The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08.16.99 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR August 16, 1999 6:30 P.M. CHAMBER/COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Employee Service Recognition - Administration Department b) County Commissioner Harris - County Update 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) a) Citizen Complaint - East Farmington Truck Traffic and Related Activities CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (8/2/99) (Regular) b) Authorize Change Order - Fire Station Modification c) School and Conference - Police Department d) Authorize Change Order - Pond Maintenance Dakota County Estates e) Adopt Resolution - 1999 Sealcoat Project Hearing Date f) Adopt Resolution - Accept Parks and Recreation Donation g) Capital Outlay - Fire Department h) Capital Outlay - Police Department i) Approve 3.2 On-Sale Beer License - B&B Pizza j) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Easement Vacation - Industrial Park Phase II b) Consider Wine License Request - B&B Pizza c) Easement Vacation - East Farmington 6th Addition 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Farmington Townhomes Preliminary and Final PlatlPUD b) Communications - Farmington Area Senior Center Advisory Committee c) Arcon Development Request - Initiate City Condemnation Action d) Appointment to ISD 192 Growth Planning Task Force Action Taken 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Henderson Storm Sewer Project - Feasibility Report Update b) Set Public Hearing - CSAH 31 Project c) Adopt Ordinance - Water Use Restrictions d) Authorize Submittal of Comments - Empire Township Comprehensive Plan (Supplemental) e) Adopt Resolution - Cable Communication Systems Joint Powers Agreement 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) King Property 300 1 st Street - Update b) Railroad Mitigation Issues (Verbal) 14. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 5a., TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: John F.. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Employee Service Recognition DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION In recognition of 30 years of dedicated employee service with the City of Farmington, the City would like to recognize Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager in the Administration Department. DISCUSSION Qn August 25, 1999, Karen Finstuen will celebrate her (30th) thirtieth year of continued service with the City of Farmington. Throughout the many changes the City and the Administration Department have experienced in these past years, Karen has changed with them to perform her duties in an efficient, enthusiastic and professional manner. Karen has been a reliable source of information on the many milestones of the City's development and history. Karen's knowledge, ability to handle numerous projects, and caring atti~ude on the many issues affecting the City have made her an invaluable resource. In reaching 30 years of service with the City, Karen's many accomplishments, achievements and contributions have helped make the City the type of community we can all be proud of. ACTION REOUESTED Recognize Karen Finstuen for 30 years of dedicated service to the citizens of the City of Farmington. Respectfully submitted, tt~ J F. Erar ity Administrator z o ~ ~ ~ ~ o u ~ z ~ CI) u .E CI) r:/'1 "'0 ~ CI) 0 ~bh u 0 .,..-..1 ......-1 "'0 S CI) ~ O~ 4-44-4 o 0 tI) ~o CI) .- ~u o CI) ('f').;3 01)..0 o .t:: .N :> .- ?' o 01) o u ~ 1:: (l) S >. o ]- (l) c,.., o ~ (l) >. .;3 (l) '€ :B I-< (l) ..c:: (l) ~ I-< ..D (l) ...... (l) C) ~ I-<~ (l) ~ ~ ::E rIl (l) C) 'E (l) r/) (l) :> .~ -1= rIl 'S ~ ~ d' (l) ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ o\~ 0\"0 0\ ~ ...... ~ i::f lr'l 0 C"l...... ...... OJ} rIl ~ ;::l..... ~~ ~~ ~c,.., o 0