
selected individuals, creditors, and financial institutions. We will request written representations
from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this
inquiry. At the conclusion of our audit, we will also require certain written representations from
you about the financial statements and related matters.
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amount and disclosures in
the financial statements; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of
transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. We will plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement, whether caused by error or fraud. As required by the Single Audit Act
Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular A-133, our audit will include tests of transactions
related to federal award programs for compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the
provisions of contracts and grant agreements. Because of the concept of reasonable assurance
and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that a
material misstatement may exist and not be detected by us. In addition, an audit is not designed
to detect errors, fraud, or other illegal acts that are immaterial to the general purpose financial
statements or to major programs. However, we will inform you of any material errors and any
fraud that comes to our attention. We will also inform you of any other illegal acts that come to
our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. We will include such matters in the reports
required for a Single Audit. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our
audit and does not extend to matters that might arise during any later periods for which we are
not engaged as auditors.
Management is responsible for making all financial records and related information available to
us. We understand that you will provide us with such information required for our audit and that
you are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of that information. We will advise you
about appropriate accounting principles and their application and will assist in the preparation of
your financial statements, but the responsibility for the financial statements remains with you.
That responsibility includes the establishment and maintenance of adequate records and effective
internal control over financial reporting, the selection and application of accounting principles,
and the safeguarding of assets. Additionally, as required by OMB Circular A-133, you will
prepare the summary of prior audit findings. This schedule should be available for our review.
We understand that your employees will prepare all cash or other confirmations we request and
will locate any invoices selected by us for testing.
The workpapers for this engagement are the property of Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. and
constitute confidential information. However, we may be requested to make certain workpapers
available to Cognizant or Grantor Agencies pursuant to authority given to it by law or regulation.
If requested, access to such workpapers will be provided under the supervision of Kern,
DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. personnel. Furthermore, upon request, we may provide photocopies of
selected workpapers to the Cognizant or Grantor Agency. The Cognizant or Grantor Agency
may intend, or decide; to distribute the photocopies or information contained therein to others,
including other governmental agencies.
4
Our fee for these services will be at our standard hourly rates except that we agree that our gross
fee, including expenses, will not exceed $ 14,200. Our standard hourly rates vary according to
the degree of responsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your
audit. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are
payable on presentation. The above fee is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel
and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the audit. If
significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee
estimate before we incur the additional costs. If the City of Farmington receives $300,000 or
more of federal financial assistance, which would subject it to the Single Audit Act of 1996, we
will negotiate a fee with you. Fees for these engagements typically vary between $500 and
$1,500, depending on the type of program.
Government Auditing Standards require that we provide you with a copy of our most recent
quality control review report. Our 1996 peer review report accompanies this letter if
Government Auditing Standards are applicable and if you have not received a copy of our peer
review report in a previous year.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Farmington and believe this letter
accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions,
please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter,
please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us.
Sincerely,
KERN',DE~
David Innenkamp
Certified Public Accountant
RESPONSE:
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Farmington.
By:
Title:
Date:
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
?r
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator~
FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: School and Conference - Fire Department
DATE: September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The Fire Department is planning the attendance of Ken Kuchera and Mark Fischbach at the
Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Conference, October 14 - 17, 1999, in St. Cloud, MN.
DISCUSSION
This is the annual conference for the Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Association. The conference
provides an excellent source of updated material for Chief Officers.
BUDGET IMPACT
Funding is provided in the 1999 Budget.
ACTION REQUESTED
For information only.
Respectfully submitted,
)(~%~
~
Ken Kuchera
Fire Chief
City of Farmington
325 Oak S~t Farntington, MNSS024
(651) 463-7111 F.x (651) 463-2591
www.ci.faruJinaton.mn.us
<fa-
SUBJECT:
Mayor, Council Members,
City Administrator~
;;~:~C~9t~ii:atorpt!
Autumn Glen Conditional Use Permit - Grading Permit
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Arcon Development, Inc. has submitted a grading plan for the proposed Autumn Glen residential
development. The Developer seeks a Conditional Use/Grading and Excavation permit to rough
grade approximately 26.68 acres in Phase 1 of the development. The Developer proposes an
overall development of 153 single-family residential lots onapprox.imately 102.86 acres of land
east ofthe Akin Park Estates and Limerock Ridge subdivisions.
DISCUSSION
Arcon Development is seeking a Conditional Use/Grading and Excavation Permit to begin early
rough grading work on 26.68 acr~swithin the first phase of the Autumn Glen Development... The
grading work would establish at least twoponding areas and a rough grade ofthe.roadnetwork
for.construction to begin following approval of the final plat and signing of the development
contract. A letter from the Engineering Division is attached concerning the review of the
grading plan.
Normal time restrictions for grading operation are Monday through Saturday, between 7 A.M.
and 6 P.M. The developer plans on erecting silt fenc.es aroqnd the proposed grading area and
crushed rock at the entrances.
Previous grading permits included approvals for Nelsen Hills Farm 7th Addition and
Charleswood. Though this process has not been typical in the past when platting new
developments it has become somewhat of a common request in recent plats over the past year.
City staff feels that with properly established agreements and/or sureties, the City will be able to
effectively protect the overall completion of the development.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit on August 24,
1999 upon conditions that the construction start time begin at 8 A.M. rather than 7 A.M. on
Saturdays and contingent on the items below:
1. Approval for the permit is contingent on approval of the grading plan by the City
Engineering Division. Issues have been identified that will require revisions to the grading
plan. Further review of subsequent submittals may generate additional comments.
Construction shall not commence until the grading plan is approved and signed by the City
Engineer.
2. The Developer grades the site prior to approval of street and utility construction plans at the
Developer's own risk. Issues may be identified during review of the street and utility
construction plans that may require adjustments to the grading. The Developer will be
responsible for any such changes that may be required.
3. The permit is not valid and grading cannot commence until the required surety is posted and
the appropriate fees are paid by the Developer.
4. All of the information required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction
Information Sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit.
ACTION REOUESTED
Approve the Conditional Use Permit for Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction for Arcon
Development, Incorporated contingent on the above items.
Respectfully submitted,
::;;r&- ~'
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Arcon Development, Inc.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of
Farmington hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use:
Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction for Arcon Development, Inc.
2. Property. The permit is for the following described property ("subject
property") in the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota:
~
The Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County,
Minnesota, except the following three parcels:
EXCEPTION NO.1: That part thereof contained,within the plat of Akin park
Estates.
EXCEPTION NO.2: All that part of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 24, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as
follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Section 24; thence west on
the north line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 50.00 feet; thence south
parallel with the east line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 600.00
feet: thence southwesterly on a straight line a distance of 967.66 feet, more
or less, to a point on the north line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of said Section 24, distant 700.00 feet west of the northeast corner of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter: thence west on the north line
of oaid Southeast Quar~er of the Northeast QUQrter a distance of 50.00 feet:
thence southwesterly on a straight line a distance of 1393.21 feet, more or
less, to a point on the south line of saict Northeast Quarter, distant 1200.00
feet west of the southeast carner of sa;.d Northeast Quarter: thence east on the
south line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 1200.00 feet to the
southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter: thence north on the east line of
said Northeast Quarter a distance of 2639.00 feet, more Or less, to the point
of beginning.
EXCEPTION NO.3: All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 24, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County, Minnesota,
described' as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of the Northeast
Quarter of said section 24, distant 50.00 feet west of the northeast corner of
said Northeast Quarter: thence south parallel with the east line of said
Northeast Quarter a distance of 600.00 feet; thence southwesterly on a straight
line a distance of 967.66 feet, more or less, to a pOint on the south line of
said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, distant 700.00 feet west of
the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter;
thence west on said south line of the Noreheast Quarter of the Norchea~t
Quart@r a distance of 50.00 feet; thence north parallel with the east line ~f
said Northeast Quarter a distance of l320.06'feet, more or less, to tha north
line of said Northeast Quarter: thence east on said north line a distance of
700.00 feet to the point of beginning.
3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions:
1. issues identified in the grading review letter be addressed before a permit
is issued;
11. all information required by the excavation, grading and mineral extraction
information sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of
the permit;
111. the permit shall not be valid until the required surety is posted and the
appropriate fees are paid;
IV. that it is understood the Developer grades this project according to the
submitted grading plan at his own risk. Future review of utility
construction plans could result in revisions to the grading design.
4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a
public hearing for violation of the terms of this permit.
5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the allowed use
has not been completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse.
6. Criminal Penalty. Both the owner and any occupant ofthe subject
property are responsible for compliance with this conditional use permit. Violation of the
terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor.
Dated
CITY OF FARMINGTON
BY:
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
John F. Erar, City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
19_ by Gerald Ristow, Mayor, and 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
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell Knutson
Professional Association
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.fannin~on.mn.us
TO: Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
FROM: LeeM. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Autumn Glen Grading Conditional Use Permit.
DATE: April 12, 1999
Engineering staff has reviewed the grading plans submitted for Autumn Glen and
recommends approval of the conditional use permit contingent on final approval of the
grading plan by the City Engineer, the posting of the required surety and the payment of
the applicable fees. Also, it needs to be understood that the developer grades the site
prior to street and utility plan approval at his own risk. Any changes to the grading
necessitated by the street and utility design are the developers responsibility in their
entirety.
';2:;>>;~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
~b
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
City Administrat~
FROM: David L. Olson
Community Development.Director
SUBJECT: Annexation Petition - Benham Property
DATE: September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The City has received an annexation petition from Lowell and Janet Benham to annex
approximately 1.88 acres currently in Section 32 of Empire Township. The subject
property is completely surrounded by land within the municipal limits. A location map
and legal description is attached.
DISCUSSION
Mr. and Mrs. Benham have filed the current annexation petition under MS 414.033
Subd.2 (2) which states the following:
Subd. 2. Conditions. A municipal council may by ordinance declare land
annexed to municipality and any such land is deemed to be urban or suburban in
character or about to become so if:
(1) the land is owned by the municipality;
(2) the land is completely surrounded by land within the municipal limits;
(3) the land abuts the municipality and the area to be annexed is 60 acres or less,
and the area to be annexed is not presently served by public sewer facilities or
public sewer facilities are not otherwise available, and the municipality
received a petition for annexation from all the property owners of the land; or
Minnesota Statutes also require that a 30 day certified mail notice of the hearing to
consider annexation by ordinance requests be provided to the Township and abutting
property owners. These requirements have been met.
Staffhas verified the Benham property is completely surrounded by the current city limits
and meets the requirements of statute
In terms of the most efficient and effective provision of needed governmental services, it
would be appropriate for this property to be annexed into the City. However, staff has
concerns with the condition of the property in regards to the type and extent of non-
operable equipment and items currently stored on the property. It appears as though
some of the equipment is in the process of being removed from the property, however,
there are still items stored on the property. In addition, it would advisable to determine
the status of the existing Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) on the property to
determine whether it complies with the City's ISTS ordinance requirements.
BUDGET IMPACT
The financial impact of this annexation to the City should be relatively minor. Minnesota
Statutes require the Township to receive a declining portion of the property taxes
generated over a five year period. This would provide for 90% of the current township
taxes for this property to be retained by the Township in year one after the annexation,
70% in year two etc. until it reaches 10% in the fifth year after the annexation.
ACTION REQUESTED
Based on the concerns identified, staff recommends that the public hearing on the
annexation petition be closed, but that action on this request be continued for 30 days,
pending review of specific site issues referenced above.
Respectfully submitted,
r~
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
cc: Lowell and Janet Benham
~
CI)
C-
o
~
'l.
E
ca
J:
c:
CI)
m
f---
f---
f---
-
.----
I----------
I----------
,\
--
00
Q)
.....
()
ro
coil
'---- ~
c:::.
I-
CJ)
W
Z
a...
I-
CJ)
Z
<(
~
S
I-
CJ)
I
I-
('i)
T"""
C\l
--
C\l
f'-..
0:::
U
TRUNK HIGHWAY 3
/
~ /
I
I-
CJ)
~
.....J
W
~
a.
ro
~~
"'C -
e Q)
:J e
oro
ma..
>- >.
--
00
4J
-
~bi~ .3Jnbentute, Made this..........A~~......................day of.............P..~.~.~.TI.1l:1.~.r......................., 19..8.0..,
between.........L..l..LA...M.......RI;NHAM.,......a....w.i.d.o.w.e.d...p.e.r.s.on....and...no.t....r.emar.r.ied.,.........................................
of the County of..................P.~~9..1:..a................."..................and State of.....................M.inne.s.o.t.a........................., party........
of the first part, and.. ......LOWELL....F........B.ENHAM...and....JAN.ET.....J......BENHAM.,.....huso.and....and...............
.........w.;i..f~........................................ ....................................... ............................................................................................................, of the County of
...............D..a.k.Q.t.a......,............................and State of...................Minnes.o.ta..............................., parties of the second part,
gttntJ1(ttf). That the said part..y.... of the fir~t part, in conside7'ation of the sum of...9.P:.~................
..p..9.J 1.~x..... .c.$..J,.~.0. 9. ).. ...a.;J1~l... Q. t. h~x....g.o. Q.d... .a.nd.....y..a.l.ua.b.l e.....c.o n s.i.d e .r.a.ti. ons...... ........ .., lA.lJ.JI1iJllIlJ.
to..........h.~X.............in hand paid by the said parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is he7'eby aclcnowl-
edged, do~~L. hereby Grant. Bargain, Sell, and Convey unto the said parties of the second part as joint
tena.nts and not as tenants in common, their assigns, the 8u,rvivor of sa.id parties, and the heirs and
assigns ob the survivor, FD1'ever, all the tract...... or parcel...... of la,nd lying and being in the County of
........................a.l~9..ta............."............and State of Minnesota, desc7'ibed 0,.9 follows, to-wit:
The West two (2) acres of the South six (6) acres of the South
One-Half (S~) of the Northwest Quarter (NW~) of the Northwest
Quarter (NW~) of Section Thirty-two (32), Township One Hundred
Fourteen (114), 'Range Nineteen (19), EXCEPTING THEREFROM a tract
of land described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner
of the said West two (2) acres of the South six (6) acres of the
South One-Half (S~) of the Northwest Quarter (~W~) of the North-
west Quarter (NW~) of said Section 32; thence East One Hundred
Seventy (E170) feet; thence South Sixty (~01 feet; thence West
One Hundred Seventy (W170) feet; thence North Sixty (N60) feet
to the place of beginning.
(',1 '\.! f~T,:"~""'~ .:.;.:
~"~r ~'}l; '" ('; .;-:...., .
[j ~::: T, (: r =:.~
". ;.\ v T!(-' ,,,I --
'_:~.J'
"'~'
,.
= ~iMN,,-' uc\,i;tUv
TAX
- \J "-. ~ -." :.:::::.
=
RI!. !0518
STATE DEED TAX IS $ ~,:it>
Q:o ~abe anb to ~oll:l tbe ii>ame. Togethe7' with all the hereditaments and appurtenan'Jes thel'e-
unto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to the said parties of the second part, their assi~ns, the sur-
uivor of said pa.7'ties, and the heirs and assigns of the surviv07', Forever, the said parties of the second part
taking as joint tenants and not as tenants in common.
A. nd the said... ...1J.~A.....M.!......~.f.NHAM.,.....g.....w.i.d.Q.w.e.d....p.e..rs.on,...and.. ..n.o.t....rema.rri.e.d.,. ........ ..... ....
..........................................................................,.................................................................................................................,...............................................................
partY.... of the first part, for........h.e.r..s.elf..,.....her.....................heirs, executors and a.clministrators do.eS..
covenant with the said parties of the second part, their assigns, the survivor of said pa7'ties, and the heirs
and assigns of the sItrvivor, that........she....i.s.......well seized in fee of the lands and prem,ises aforesaid anfl
,
haS...... good right to sell and convey the same in ma,nner a.nd f07'm aforesairZ, and that the same are
free from, all incy,mbrances,
A.nd the above ha7'gained and granted lands and premise.9, in the quiet ancl pea.ceable possession of the
said parties of the second part, thei7' assigns, the survivor of said parties, and the heirs and assigns of the
survivor, a~ainst all persons lawfu,lly claimin~ or to claim the whole or any part thereof, subject to
i7Wll.mbra7Wes, if any, hereinbefore mentioned, the said part..y....... of the first part will Warrant and
~tfe.'I" \.L 1 "\L 11 ....... -... ".
_." .~'..._ ._,..~<f'''-''-. '"',1\
,
I
:
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
DEED
524.3-715
THIS INDENTURE, Made thi~day of .(f()-<e.1. J, -
Lila S. Winter
of the Estate of Susanna L. Knoblauch
of the first part, and Lowell Francis Benham
upc-
/" ,198.2-, between
as personal representative-
, part~
Dako ta
and State of Minnesota
, part~ of
of the County of
the second part,
WITNESSETH, That whereas the (~(County Court-Probate Division) of
Dakota County, Minnesota, in the matter of the Estate of
susanna. L. Knoblauch , did on the15tPday of
J:pr ~ 1 , 19 82 , appoint part-Y.. of the first part as personal representative
NOW, THEREFORE, the said part-Y. of the first part, by virtue of the powers vested
in personal representatives by Minnesota Statutes S~ctions 524.3-711 and 524.3-715, and in
consideration of the sum of TWenty-Seven 'n1ousand Fl.ve aundred and no/lOO- DOLLARS
,
to her in hand paid by said part-Y- of the second part, the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, d~~__ hereby Grant, Bargain, Sell, and Convey, unto the said
partY.- of the second part, his heirs ~nd assigns, forever, all the tract...- or parcel_
of land, lying and being in the County of Dakota and State of Minnesota,
described as follows, to-wit:
All that part of the Northwest Quarter (m~~) of the Northwest
Quarter (NW~) of Section 32, Township 114, Range 19, described as
follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the South 6 acres
of the South Half (S~) of the Northwest Quarter (NW~) of the
Northwest Quarter (NW~), thence East 170 feet, thence South 60
feet, thence West 170 feet, thence North 60 feet to the place
of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof.
Susanna L. Knoblauch at the time of her aeath was a single person
and not married.
t~o.S'o
. ,
- M STATE OF .~~.b;'''''''''';;... DEPT. OF =
<t>o -' InneSGr'a /4'\.!'~"~o'"" TAXAT!ON
6'" C"") - ~d"_~' ~~:- =
~ g = DEED --".~~ll.\(.': - 6 0 - 0
c ~ = STAMP DEl;:23'S2 ~".~.~..,::: . tl =
<<::> TAX P.B.105IS =
StateD~ea'~Tai i::,
DQe Hereoa is
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, Together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances
thereUI}.to belpnging, or in anywise appertaining, to the said part-Y. of the second part,
hl.S hel.rs and assigns, Forever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The said PartY- of the first part h~ hereunto set her
hand_ the day and year first above written.
DRAFTED BY:
LAMPE, FOSSUM, JACOBSON, SORENE & CROW
A TTORNEYS AT LAW
BOX 240
NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55057
of
Susanna L. Knoblauch
Deceased.
'-,' ~
STATE OF MINNE~Q_~.A.
)
City of Farmington
325 Oak Stre_. Farmington, MN55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
W\VW.ci.farminaton.mn.us
/OtZ-,
TO:
Mayor, Council Members,
City AdministratorQQ1t/pp.
Lee Sm.ick, AICP . ...
P1aruiingGdordinator . ... ..
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Autumn Glen Preliminary Plat
DATE:
September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
ArconDevelopment, Inc. has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the proposed Autumn Glen
residential development. . The Developer proposes a 153 lot single-family residential
development on approximately 102.86 acres of land east of the Akin Park Estates and Limerock
Ridge subdivisions.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat on August 24, 1999.
The Developer is proposing 153 single-family lots on approximately 102.86 acres of land east of
the Akin Park Estates and Limerock Ridge subdivisions. The first phase of the development will
consist of 71 lots on 26.68 acres of the total 10 1.96-acre site.
The property is zoned R-l Low Density Single-Family residential andrequires a minimum lot
size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of75 feet. The smallest lot is 10,209 square
feet and the largest lot is 17,201 square feet with an average lot size of 11 ,200 square feet. Lot
widths range from 75 feet to 112 feet with an average lotwidth of 80 feet. The proposed project
meets these requirements as cited in the City Code.
The Developer is proposing house and lot packages with values between $140,000 to $200,000,
with a mixture of full basements, full walkout, split-entry and split-entry walkouts. The
Developer distributed an informational letter concerning the project on August 11, 1999 to
residents living within 350 feet of the property (see attached letter).
The Developer approached the City with a similar proposal in the fall of 1998 that consisted of
174 single-family lots. In October of 1998, the Developer determined that the plat was not
feasible and withdrew the plat at the October 13, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.
Lot Configuration
Arcon Development has requested that the City convey Outlot 'D' located north of 193rd Street
in Akin Park Estates to Arcon so the outlot may be used for future homebuyers. However,
Outlot 'D' was conveyed only... "to be used by the City exclusively for the installation of Trunk
Sanitary Sewer." The City of Farmington will need to convey the outlot back to the State and
the State will need to reconvene the outlot back to the City and eventually to Arcon for future
lots. This process will require additional time to resolve and a condition to the approval of the
preliminary plat will be required.
Topography
The topography on the property is relatively flat in the central and eastern portions of the site,
while the western edge of the site consists of slopes over 20% in grade. Section 11-4-8 of the
City Code requires that no construction or significant alterations to the natural drainage system
are allowed on slopes over 20%. City staff determined that the ridge line should be designated as
an outlot on the plat and dedicated to the City in order to protect the slope and vegetation in this
area. This will allow for better control of the area rather than providing an easement to the
conservation area. Signs for each lot along the ridge will be posted stating that the land is a City-
owned conservation area and no cutting or damage to trees or plants shall be allowed.
To reflect the value of this Conservation area being dedicated to the City as parkland/open space,
the Developer would receive a credit in an amount equal to all area development charges that
would be calculated on this portion of the Autumn Glen development.
Transportation
There are four accesses proposed for the preliminary plat including two at the north end of the
property. The first phase will connect with Embers Avenue in the Prairie Creek 3rd Addition and
at 193rd Street in Prairie Creek East and Akin Park Estates developments. Embers Avenue will
connect the site at the northwest corner and will provide one of two minor collectors within the
development. A sidewalk will be required along the east side of Embers Avenue per City Code
requirements.
The second northern access is 193rd Street and is the second minor collector in the development.
The roadway is anticipated to connect to the proposed Prairie Creek East development. A
confirmation letter by the Developer needs to be received by the City concerning the mutually
agreed upon connection point between Arcon Development, Inc. and Progress Land Company in
order for the plat to be accepted.
A third access connects with 193rd Street within the Akin Park Estates development. An eight-
foot trail will be required along the southern side of 193rd to provide pedestrian/bicycle access
from Akin Park Estates and connect the parkland to the east. A sidewalk/trail needs to be shown
along one side of 193rd Street along its entire length to comply with City Codes. Embers
Avenue and the proposed 195th Street will provide the southern access to the property.
The Developer is responsible for a percentage of the construction costs for 195th Street (see
attached letter dated 1/18/99). The attached map shows an illustration of property owners
adjacent to the proposed 195th Street extension to the east. Dakota County has stated that they
will pay 55% of the costs of constructing the roadway to the eastern city limits of Farmington.
From the southwest comer to the southeast comer of the Autumn Glen property, the Developer
of the property is responsible for 22.5% of the roadway construction costs. The property owners
on the south side of this frontage would also be responsible for 22.5% of the roadway costs with
Dakota County funding the remaining 55% of the roadway.
Wetland Requirements
A wetland alteration permit will be required in a later phase of the project where 193rd Street
and Lot 8 Block 4 encroach upon the wetland. This wetland is designated a utilize wetland and
there are no setback requirements for structures from the wetland.
Additionally, a wetland alteration permit will be required at a later stage for Lots 16, 17 and 18
in Block 8. This is designated a Manage 2 wetland and requires 10-foot structure setback from
the wetland buffer. However, these issues will be addressed in future phases of the development.
The City Attorney has reviewed the preliminary plat and has approved the conditions to the plat.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve the resolution for the Autumn Glen Preliminary Plat contingent on the following:
a) The Developer will need to participate in the costs of improving 195th Street and will
need to waive all rights to object to assessments for those improvements.
b) A release from the State of Minnesota to the City will need to be obtained to sell and/or
convey Outlot 'D' to Arcon Development subject to retaining necessary easements at a
price to be determined by the City Council.
c) The Autumn Glen Final Plat will need to be revised to meet subdivision requirements if
the conveyance does not occur.
d) The Developer is required to apply and get approval of a wetland alteration permit.
e) All engineering requirements indicated during plan review must be met.
f) All requirements of the Surface Water Management Plan must be met.
g) All requirements of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District must be
met.
h) A sidewalk/trail is required along the length of 193rd Street.
G;. -.)/::7
. . I _.P'u
,,~ ( "'L--C...-
Respectfully submitted,
~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Arcon Development, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
AUTUMN GLEN
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington,
Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 7th day of September, 1999 at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following:
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat of Autumn Glen is now before the Council for review and approval; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the 24th day of August, 1999 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. The Developer will need to participate in the costs of improving 19Sth Street and will need to waive all
rights to object to assessments for those improvements.
2. A release from the State of Minnesota to the City will need to be obtained to sell and/or convey Outlot
'D' to Arcon Development subject to retaining necessary easements at a price to be determined by the
City Council.
3. The Autumn Glen Final Plat will need to be revised to meet subdivision requirements if the
conveyance does not occur.
4. The Developer is required to apply and get approval of a wetland alteration permit.
5. All engineering requirements indicated during plan review must be met.
6. All requirements of the Surface Water Management Plan must be met.
7. All requirements ofthe Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District must be met.
8. A sidewalk/trail is required along the length of 193rd Street.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of
September, 1999.
Mayor
Attested to the _ day of September, 1999.
City Administrator
[~^5t1
~ z.
g..=ft\
-.
i :aZ
go Q
j ~ il
I II
I i
; I
~
I;,:: I
, -I'
I ~'I
I III
a~11
iil ~
",0
"''''
~~
11:lim
i
~
~I~
I
~
Q"'(
i~
....
~
~
-N
~
F
,-,,;.~
""'ft~,,~_.,,~ft"JP~MP."IIRi."~fll~I~~P,~~IJ~M"i~li11~ !
I IIIII.IUII ~lIlil~ll.lr~llml~ ' · lJ/~'~" ;/ J ~
I'-~ ilf!IFi~~!fP1~Ii1P1Ii1FifP1F.FFtI1FjFIMpiIfiF!P'tFiIi1Ii'fP't >' ,r- ~v ,/ ~t:~ ;
Jf/O/!(f1wr/./. .Jlf)) /1'/"'"-::::;"'.'. J-:-,S~.-':::-":':"'. .' \:.'-'..~ -y 11. .~. .1,/#' ,~.\\t';1 A-__.- %.,'/ r,~
\({( <.\ t!' ~ .. /~""'1'. '-.. .---.~ . .~. . I U tIf.:,::j!J'j , " ~ c".#f:;"
I\~\\~ 1(' ~ ~._" '.. I.,. I) . -. .... -- ~'~.-> .' 'h 1'~fJ ,I. " ~:i>t' 8'
" ','\ \~_. .,\\'L~1!--,-- I '~~' _ IV'/,; _ I "'1 ~....o::;
~ ." <-:s.,,\-{:~::--j,. .1.;[.1\- -If'( ~ _ I " /"'" .. . .~i =i
~),~ ,;~"')) ,-\'t--.jf.:~~.._.. :::t:=-':<--).. . ~ ~% ~ ~,/i, -r-:-----:. ., _ I/ ....... ,'7' j<i r-...r";!,.,' ~
'-'L~~ ~~ ~ ~~~, ('" ~ _,;3::_,:1 ~--;:/ ~-=.=z:~---::;:..!.\ " , ?1.... [' II!" ,.L ! I t )o/'~ :r~~. )".( .; If:-, ..;
'\ ,~::~ ~~:t,.~'. ~ -"" .< .~, II CO'--. ~_ ~k .AS~~ --/
\ K" ~~~~~- ' .. ~:-t r) ~~" '>" . "_ //'7 ;.-~!1:~~~~~!~i
\ I '\ 1~:~'1~' ,':~~":..- ~~...;:..-=: - ~-.;::::- ~'. 0 '- f ' \'\ ~ .,.. i'" .
() " 1 1i'..'0::,~~_'~ _.__::::;-~/"-.:(\; ~-~ ~ I :', ~.) v _. , . -/ , .. "" S-
O ' (....":'---'-..:::.~.._..--. -..-:'-::::-.- .. - ~ I , .- -....1\ {'":~ T
~ < ~fI~ICJ~.~l;";,i ~~;-~~_~!~J?Wti~l::Y \: ~~a~' ~z\~ I.
; ~~~~~"-=:: "......~...,=;'~~~.~~, -~.;ro~""'. 4~\'iIL
16 . /.~} '. ..=a;nF ... ---n---";1:=[.~-"\~I~, rr .-<9B~'\:Vf !I~I~\)" ..~ -'ll/?-"-~
k" ..~:!.~ '- . 'r.-:'Ji.'~ '. ...~i I..~..~ i~~.:,-'.iL.;... i 1.. ii~:. !.!....r,; t;-~.Q".V" ~~. :-; I;;X-;~'~"'~/ ~!J~I' ~~\~",,~'I . ~,;..:; r;r "I;~ --=::-=:
'""" C) :--........ ;:::::..... ~ ~}1;: ~\T"~ ~ ~\"- ... ~..i T>~'" 't..~ ~=, -. '_I r I ..-r
",. , I >~ ;. I i ~ ;!.oo - . -) - - .. 'le> ..~ ~~~ .::-_.....< L .....1 ~ ..-00" -Id .~ ...~I"'; <::.-__
'i-i"' ,i1;"':';-I< -': .~D ~\~. '~.l ~~~~ ~. {fh"', , i4~ l'~-C"l.1 I~ - -------->
'--.i "ol. ,lil..... f-'~--",,_ ~~J.~ ..' I~. ""';" i;;L. ~_ I 'l' i......
--. 1? ~I', ~;" ...... ~.' . - ~"c,,-..' r- -I I ~ i ..-1iI1f!1- '. ....,..>
j .. <1 · I i.J I il. ~.I -I --. "".., ~t' 1 ! ..L;....., /\1. .V'\.\'J. ~ .r."I _i-_.J':'" r.~, '~'....../
_~ i':' I -:-- IJ.J; Ii~ I l:~ .~ ~ lit :::5; Ii-;: --~:. ..- . "7" ....., ,.... I.. '1"" & t ~. -"61' !Iii" I
~ ? !I ~ l.!.s' -f!!"~ ~. I- - ............... 'I < I. . I '~"'i- I Ryo-...
01 . ~ .- 1=.-' - .. .oo - :.:: ~___- ...........i - ',\..~, ~-~i.. .. ~ .-j ~ ~I i-,r ,"
;:; --=--=----=--, _ ___~_-:...-=___ .I'~ ...... -~ I" ~ ~ ". ,~ I, l!l .,ic" I. ~ 11.: r~
,..L (-- · __ ..-r-- --...... ,?","- _ ~ I'" '" i' ' .......1 "" "' -e...... ~ - I. , ~ i-./ (
\ u . " .... '!." 1 "'ll ..: ~ ..........~ C' zi .- + '1'1"''' ------
~::i: I. i!li ~.I I.l~r ~I ;~i lad:l !;:i ;:Ii 1= ~ a ";t-. ,--...;../ 1\1 i' -...:: '............ .......$".J.. '~L ~i ! -:. i-
rT ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CIIl ~ -,,-" , ~ -t ~ 7'jI'lll1/.~f"I ,e;
___ _. rT ;.. .-- . -oo" I ~ c /;>7;<J~-<~~. a /' I' ~h;"'.. ..:::-_
~ "....,..'--i~~\~.....J I. 11AK'-1
.~ ...~ J-~=~~/~"=-~:"=--=::': =1- =:=:.=-= =--= ::--==--=r~-:~-:?r --- --/-\( ./ '1);\\ LFI~1""'~;::~~~' ~'~/ ~ r-./
<::_ _ "~Q (-r-' -- --, /,/ I I C \ c~ i':!:'- ~';:'-
- -- -----.---.------.--~---------_m_l::--- (?,I; // J I .eo; - ~'f ~ :-
DI .-'::0 ~ ~___.---..- I I . ,./. I ,," j -
~ > ,... , _- _~ -- -- -- -,.:, ... .- ! '~ ~ t:" Ii_
~ ~..-- ---- - ..- --- - ~- -~-O__.-I.._~-;.,...;.:d".-._.-.I /0' /;' ___.....~ ~ \... _._ _ :...:...-.L
- ---.-..--------------------.......---v: /' '/,,:" i
...--. -..-_.- CI) ,," . :If"" I, /"-.-.-. I IC- .
, ~ ' ,. - ----.fi'l / \ r------~ "c
I I ',"':' // -f I ~ I .
I 1'1/'/ r" t":.-l' I 'lJ(')
, /// '~;!ri' = i
, CXCf:P710N .4i.;~!./ 0 /"'. ~ ~ r----
I . N. ..i .' /'. J I " ..' I
'.01 I / ";/ .~ I
:1 <:'"~-...='=~-=-.:::..=.==--:=- .- {,.\.: .\ ..///"./..o((~:..". ~ ~
. __i .~. '--.." . /,;1-
I! !I;:illl ---,-~==-~" ~Je~_~~ .~._~---_.~
: :~.i;. ~ .11 j;;, " III
l!i~ 0, ,,~
! ~ii ~;m ~. Ii l ""'"
! ;; I !! i <4, " "
I I~' "
, ~Q" I
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ---C _. ~ _ _ _ _.. ~ _ _ -"- _ ~ _i _ _ _ _ _..~ _ _ _.. _ _ _.. .,,=._ _ ~-= -:-:-= --=- ~ ii
I
,
,
I
k----ft<--
I)
,
I
I
......
{
)
.k-J.~-
I
N
~
-- _-.J
AReON
~
EVELOPMENT, INC.
7625 METRO BLVD. · SID'rE 350 - EDINA, MINNESOTA 55439 - PHONE 612/835-4981 -FAX 612/835-0069
August 2, 1999
Ms. Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
City of Farmington.
325 Oak Street
Fannington, MN .?5024
Re:Malinski Property, '.Autumn Glen Proposal
Dear Lee,
In adiscussiont()daywith IimMeunier,Universal 'J;itleCompanY,l1e DlaqelIle
aware of as mall iSS\lethat.willhave to be resolved, in the near future in order to file a
Final Plat for .AutulnIlGlell'
Apparently) OutlQt 'D', AJ.cin Park Estates, which holds the s~arysewer line.. . . ...
within it, went tax forfeiture, Theparcelrevert.ed tothe State of Minnesota. wltich inUJrn
co. n. v. eyed it. to the.City 0... r.... F.... .armm.. . .'. ... .. 81.. on... The. pr.o... blem... ' ()u.tl.ot 'D' Ald. .n.....P~. k1!states was.. .....
conyeyed only... '10 ~eiusedby the City exclusively for the installation ofTrunIc ... '.
Satlitary Sewer."An~, if ownership wer~. change4,Outlot'D' woul4.revertpack toth~
State of Minnesota, < CO~equently, JimI\1euni~r says tl1at the followin& shpuldoccllr:
1. The City ofFannington should. convey()utlot'D'backto.theState'{lIld
2. The State of Minnesota should then reconvene Outlot 'D' back tp the City ()f
Farmington with nO conditions.
This would then allow the City of Farmingtontoconvey Outlot '])' to ArCOJl
Development, !nc.on the finalPlatan4eventually to fUture homebuyers. This.shoul<ln't
be too. complicated, but will involve the State of Minnesota (who knows howl<~ngthis
could take). The City of Farmington should. start this processimmediatelybecallsethe
deed will need.to~e file41'riorto tiling the Final Plat. of Autumn Glen ('Vwcl1probaply
will occur aUhe end of the year).
. If you have any questions regarding this matter or would like to diSCUss this
further, please contact meat.835-4981, I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincer~ly,
~~~
Larry D. Frank
Project Manager
Cc: David Olson
Wt: DO MORE THAN DEVELOP LAND.... WE CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS
DEVELOPERS - PLANNERS - CONTRACTORS
ARCON
^
EVELOPMENT, INC.
7625 METRO BLVD. · SUITE 350 · EDINA, MINNESOTA 55439 · PHONE 612/835-4981 · FAX 612/835-0069
August 11, 1999
Resident
5080 I9Ist Street
Farmington, MN 55Q24
RE: DeyelopmentProp<>~al, Ion Malinski P~operty,Farmington, MN
Dear Resident,
Areon Development, !ne.has submitted to theCity ofFatmington, a prOpOsal for Aijtumn
GI~n, a single-familydevelopmellt onthe Jon M.alins19Property,adjacent to your
property. The proposal calls for the dev~lopment of 153 singl~-familyJotson 102.86
a~res, resultin~ ina.densitrofl.5unitsieraere. The planeallsforthe.~xtensionof.
Elllbers A.y~nue. southt().the1iltur~ 195 .....Street and the.extensionof 19~tdStr~tto ..... .....
Embers Ave. .... The wood~are, directly ~st ofLim~rockRid~e willbe desigllatedi~aJ1
Outlot and dedicated to the (jitYOfFarmington forP1"~~~ation. Additionally, . . .....
appr<>.xiffilltely 3 5 .6aer~sontl1eeastside of the A\lt1Jfi1IlGleIl will be devel9P~dilltotwo
ponding .areas and maintainedasop~nspace. Thi~ area will be donllted to th~. City of
Farmington to be addedtothe~xistingparklaIld.
Lot. sizes in AQtufi1I1 GI~Ilwill rang~. from 10,~09 sqllare feettQ. I7,201squar~
feet with an avera~e.ofapproximat~Iy '11,2QOsqqarefeet.. Lotwidthsrange from 7Sf~et
wide t<>.1l.2 feet wide with all average width opmfeet. . Lot pricess~()\lldraI1g~ff<>'lll
$39,900.00 to$49,9QO.()O with.lotand house pacl<:agesestimated toraIlg~ fromth~ l(l\v
$140,000's to th~ low S20Q,()00's.
In the. fall ofl 99~,the Planning Commission ()f theCityofFartllingt911apJjr<>.yed
a preliminaryplatcpnsisting Qf 17410tsQIl this parcel;.bowever,Arcon did not pursqethe
development at thllttime. The currentprop<>sal consists of 153 lots, a reduction of2110ts
ffo.m the original approved plan.
I have enclosed a redu~d copy of the proposed preliminary plat for YOUI'
information. If you hav~ questions about this proposal, please feel free to contact me at
835-4981 or th~. City of Farmington Planning J)~partment. I will be on vacatioll next
week, but will be in the offieeMonday August 23M.
Sincerely,
~.~~
Larry D. Frank, Project Manager
Enclosure:
WE DO MORE THAN DEVELOP LAND.... WE CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS
DEVELOPERS - PLANNERS - CONTRACTORS
ffu'tII~
.. Inc.
EXHIBIT A .
. .. .'. ..'.
/.
.'. .~':4!,. .
: : :>~RA:'R.iSl : : :
.. . :ct;Rte.et<:
..'... .'-~~,~,lt-.._,'.'.
. . .. .
. . .
.......t!.
......
. . .. .. . . .. ..
.....
;Cr,O
c:ron My,
...:....... R........r ....."....'-11. ............e...............i.
MQJin$kJ
L()IItJrence-
w: We'?Jel
.,
7
-..c- ..~
,....... <lJ
~.~
"'......
~.~
~
...
.,.'.
...
...
...
...
.....
...
...
...
...
...
...
.....
..-...
.....
...~'
..,~
.....
...
...
.....
...
....
.. e,"
....
._<it;
.....
.... .:-
....
~.'-:
....
..""
,..~
..~:'I
"3
"~,"
...~~ ..
... ,~
.....
...
w'. ..
. ....
.. ..
...
. ....
.".
...
...
...
.. .
"'.'-.
.....
....
...
..~
...
.....
-..
....
...'
....
..:.
.-..
.. .
...
....
...
...
-.<II!
.....:
....
'"
.....
...
... .
......,
...
...
.. .
...
...
...
...
. ..
...
..<II!
...
...
...
...
...
. . -,
. ..
...
. ..
. ..
.. .
11"'''' 1 C:' ~'J
H~uUI' VL.. V .......~. ..
-,1-99 TUE 15:53
ARCON DEVELOPMENT INC
FAX NO. 8350069
p, 02
.
AReON
7625 METRO BLVD. . SUITE 3.50 · ED~ MINNESOTA 55439 .. PHONE 612/835-4981 · FAX 612/835.0069
August 31, 1999
Mr. David Olson, Community Development Director
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington.,:MN 55024
RE: Autumn Glen
Dear David,
As I indicated in my letter dated August 2, 1999 to Lee Smick, Outlot D,.Akin
Park Estates, can not be conveyed or used for any other purpose than <to be used by the
City exclusively for the installation of Trunk Sanitary Sewer. · per the deed. I talked to
Jim Meunier, Universal Title Company this afternoon, and he is confident that only the
City of Farmington can resolve this issue directly with the State of Minnesota, Arcon
Development, Inc. can not be a part of this transaction. .As you and I discusse9 today,
Arcon would like the City of Farmington to proceed with this deed transfer as soon as
possible.
Arcon Development, Inc. understands that staff time will be spent to clear l:lP this
issue. Arcon Development, Inc. will reimburse the City of Farmington for any costs
associated with this process. As we discussed, we anticipate the final plat for Autumn
Glen will not be needed until Marchi April on 2000. This should give enough time to
work with the State ofMlnnesota to clear up this issue.
I did have Probe Engineering look at Lots 19,20,21 and 22, Block I, Preliminary
Plat fot Autumn Glen and how they are affected by Outlot D.Lots 20 and 21 would meet
the 10,000 square foot requirement without Outlot D, Lots 19 and 22 would not. If there,
were not an Outlot D, we would angle 193rd Street to the south allowing aU of these lots
to meet the 10,000 square foot requirement. Additionally, Arcon Development will have
extra costs associated with removing and relocating the existing sanitary sewer line
serving Akin Park Estates and Limerock Ridge to within the extension of Embers Ave.
Arcon appreciates the City ofFannington's cooperation on the Outlot D issue. If
there is anything else that you need, please contact me at 835-4981.
Sincerely,
~~~
Larry D. Frank
Project Manager
WE DO MORE THAN DEVELOP LAND.... WE CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS
DEVELOPERS - PLANNERS . CONTRACTORS
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
lOb
TO:
Mayor and Councilmembers
City Administratorft'E.-
FROM:
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Notice of Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - Bible Baptist Church Sign
Variance
DATE:
September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The Bible Baptist Church submitted the attached letter dated August 22, 1999 indicating their
intention to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at their August 10, 1999 meeting.
The Planning Commission approved a variance for a sign to be located within the required
setback of Akin Road but included limitations on the height of the proposed sign and restricted
the hours the sign could be lit.
DISCUSSION
Under section 10-8-6 (D) of the Zoning Code, a decision of the Zoning .Board of Adjustment
(Planning Commission) can be appealed to the City Council. Upon receipt of the appeal, a
public hearing has to be scheduled within 60 days. The ordinance also requires notice of the
appeal be provided to the Board of Adjustment and adjoining property owners. The City Council
can either affirm or overturn the decision of the Board of Adjustment with a 4/5 vote.
A public hearing to consider this appeal has been scheduled for the September 20, 1999 City
Council meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
Acknowledge receipt of the appeal and schedule the public hearing to consider the appeal for
September 20, 1999.
cc: Pastor Gene Dahmes
/.: - /7 ~ ;; -? .lc;>
('e. ~ /~r
BIBLE m
BAPTIST~CHURCH
19700 Akin Road West, Farmington, MN 55024
Church Phone (612) 460-6433
August 22, 1999
City Administrator John Erar and City Council
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Dear Sirs;
On Thursday, August 12, the Planning Commission of Farmington made a decision
regarding a request we made for a sign on our church property. We would like to appeal that
decision. We are requesting to be placed on the agenda of the next city council meeting for that
purpose.
Sincerely,
ILM
.... -
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 Administratorf~
FROM: David L. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Request to Modify Approval of East Farmington 5th Addition - Sienna
Corporation
DATE: September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Sienna Corporation has submitted the attached letter requesting approval to modify one
of the conditions contained in the resolution approving the Final Plat for East Farmington
5th Addition.
DISCUSSION
The letter dated September 1, 1999 from Rod Hardy of Sienna Corporation seeks to
modify stipulation #5 of the resolution approving the Final Plat for the 5th Addition. This
condition prohibited occupancy of any of the lots in the 5th Addition until the grading and
utility work is completed for Outlots D,E,F, and G (East Farmington 6th Addition).
Houses are now being constructed on all of the lots in the 5th Addition. Both Sienna
Corporation and several builders are seeking occupancy of these newly constructed
homes in the 5th Addition prior to the completion of grading and utility work in the 6th
Addition.
This condition was recommended by the Planning Commission to prevent occupied
homes from being in close proximity to major grading and utility construction. As
Sienna indicates in their letter, the completion of grading work and utility work for the 6th
Addition is approximately 60 days behind schedule.
Staff, in review of Sienna's request had determined the following:
1) Staff would support occupancy of interior lots with street access onto Walnut Street,
but would point out that grading activity would be potentially in the rear yards or
adjacent to them. As a result, staff would recommend that grading be completed prior
to the homes being occupied. If occupancy is permitted prior to completion of major
grading work, a waiver or hold harmless agreement releasing the City from any
claims for damages should be obtained.
2) In review of the situation involving the comer lots, staff would be opposed to
recommending occupancy at this time due to concerns associated with access,
resident parking, and grading and utility work not yet completed on 12th, 13th, and 14th
streets. In addition this would be a deviation from the City's policy of requiring
improved streets for access to occupied homes.
If the Council wishes to modify the conditions of their previous approval for East
Farmington 5th Addition, the following conditions should be included:
. A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy should include a signed acknowledgement
from Sienna and the homeowners that access from 12th, 13th, or 14th Streets will be
restricted at times during the completion of improvements for the 6th Addition.
. Both Sienna and the homeowner sign a hold-harmless agreement stating the City
would not be liable for any damages caused by the construction activity in the
adjacent 6th Addition.
. An addendum is added to the Development Contract for the 5th Addition to reflect
these conditions.
BUDGET IMP ACT
None
ACTION REQUESTED
If the Council wishes to approve Sienna's request it should amend resolution R138-98 to
delete stipulation #5 contingent on the above conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
cc: Rod Hardy, Sienna Corporation Inc.
SEP-01-99 WED 10:00 AM SIENNA CORP
FAX NO. t
P. 02
~ SIENNA
CO~POrl^TION
Suite 608 . 4940 Viking Drive. Minneapolis, Minn~soh:~J~435 . ~~~.3~:~~?~
,------~-..." ..n_ ,~ FAX:61?'-83f)-7008
September 1) 1999
John Erat
City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
via Fax and US Mail
Re: East Farmington Fifth Addition
Resolution No. R138-98
Dear John:
In response to my conversation with your COl11mmriiy Development Director, David
Olson) I would like to request a hearing before the City Council at its next regularly
scheduled meeting - Tuesday September 7, 1999.
The purpose of this is to ask the cowlcil to amend item 5 of the above resolution and
provide for the issuance of o~upancy permits on, at least) those houses that access
Walnut Street in the Fifth Addition.
For those houses that have driveways that aocess off12lh, 13th or 14t11 Street and abut
Walnut Street we would urge and support the issuance of a temporary occupancy permit
wi th a cash escrow of $2700 to cover the cost of an individual lot for street frontage to
build that portion of the street in front of1.he house.
The escrow would be released when we have built the street with curb and gutter as part
of the Sixth Addition, (which is 110W under contract and constroctiOl1).
When tho final plat of East Farmington Fifth Addition was approved in'late December of
last year, it was anticipated that the development oflots in the Sheth Addition would be
completed by August 15, 19991 Due to issues surrounding the identification and delivery
of adequate material for the Sixth Addition the schedule has been delayed by sixty days.
This becomes critical to an end buyer. If we can accommodate these future residents we
wotlld like to. We believe that the city would be of the same mind.
Plormers III Developers II Contractors
SEP-01-99 WED 10:00 AM SIENNA CORP
FAX NO. t
P. 03
John TIrar
September 1, 1999
Page 2 of2
In light ofthe city's policy for approving final grades of each house and Sienna's 110t
completing the center parks until the majority of the lots are complete in each block, item
5 could well put us in n "Catch 22" 011 the ability to close on any house in the Fifth
Addition until the Sixth Addition was totally built out. That makes no sense.
I will plan to attend the meeting and am willing to discuss those options that will solve
this dilemma.
Thank you for taki11g this request.
Sincerely yours,
~)J<~
Rodney D. Hardy /
Vice President
RESOLUTION NO. R138-98
APPROVING PiU:LIMINARY& FINAL PLAT AND AUTHORIZING
SIGNING OF FINAL PLAT
EAST FARMINGTON STH ADDITION
Pursuant to due call and. notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fannington.
Minnesota, WWl held in.theCoWlcil Chambers of said City on the 21s1 day of December, 1995at 7:00p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Ristow, Oordes,Fitch,Gamer, Stra()han
None
Member Cordes introduced and Member Gamer seconded the following:
WHEREi\S, theprelintinary arid fmalplat Qf~~tFllJTIlington sth Additionis now beforetheCotJJ1cilfor..
review and approval; and,
WHEREAS,.. a ptlblic hearing of the Plll11ning Commissioq was held oqthe Sthday ofDecemb~r, 199~after
notice of the same WWl published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice senttQ surrounding
property owners; and,
WHEIt~.4.S' the CityCQuqcil. revie'N~dtheprelintina.ry and fmal plat;. and,
. WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an QPiniQn that the proposed platc.an~efeasiblyservedby
muni9ipatservige. .
NOW, l'HEItEF"ORE,BEIt itES<>t..VEJjthlltthe abovefinatplat be approv~d aridthattherequj!iit~
signatures are authorized and directeclto be affixed to the final plat ",ith the following stipulations:
',-':.., .......-..... .... -..'....';. . .'
1. ;\gra<1ing p1anthllt .Shows how the Sth Addition 'NiIltie .into the existing contouts",illlleed to~~
stlbmitted' and apprQyed bYCi~sttJ.tT~efor~consti1tctioncanc(.)tnpence"
2. A utility planneeds.tobesubmitte~ sho'Ning the existi11gutilitiesinrelationtothetl~WJots. . ........
3. Lot 1, Block land Lot 3, Block 2 each has two sets of utility services.. One service for each lot.sh09ld
beapandQned and plu~ed.Thisnet'dstobe~hown on the utility plan.
4. I\uilding penn its cannot be isstledfor lots that do not access a paved street. .' If anY of the CQrnef'.lol$
are planned to access 12th, .13th, or 14th Street, street and utility plans will need to be stlbmittedand
aPl'roved fQr those. streets ..beforebuildingpennits can.be. issued.
S.Tho grading and utility work forOutlotsD, E,f and Q is completed before anyoccupancy>ofth~lo~
in Bloc1cS Ithrough 3 on the plat.
Tl1isresolutionadopted by re<;:ordedvote of the Farmington City council in open session on the2lstdiiY.Qf
December, 1995.
~a~~
Mayor
Attested to the 21st day ofDecember,.199S.
, ~~....
~ .,- .
'/' ' ,-
~Htd V--ie,-
City .Administrator
'/
SEAL
z
o
E
Q
o
<c
~
III
LL
z
S
~
::E'
a:
<C'
~.
J-
00
'~
W
II
t!t~ de
~~~K.
~:Ii~ ba ,.,
~" III
t;t l:. a~ i
~,,-i
~~1;!1I!1Il 15.. ~
:c~~~e r ~
j!J "
U~i; I ~
i~ !e"' h E
i~~11 ~~ ~ ~~
" ~,
::h~1!! ~t; I "':"6-
~z
UI ; i:,. "'III
~ ae
~~."'I ~I. N l'4::J
i!~~~ :;,. ~~
' a ~ ~'
~, 1lI~ " hr I d
ill!~l5g
~~-------~~--------~----
- ~ -_:.! ,~
-,-,- --,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
/,
~ '-
:. "'"
'-,
<L
i:::
,I
--:::.....---.1
r'ilf~~~~.~1rL_ -.~
-,,--..,.,.c~,
, i
I
: I i'
I @ ~8
'I ~d
I sf!
Iii
I d I
II
I ~
I ~
,I
,t
.:....____J '-
.{~ '
,".-r"'.
'- .j
-'"
&:-
.q~
, ~?:-,
l"~?H_S:
! '1_~;'.:~~'",\~
----,-'1
I
t
I
I
I
< I
I
I
I
I
-----~
I
I
I
I
LO''-
.....
"''OIl
"
!
I -
I
I -
I
....,
--- 00111. - -
3.IZ,1Q,QON
~
--~--~T~--~--
...~:' : ..::'
,,::_ I ~ ,,~~
=
I
~:. J:: UIlIIl1 i
ir:1
!LJ
..;:.
..
II ::l
il
I i!
[ i
-:,~, Ir I
I fCIl4Q11f 1'-1 NGl,'"u lM "0 10'ltfl() ., .., .is., - /'
" I
I
I
I -- I
I ' :: ,
I I
I .. I
[ "Oft .1."*"914 ..... llWJS
.
1'\
-
a
i
~
nl 1\ c:.U 00 IIUI' U.;;J' UV nil .J! Liol1l1n UUI\I
I" n/\ I1U. I
I; 1;.11
1,057 "'~m.('H"""'.^, 5"'1"#
ii. SIINNA
' " 'c: t)jjpORATld...
Su11eOO8. ,4940 VIking Drive. Miru"\Qapolls Mlnneso105S4.~S.612.8a5-~808
~...w '._" ... -.. ~._-, . mX:6f~~~7(jQ6
AprU26. 19Q9
."" .",-' '.
'-', ....'." .:.:" ....'.\ -' :.-- .,,:' >':'..' , ...;_:'.'.'/,;<:~::;~~,~..:';/'
'-:'- '-' - -', -'..' - -':.-" ,"..- - ':-"" -
.twsletter is tocQnJmn, that 'Si~ Corpota~(,nWilj' ber~po~il~J~~ qJlb.c.hat.f~tthp$~
certah1 huiltlQrs. fo.t'aI1yadj~tmentS 4i dnveway aprops forthp~QjQt$~ tb.ijffnm(Q~l:: . ,".
. imbuilt streets in theSi~AdditiollbutJ\iebelIJg built as models iruhe FitthAdditlon; ','
- - :-.. -." :':-,::.,. ' - _ ,'. ;-" ....... -:' -..t";. ,-":-'~ :'.;' .;- '. ' -.' .: '.,-.- '-: _ ::.:. _'." :'. "'_ ._', -.' '_.:' _'C'_' _ ...,-,-.. '-/"'-',:j" ":.:: "_-._ - ': -' ,";-,".:" :-,--",,",:'_'. :",""" _
. ":':""-.' ,,-.,.:.' - ,,' -'." ".."'-:. "',"-,: -,' :" ': ,:' "."'- -< . ':'. "--, -'- (<'-',:,,' ---..:.-::
, ,We. Qgr~~tb.~tl$Q.cQenlfiQat~$of()h9u~~c)1~(O.().' $)Wi11b~j~~4~~~*l~~~~~P~v.q
rofcrel1ced'Jot~' until c\iTQS~Xldg~ttQl'Sa~eb~ntadjac~ritto. m~J(l~~QP~mg'Qp'.~j~' ',.
Ai.i(ntiQnSf.r~flts. ,.ItisQ~ri~t~11 ti<)l1bythi$. jeltci'tos9.110tlfYtbo~qarrect~ijl>~1i14~1$;..""'" '.
,,"' ,'- .,,' '.:....,' .".' -:OO'-.' ,,' ',', _'_"'_ .- _, . _, '_'.,' '. "","'_'". _,' .
. , ,
Th~yoll for w,kiJ1~ <:atQ'c:Jf t~UI1~~otl
Siri.ccro1y,
~4~
Vice President '",' ,',' . .'.,.,., ,,'.,' .
co: East FarJl'Iington Builder~
"
Planners . Developers . Contractors
RESOLUTION NO. R139-98
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
- East Farmington Fifth Addition -
PursulUlt to due call and, notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Farmington, Minneso~ was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 21 st da.Y of
December, 1998 at 7:00p.m.
Members Present:
Members. Absent:
Ristow, Cordes, Gamer, Fitch, Strachan
None
Member Ga.fi1er introduce(t and MemberFitch secorided the following:
WlIE.REM,pursuant to Resolution No. R138-98,the City Council aPPr()vedthepreliminary
and final plat of East FarmingtonFifth Addition contingent upon the following conditions: '
1. The Develpper eIlteq; into the DevelopmentContI'act.
2. The Developer provides the necessary security <in accordanc~ ,with the terDls of the
Contract.
3. Thr,gt1iding an4 utility work.fgrOutlots D, E" F and G is comPleted Qeforeany
residentialocc~paJ;lcyofth~ lots in Blpc~s 1 thrOtJ$h 30fthephlt.
1 ; Ti1eaf'oreDlention.e4developmentcontI'act,a copy, of which is on . file, in theGler~'~
office, is hereby' approved.
NOW, T$REFORE, >>~J:T RESo.LVED that:
2. the Mayor aIld Admiriistrator are hereby atJthorizedanddirecte4tosi$D sucbcontqlct.
ThisresoltJtion adopted by recordedvoteofthe Farmirigton City Council in ()pen session oIl the
215t day pfDe~ember, 1998;
~o~
Mayor
SEAL
Attested to the 21st day of December, 1998.
Planni~g COnlllli$~ion
Minutes
~egul..r
December 8, 1993
1. Chair Schlawin called the regularly sCheduled m~ting toorderltt 7:0P P.M.
Members Present: Scl1lltwin, Schwing,L$'$on, R,ot1;y,Ley
MembQrsAl>sent: None
Also Present: COQlIl1unity Oevelopmcnt Director OI~<>n,Planning G<>ordinator Smick.
^~$9Cia~PlamterSchul~ Public W9JtsPi~rlCityangin~Mann '
~chIJl~n req1J~e.4QOmmen~~lJl tI1~Gol.l)rrilS$ionon the tnin\ltesfor Octobef 27,
.l~98. ',GommissiHner,~Y.Jloted .th~his'..IJItm~. \V~imp(Q~rlyspc;lled~,.,," .N():()th.~r ,.
...~".-=Q~~~~..~~=.
(9r.tb~mmuto$,of Noyember ',10;. ,l998, Gommissioner LeY'no~tl1atbIsnllln~-Wll$, ."..'".'.". ,,",'," .',
improRC'rlyspelled., ,1'he", were ,no 'other cqil1ments; "M9'l'1(j~bt,R()tty'i~~.b)(.. .' " .'
Lar$on, APIF,MO'flON CAAAQID. '
; "'; ',<~<,': .".-" ~, ',- "," ".:.. >.: ,. , ~',: '.," - ".' "", ", -', :'.": ::.: .:;::.'- ;.-. ,",' :.> ':" ,- - ,> '-,:",':" <"':."':, .-,:' ::':~"":::'. '>': - -,' "':<-<:'::~'---"': :,,\ ,:" - " . ", ','.-. - :"':,-,".:",:.' '-~: .--,--:~>:.:".>.. ':-'-',-':":_:<<-'. ---::-';-,'- '- ' :'-'~' -'-',:,::} '-')---::-::,:::"':: '", ::: ,---,::--: ,',::::':-,,>-'<>"
J>IMD~~ C()Ord.lPlitor Smiok;:pres~qted the. 9~~ron Wqo<lsPreI,mmIlfYPlat.. ~11l'~,' , '".,..'...,..
P9~t~ olJ!sev~",J issuesfu~fw~re di~U$s~QijNovern~r~~ 1~93 be~~nCitY$~< '.., .. "
mid the developc;:r. PlaUner Sn)icIc also' not~' tJiat somelllin()r' ~hllllge~ have Plken,iplll~ .
. on ,the pJ~ .nbta,bly the p!aq~l1lent QfStopu w~te~..etep~onpOnd~anathe bgi)4irigS'
themselves. SmiC:IcpQinted om there were som~ iS$ues with ont> of tb~stonn waterpQi.ld$
whi~h fesul~dinreQ10vingtheonepond 1U14 enltugingotberrxmds~d.;'{dsoshiftjiig tb~':
. ~'uil~Ung p~ds. .~mit(kn9~~ #t~t '~iiilY..foP~ (59') ~~ffer S1:ill,reiluUQ.$~lWC;en:tJie:
propoSC<l buildingand,e~i~tingIQt$tQth.~notth;, ,'. ..,.'. '. '," . ,". '
.' .' -: -:, "', ;-" '." '''', ..,,--.. ":: - -", ':'. ,'. ';.,' ,
'--'-"-"'" '-',
. - ,,,' ~ " --.- -"
" '- .' ' .'- - -. .
, , . , -,,,' -- -',' . '-'- .,,'
: "- , - ' .' -,~,,' - ";,::;;' ... '-> ,'. ,'- ; ::'--.~' ',:,:-; -', -: ''-'' :':,,: - . '-,-' ;", ,.' - :'.:' .:,-;;,
Cltair $chlawin opened Ilnthe,pu~lichearings sc1}ec:Juled, for the ~mbeI: ,8, '19~8'~lannIDg. .,'
C' '.. '. i' ' . , " '. ,... '.' ,', . .,' ,
, Om11l1SS10D, llleeUng.' , , ,
;fptliStm<l. "Wcm~I~Q~,~il.y~"i~"ibd~f~~h~tiori: .:oh.tli~n,I11~j~ii1g:.issue~.I11_iitl~\r'
conocl'l1ingthelllcKofroa(fcontlectionsbothnotthamds9uth'ofthe proj~,TIt~>
COInmission ,and sf8ft' di$Cussedthe ij;sue' of the roadC()n~trUctionJllldl1ow' itsh()9td..~
properlYdiagglfflcxlQntb"pblt~ '
..',:<\<; -
, - ",', --" ';:~ ~-."';.;.:.
, ,
l\fQ'fIot;lbySebwin& secQlld by~~rool()~.the publioh.g.APW,MO'l'lON
CAR.RIEJ). MOllQN by Rotty, second bySc1}wing to approVtltbe Prelimimuy Plitt of
C8n)eron WoOds contingentQn:
a) that the connection of Euclid St.bediagnuned amdlor doc~ented by the developer
and that the City ~yip~ti()"' forfipldingP9l'l.io.1!~ ()f~e' ~qstJlI<:tiOll, 9JJtSi~eQf tbe
project property boundaries be detennined by City Council;
b) and any other City Staff issues that may be unresolved;
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
14.
Associate Planner Schultz presented the Preliminary and Final Plat for the East
fannington Sib Addition. Schultz made note to the Commission that the plat represents
"
the new block designs from the P.U.I;>. amendment from earlier in the y~. Schultz also
explained thflt the lots would line.up with existing lots from the third acldition. Planner
Schultz e"plained to the Commission that the re~son for the smaller than typical plat was
be~Q$e of the ,nee<i for model homes, by builde~. Schultz also explainedl\lI utilities are
currently in place for the proposed lots though none of the side streets wiUbe c()nstructed
during this phase of the development and, will be included andconSlNcted' during, the
sixth addition. Schultz outlinedthereqyirementS for constnJction by the Engineering
Division. .
C()mmi~i()net':R9UY~nlinded .dtecornmi$$ion~i$ position .0Q theblQck recQnfi~tions
ma.de dQJ,in~th,e~.(lD, lUllendment. '
Alen@tY~is.c~()neqS9~Con~rning,thefU~~ding.ofthe., blocks", pl!l~e!lt()f
utilities and thecori.$tmCtionofroads;CommissionerUUsonv()iced.:cQri~me(to~er,ttie
l>.lacing,'l1~ri.es.'oll',.p~i!ll'IY.~ll~ct~.'bl~lcs.~,'...,.R()(I'."II~dy.'Siennll..Corp",,'QQrtt$rt~tiUtt'..
the l1()mes~models @d~Unot be occypiedtUId a~ thattlte9ity,?ouldrestri~t .
.OCCUPmlcy of the l1om~ut1tilth~ blocks:~cQmpleted within the $ixti) ll~ditiQri._ ' '
j)avicl", ~QgenJ>>erger,J~J3 'W.ho_t s~:' Any I>articl.dartimefr:~me' fQrwhenth~~'.'
home$wiUf)C~coti$1ructed7' . .".. '.. . . .,. . ' '.., .
"\.;
,.;";'-"
. , '-"',\"
.,-.';.,....:-:;,:.
,:':-.c' c
..schia\Vin ~qq~~llny mQftfco.nDlcnts or <iuesti~ns ft()nithe publici'oi.ili~ CQJn,injis16ii~.\ .'
ThQ~we.renQne.;' . ' . " >, '" ",.'
. - :- '. ~. - '-', -,.;.
".,..;,
. . .....- "-.,-'- .,' .....
MQ1'!()NbisChWin&'S~QHd',lj~RQttytQclo~~tI1~PUQIi~h~~iqg. . '~~,M(:Jni)~'
(:~:.M9TI~~'.',bY.;~9tI..s~Ql1d,ljYLeytoappr~ye.tl1eP~~i,roi~MY.md.P.jp,~r:
PlatforEastF~iI1gto.n51hAddi~q!1cQPtil1ge.l1ltothe.Jollowin~. "", ..' , .. ,.'.,,',', .,.\
,. ,". L tl1al.llUEl1~il1~ril1~s~~ificatio"'sarel11et;~~d.;" ", '...".", , ,., ,i,.> ,
2, aU. h()mes'con$trQct~wi14in tlle. ,tAdditi()llr~ll)~jn~.~~el~qn,tU~ltb~.,.,..
~IQC~~Q(,inpl~'~9 '~#if~df"\VltJi":utllitj~,,'itipiA~witljinthe~i~... "
phaSe. of~e.\,eIQPment .. , '.'
. "/';'
.\\':':;:"
: .;
-,"':\
,"'. :::,...-,.;,.
'. -.,':.:,
, . - > . -.;', .', -_:, ~ ::;
'.:, .:'
6.
Planner Schultz preaented. the home occupation application for David and Katherine
Wessing at 20228 Akin Rd. Schultz explained that the applicants woyld open a dog
grooming service within the home. Schultz stated that the applicants met flll of the
requirements outlined within the ordinance. The Commission asked the applicants some
general questions concerning the operation of the proposed business. Commissioner
( }
'l\
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
I~
TO:
Mayor and Councilmembers
City Administrator~
FROM:
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Consider Utility Easement Agreement - Arcon Development
DATE:
September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
The City Council authorized staff to prepare an agreement with Arcon Development to address
the issues associated with the City initiating condemnation of a utility easement. The easement
in question is on land owned by Progress Land Company that would allow Arcon to access the
City's trunk sanitary sewer line.
DISCUSSION
The City Attorney has prepared the attached agreement in which Arcon Development agrees to
reimburse the City all costs associated with condemnation of the subject utility easement. This
includes a requirement that Arcon provide the City with a $20,000 security upon execution of the
agreement. Future security payments will be provided by Arcon as necessary.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REOUESTED
Authorize execution of the attached agreement between Arcon Development Inc. to allow the
City to proceed with condemnation of the necessary easement on land owned by Progress Land
Company.
Respectful7~
David L. Olson
Community Development Director
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _ day of
, 1999 by and
between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation whose address is 325 Oak Street,
Farmington, Minnesota 55024 ("City") and Arcon Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation whose address is
7625 Metro Boulevard, Suite 350, Edina, Minnesota, 55439, ("Arcon").
RECITALS:
A. Arcon is proposing the development of certain property within the Cirj that necessitates the
extension of public services, including public sanitary sewer.
B. Current sanitary sewer service that could most efficiently be extended to service the Arcon
property terminates less than two hundred feet from the Arcon property, with the intervening
property currently in private ownership.
C. Arcon has been unable to negotiate a purchase price for the necessary easement to allow
extension of service to the Arcon property, and has approached the City with alternative sewer
service options which are less economic, efficient, and environmentally effective than the
extension of the existing sanitary sewer service.
D. It would be to the mutual benefit of the parties for service to the Arcon development to be
provided from the existing sanitary sewer service.
E. By extending the existing service, Arcon would avoid the necessity of constructing a temporary
lift station or other facilities which, if eventually abandoned upon extension of the intervening
service, would unnecessarily and wastefully raise the price of its development.
F. By extending the existing service the City and public would be benefited by initially constructing
the sanitary sewer system in a manner allowing full integration into the City's, and the region's,
existing system and avoiding the costs and disruptions of subsequent reconstruction or extension.
G. Additionally, although there is a general public interest and benefit to extending the current
1
sanitary sewer line, under City policies the cost of constructing new infrastructure is typically
borne by the benefiting property, in this case the Arcon development.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the terms and conditions
set forth herein, City and Arcon agree as follows:
1. Upon execution of this agreement, and payment to the City by Arcon of $20,000 as security for
Arcon's obligations under this agreement, the City will take the necessary steps to acquire
easements or other rights necessary from the owner of the property located between the current
sanitary sewer service and the Arcon property adequate to extend the current sewer line from its
terminus to the Arcon property.
2. Arcon will reimburse the City for all City expenses, including but not limited to appraisal,
engineering, and legal costs, incurred by the City in acquiring the property necessary to extend
sanitary sewer service to the Arcon property. The $20,000 security shall be considered a
prepayment and any excess will be returned to Arcon by the City without interest upon the
expiration or completion of this Agreement.
3. If costs should approach $15,000, the City shall notify Arcon whereupon Arcon shall make
additional payments of $10,000 as needed for the City to proceed with the acquisition. Arcon
expressly acknowledges and agrees that it is in Arcon's best interest for the City to proceed with
quick take condemnation proceedings, which by their nature limit the City's ability to abandon
the eminent domain proceeding once instituted, and expressly agrees as a condition of its
development to reimburse the City fully for all costs of acquisition.
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have set their hands as of the day first above
written.
ARCON Development, Inc.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
Gerald G. Ristow, Mayor
John Erar, Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1999, by
~ ,~ ~
respectively, of Arcon Development, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of and pursuant to their authority as
officers of the corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
1999, by Gerald G. Ristow, and John Erar, respectively the Mayor and Administrator of the CITY OF
FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority
granted by its City Council.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CAMPBELL KNUTSON P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
Telephone: (612) 452-5000
J11
3
ARCON
7625 METRO BLVD. · SUITE 350. EDINA. MINNESOTA 55439. PHONE 612/835-4981 · FAX 612/835-0069
August 2, 1999
Mr. John Erar. City Administrator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington,:MN 55024
RE: Jon Malinski Property, Farmington, MN
Dear Mr. Erar,
Arcon Development, Inc. has made application for Preliminary Plat Approval and a CUP
(Grading Permit) for Autumn Glen, on the Jon Malinski property in Farmington.
As you are aware, there is an issue as to the access of sanitary sewer for this parcel.
Arcon Development, Inc. has been in discussions with Progress Land Co. regarding an
easement to make the sanitary sewer connection from the Malinski property to the
existing sanitary trunk sewer line within the proposed Prairie Creek Addition, However,
Progress Land Co. has been unwilling to provide this easement at this time,
You will recall that we had discussed condemnation of the approximately 150 foot utility
easement needed for this sanitary sewer line and that the City asked if Arcon would cover
the costs of such condemnation. At this point, without being able to secure an agreement
with Progress Land Co., Arcon is requesting the City to proceed with condemnation of
the required property. Arcon Development, Inc. agrees to compensate the City of
Farmington for the cost of acquisition of the required easement. The cost of acquisition
shall include City legal fees, appraisals and cost of the actual easement. Arcon will
continue to attempt to obtain the easement from Progress Land Co.
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me at 835-4981. I
look forward to hearing form the City on this issue.
Sincerely,
~tI!%-I
Larry D. Frank
Project Manager
Cc David Olson
WE DO MORE THAN DEVELOP LAND.... WE CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS
DEVELOPERS - PLANNERS - CONTRACTORS
.
250' EX. 12- PVC <<>> 0.22%
EX. MH
INV. = 897.14
r--,
ADD MH TO EX iAN UNE
I
I
I
I
~
a..
1../ I"-Mf'OC<>."j Co-.tr.ct.on E<>.~c./"e";-
.
N
.-
I
in
,..,
N
Pe.rMA..f)e,,+ S~^'\1-e..."'~ Se.wet E;"'<::.e.Me.f\;--
13
16
14
).4%
-I
PONDING AREA
9
10
30' WETLAND SETBACK
-
-
-
-
--
-
.,
I
I
6
--
'f~AiRIE CREEK
<~
"'.("
",
""
/,' "
i
;/ // /
",.::'-1, /
'< 'Y.,--, ,,'
,,;1{ / / ~.
", <. // 6-/
',,- "-</ //~o"+
--:/" "</I~~//
- "- '-, // ....
",..- .'
, '\ ,.-
"-. ' ,/ ,
/>~/~.~ ./
./ /'" ",.)~
;' / ." ',< "1'~/
/ \ ",<~J>i"
, 'j('\.
\ ~.... ,-
\ ~ \--_.-
\<<- )
v'-..,--' -',
;.. : ".
<<- .
.-.....~
. ~.....
//
~/
......\ \.--'"
i I I,'
II f...C!j---
!Q
l 1--0:----
I l--B"-
i CJ
! ! n:
1 l-rg--u
1:E:
~__...l-._._
,
,
I
I
I i
i L__.._.___...
I :
) I
,i------
i
'-..-.,/
il '.
I
t-~._--_..._-
/
,I
fllIOIE "'=='=='-
NGINEEIIING
COMPIINY. INC.
L-- 1000 fAST 141t:ft SfMEI'. IUIINSW..IL
"
-..
,
"
tU ,.
(9
,~
c-.c r If
~i 7 "
:..c
U
,-, ~I
'-' "
n: w
tJ.J
~ "
__J
8" "
OUTLOT B
CONSERVATION AREA
.... ..... " "
II II
" "
"
It ,.
fT "
.-
'.....
~T=
._......DIlIO
t~ aJlP-
I:::"
~...",.
" 11 ,.
PONDING AREA
'~
-:- -~
I:
\ "
I ~_
.........,-',
\"':'-'='::<"
','\
WET LAND \ \.
',.'
....
...... ........:.'"
....-::.-::~"
/
/
"
~-:}I
..6
" PONDING AREA
I
..
r 11
:U"
11
II
TfJI'-flt.~
"
..
'Il;PooI1U
"'.101"
OUTLOT A
35.59 ACRES
._ CO ....B.D-'--}.LQ'-llA._...:...\,____C~5ltL.SJREET WEST)
PREPARED FOR;
.......
~
- ~.
:to ,/Ja,1I
-
,....
PRELIMINARY
AtJTtJ)(
ARCON DE'JElOPMENT
7225 MElRO Bl \11).
EDINA. MN 5~39
--
-...
F"ARIMNClOl'I
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
//6
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Castle Rock Township - Revised Joint Powers Agreement (2nd)
DATE: September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Council adopted a revised Joint Powers Agreement on August 2, 1999, which was the product of
joint board discussions that occurred on July 20, 1999. Since that time, Castle Rock Township
has expressed their opposition to certain language in the agreement. As a result of further
discussions with the City Council and Castle Rock Township representatives, the Joint Powers
Agreement (JP A) was amended with the deletion of language in the declaratory section of the
agreement.
DISCUSSION
Specifically, the JPA language in question focused upon the Township's commitment to maintain
its 2020 comprehensive plan as rural-agricultural in exchange for a Council policy commitment
of no forcible annexation of property outside the project area for a period of twenty years. The
Township interpreted this provision as too restrictive, essentially preventing any type of building
improvement to subject property. In contrast, the Council interpreted this particular section to
mean the township was committed to maintaining the agricultural qualities of designated
property, through its comprehensive plan, as opposed to further urbanization.
Castle Rock representatives indicated they are committed to maintaining the agricultural land use
of property outside the project area, but that they felt there should be some flexibility to amend
the comprehensive plan. They further understood that the Council's commitment of no forcible
annexation for twenty years was valid only as long as the "rural" character of this property
remained. Council has indicated no interest in forcibly annexing agricultural property, as long as
such property remains rural in nature.
In review, this section of the agreement is not absolutely necessary at this time as the substance
of JP A is principally concerned with the authorization of a new feasibility report for the joint
project. Furthermore, the declaratory sections of the JP A are primarily an expression of political
intent by both jurisdictions, rather than a formal legal contract on the subject of annexation.
The City Attorney has indicated that Council's commitment to a policy of no forcible annexation
is limited relative to the Township maintaining the "rural" character of property outside the
project area. Should land use within the township change over time, future Councils would retain
the authority to annex urban and/or urbanizing properties.
Castle Rock Township Board Chair Alyn Angus has signed the agreement on behalf of the
Township Board.
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider adoption of the attached revised JPA as presented. Council's adoption of this agreement
will authorize the initiation of work on the new project feasibility report.
Respeifl'~tted,
J 11 Erm
t ~dministrator
File
Cc: Castle Rock Township Board
Michele Nicolai, Town Clerk
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
FEASIBILITY REPORT, AND POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND
FINANCING OF IMPROVENlENTS TO ASH STREET/PHASE ill OF
PRAIRIE WATER WAY AND SURROUNDING AREAS IN THE
SOUTHEAST AREA OF THE CITY OF F ARMINGTON AND
PORTIONS OF CASTLE ROCK TOWNSfllP BETWEEN THE CITY OF
FARMINGTON AND THE TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK
THIS IS A JOINT POWPRS AGREENlENT entered into under Minnesota
Statutes S 471.59, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota
municipal corporation ("Farmington") and the Town of Castle Rock ("Castle
Rock") for the purpose of planning, constructing, and financing improvements to
Ash Street and surrounding areas within the City and Town, including street,
sanitary and storm sewers, and related improvements.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Farmington is a statutory city of the State of Minnesota and can
exercise all of the powers of a statutory city; and
WHEREAS, Castle Rock is a town of the State of Minnesota and can
exercise all of the powers of a town, and;
WHEREAS, Farmington and Castle Rock have been actively involved in the
study and review of certain potential public improvement projects including
reconstructing Ash Street, the Gonstruction of Phase III of the Prairie Waterway,
correcting or improving storm water management in the proj ect area, providing
sanitary sewer and water service to property owners within the benefiting area, and
other related improvements; and
WHEREAS, the public improvement projects involve areas within both
jurisdictions to varying degrees and the construction of the necessary and
beneficial public improvements may be best accomplished through the cooperation
of Farmington and Castle Rock by studying, financing, constructing, operating,
and maintaining the public improvement projects; and
WHEREAS, Castle Rock and Farmington are entering into this joint powers
agreement to study and provide a feasibility report addressing the financing,
construction, operation, and maintenance of these public improvements in order to:
(1) reduce, to the greatest practical extent, the public capital expenditures
necessary for the identified .improvements, (2) abate pollution, (3) control
excessive rates and volume of runoff; (4) improve water quality; (5) prevent
flooding and erosion from surface flows; (6) provide a reliable and safe source of
drinking water; (7) enhance the public transportation and road system serving the
area; and (8) secure all other benefits associated with the identified potential public
improvements; and
WHEREAS, Castle Rock Township and the City of Farmington agree to
jointly share in the costs of preparing a new feasibility report with each jurisdiction
agreeing to underwrite its share of the cost of preparing, reviewing and developing
a new project feasibility report, and
WHEREAS, the parties intend to enter into an orderly annexation agreement
as part of the construction of the project that would include provisions for the
orderly annexation to the City of all parcels served by City services within the
project area (including tax base sharing consistent with the standard six year phase-
in provided by state statutes), the preservation and retention of rural properties
outside the project area within the Township, the restriction of unilateral or
contested case annexations of rural property within the Tcwnship outside the
project area by the City for a period of 20 years (other than for property owner or
state-agency initiated annexations), and other terms mutually agreed to by the
parties.
AGREEl\1ENTS OF THE PARTIES
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained
herein, Castle Rock and Farmington agree as follows:
Section 1. Project Description. The Project to be studied includes the
reconstruction of Ash Street and the construction of Phase III of the Prairie
Waterway by the parties in cooperation with Dakota County, sanitary sewer
improvements to properties in the immediate vicinity of Ash Street both within and
outside the City as necessary, storm water improvements in the drainage area
within the hydrogeologic boundaries of the area, the provision of publicly supplied
drinking water to properties within the area, and other necessary or related
improvements identified as part of the preparation of the feasibility report.
Section 2. Feasibility Report. Castle Rock and Farmington shall cause to be
prepared by their respective professional engineers registered in the State of
Minnesota a feasibility report for the Project. The parties may approve, reject, or
require amendments or modifications to the report as appropriate.
Section 3. Response to Feasibility Report. After preparation of the Report,
Castle Rock and Farmington hereby agree to hold such public hearings or meetings
either jointly or separately to discuss the construction and financing of the
improvements identified in the report, and jointly may order the preparation of
Plans and Specifications or other documents prior to jointly ordering any
improvements identified in the report. The execution of this agreement between the
two parties does not commit either party at this time to the stated improvements.
Section 4. Delegation of Authority and Further Assurances. Castle Rock
and Farmington hereby delegate to their respective engineers all of the powers and
authority available to the parties under this Joint Powers Agreement which are
necessary for the engineers to carry out their obligations under this Agreement.
The parties agree that they will in good faith execute the documents or take other
actions as may reasonably be necessary for each party to carry out their respective
obligations to cooperatively prepare the Feasibility Report.
Section 5. Feasibility Report Cost Allocation. Both parties agree to
coordinate preparation of the Feasibility Report through each jurisdiction's
engineering representatives. Both parties agree to share in the cost of preparing an
updated Feasibility Report with each jurisdiction responsible for paying its own
engineering costs, and with the Township contributing an additional $2,500 over
and above its own respective cqsts to the City, in preparing the updated feasibility
report. Upon completion and acceptance of the updated Feasibility Report by both
jurisdictions, a total cost accounting shall be performed and shall be presented to
each jurisdiction for review. If the project is ordered, the cost of the feasibility
report preparation will be allocated according to project construction allocations.
Section 6. Right to Terminate. Either party may, at its sole discretion, elect
to terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of termination to the other
party. If a party terminates this Agreement as provided in this paragraph, the
terminating party shall be obligated to reimburse the non-terminating party for any
costs or liability it may have incurred pursuant to this Agreement up to the date of
the termination notice. Failure to order the project does not subject either party to
reimburse any loss to the other party
Section 7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement among the parties and supersedes all prior written and oral
understandings.
Section 8. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement or waiver or
modifications of its provisions must be in writing and signed by both parties.
Section 9. Effective Date. This Agreement is effective when it has been
executed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the
date( s) shown.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK
ATTEST:
Its
~;:~"'~ ~t0
,
ATTEST: ~uIu1it,' f?i-fPda;
Its r/(I(L.
Date: ~/:z '-1/99
BY:
Its
Date:
City of FarminBton
325 Oak Street. Farmington. MNSS024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
W\VW~ct.farmin&fon.mn.us
lie
TO:
Mayor, Council Members,
City Administrato~ ' ^ /J
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator V- ...
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Request of Filing Deadline Extension ~ Oak Place Townhomes Final Plat
DATE:
September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
City Code requires that the developer record a final plat with Dakota County within 75 days ,of
approval by the City Council. Colin Garvey, developer for Oak Place Townhomes, is requesting
a time extension for recording the plat that was approved on April 19, .1999.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Garvey is requesting a time extension to record the final plat for Oak Place Townhomes. He
is requesting an extension to December 31, ,1999 to allow adequate time to resolve an easement
issue. A formal request is attached fot' Council review.
ACTION REOUESTED
Approve the time .extension for recording the final plat for Oak Place Townhomes until
December 31, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
/~/ '(-"I.' /?
v7.a. ~..
Lee. Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Colin Garvey, C.G. Construction
AUG-31-99 03:29 PM
PARMINGTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
21080 EATON AVENUE
FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55014
(6'1) 463-482'
August 31. 1999
Ms, Lee Smick
Planning Coordinator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington. MN 55024
Dear Ms. Smick:
We are respectfully request ins a time extension for the recording of the Oak Place final
plat, which was approved on April 19, 1999. We would appredate extending this
recording for El period of three months, through December 31. 1999.
Thank you for your assistance,
Sincerely,
r&
President
CO/jc
P.01
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
I~a-
FROM:
Mayor, City Council, City Administrat~
Robin Roland, Finance Director
TO:
SUBJECT:
Approval of Preliminary 2000 Tax Levy and Establishment of
Dates for Truth in Taxation Hearing
DATE:
September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
State statutes require a preliminary tax levy to be certified to the County by September 15, 1999.
This preliminary levy is used by the county to develop the proposed property tax statements
issued to taxpayers in conjunction with the Truth in Taxation process, Once the proposed tax levy
is adopted, the City Council may lower the levy, but cannot increase it. Dates must also be
selected for the Truth in Taxation hearings and included in the Preliminary Tax Levy resolution.
DISCUSSION AND BUDGET IMPACT
The City Council was presented a copy of the Proposed 2000 Budget on August 4, 1998 and a
budget workshop was held on August 18th, The preliminary tax levy is part of the proposed
budget and was discussed with Council at the August 181h workshop.
The Tax Levy proposed as part of the budget is $1,816,068 and includes $550,000 for debt
service, $50,000 for the Fire levy and $100,000 for a capital projects levy.
The proposed Tax Capacity Rate (based on the County's "best guess" at this time) remains at
32.00%.
Under a recent change to Minnesota State Statute, the Truth in Taxation hearing may be held on
the same date as a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, as long as it is held as a separate
public hearing. Therefore, staff proposes that the Truth in Taxation public hearing be held as part
of the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Monday, December 6th. A continuation
hearing, if necessary, could take place on December 14th. In either case, the City Council would
adopt the 2000 Budget and Tax Levy at the City Council meeting on December 21st.
ACTION REQUIRED
Adopt the attached resolution, certifying the 2000 Preliminary Tax Levy of $1,816,068 to Dakota
County and establishing December 6, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. as the City of Farmington's Truth in
Taxation hearing for Tax Levy collectible 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
~~/
Robin Roland
Finance Director
RESOLUTION NO. R -99
APPROVING PROPOSED 1999 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2000
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 7th day of September,
1999 at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member introduced and Member seconded the following:
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require certification of the proposed tax levy to
the Dakota County Auditor on or before September 15, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, is in receipt of the proposed
1999 revenue and expenditure budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Farmington,
that the following sums of money by levied in 1999, collectible in 2000, upon the taxable property
in said City of Farmington for the following purposes:
Tax Levy
General Fund
Debt Service (see attached)
Capital Projects Levy
Fire Levy
Gross Levy
Less: Fiscal Disparities
Less: HACA
Net Levy
$1,941,645
550,000
100,000
50,000
$2,641,645
(421,168)
(404,409)
$1,816,068
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Truth in Taxation public hearing will be held on Monday,
December 6, 1999 at 7:00 P.M.. If needed, the continued hearing will be held on Tuesday,
December 14, 1999 at 7:00 P.M.. Th~ Tax Levy will be adopted at the City Council meeting on
December 20, 1999.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
7th day of September, 1999.
Mayor
City Administrator
2000 BUDGET
Summary of Debt Service Levy to be Attached
and Become part of Resolution Number -99
Fund Title
LeVY Amount
Total
$ 20,774
31,773
78,192
65,302
71,558
36,698
9,785
85,368
5,550
45,000
100,000
$ 550,000
Improvement Bonds of 1990A
Improvement Bonds of 1992B
Improvement Bonds of 1994A
Improvement Bonds of 1987
Improvement Bonds of 1986A
Improvement Bonds of 1986B
Improvement Bonds of 1993A
Wastewater Treatment Bonds 1995
Certificates of Indebtedness 1996
Certificates of Indebtedness 1997
Certificates of Indebtedness 1999
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington. MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/~/;
TO:
FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Council Policy - Council Workshops
DATE: September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION
At the April 24, 1999 Council Goal Setting Workshop, Council directed staff to draft a proposed
. policy on workshop purposes and protocols.
DISCUSSION
Attached, please find a draft copy of the proposed Council policy on Council workshops. As
Council may recall, it was determined that a formal policy on workshops was desired to establish
some general guidelines relative to the scheduling, need and purpose of these special work
sessions. In addition, the draft policy attempts to clarify the nature and substance of Council
deliberations in a workshop environment vis-a.-vis a regular Council meeting. City Attorney
Jamnik has reviewed the proposed policy.
As this policy affects Council directly, please review the attached draft document to ensure that
these guidelines meet your expectations.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REOUESTED
Please feel free to contact me with any thoughts or concerns you may have regarding this
proposed draft policy.
~eSpe~mitted,
~Enu
~~ ~dministrator
file
DRAFT
COUNCIL POLICY -101-07-1999
Council Workshop Protocols and Purpose
POLICY PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines and clarify the legislative nature and purpose
of a Council workshop.
WORSHOP DEFINITION
Council workshops are special work sessions attended by the Council. Designed as special
informal opportunities for Council, as a whole, to address, examine and formulate legislative
positions on a variety of complex policy issues affecting the community at local, state and
federal levels.
WORKSHOP PROTOCOLS
The following guidelines have been adopted by Council to establish an appropriate framework
for Council workshops to ensure a productive, team oriented and conducive work session
environment.
. Because the work sessions are attended by a quorum of the City Council, they are considered
public meetings subject to the state Open Meeting Law.
. Any Council member may request that a workshop be held to discuss a matter, however
items will only be scheduled for a work session by a majority of the Council.
. The Mayor or Acting Mayor, as meeting chair, shall endeavor to provide all members with
an opportunity to participate in workshop discussions.
. Because Council workshops are primarily held for the benefit of locally elected officials to
further study, evaluate and understand complex community issues and their related policy
implications, no official actions will be taken by Council and there may be limits placed on
the participation of interested individuals and organizations.
. Issues to be studied at Council workshops shall be publicly identified and appropriately
publicized. Agendas shall be prepared in accordance with the issues to be discussed by
Council.
. Workshop meeting dates, when requested and approved by Council, shall be regularly
scheduled for the third Wednesday of each month, except in such cases where a majority of
Council determine that a workshop date should be scheduled at some other time.
WORKSHOP FORMAT
As the intent of a Council workshop is designed to facilitate a better understanding of legislative
issues before Council, members shall have the opportunity to freely express their thoughts, ideas
and concerns in order to fully explore the issues before coming to a final policy position. As
Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session, all discussions shall be
DRAFT
DRAFT
considered fact-finding, hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises, which do not
reflect an official public position.
While individual and group positions may be formed as part of this process, no official vote shall
be taken. Should Council express a consensus of opinion on any given matter under deliberation
at a workshop, Council members reserve the right to modify, amend or change their positions
prior to an official vote.
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting
media as the articulation of a formal City policy position. Only official Council action normally
taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of
the City's position on any given matter.
This policy may be amended by a majority vote of Council as deemed necessary and appropriate.
DRAFT
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
J3C?,
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers and
City Administrato~
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Farmington Townhomes
Site control issues
DATE:
September 7, 1999
INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION
During the August 16 Council meeting an issue was raised concerning a possible a rat infestation in the
barn located on the proposed townhome site. Residents were concerned about rats being relocated to
adjoining property as a result of the demolition of the barn.
Staff conducted an inspection of the barn and the surrounding area on August 17. The interior of the
structure is littered with some decaying plant debris (leaves and branches) and large quantities of
demolition debris such as wood, doors, metal, and carpet etc. There is no sign of animal feed or grain or
human food waste that would be a food source for rats. Closer inspection under some of the debris showed
no sign of any rodents or burrows or runs that would indicate rodent activity. An inspection of the second
floor hayloft area showed no debris of any kind and no sign of rat activity.
An inspection was made around the foundation of the building, which is thickly surrounded by brush and
weeds, Again there were no animals, burrows, dens or other openings observed that would indicate the
presence of rats.
While the possibility of the presence of rats or other rodents can not be completely dismissed there is no
indication of an infestation in or around the building demolition site,
Staffhas been in contact with the developer of the property, Mr. George Sherman, to advise him of the
resident concerns and of staff fmdings. Staff has been informed that the purchase agreement for the
property requires the seller, Sienna Corporation, to demolish the barn. A subsequent call was made to Mr.
Rod Hardy about the resident concerns and staff fmdings.
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only.
Respectfully submitted,
g~~~~
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police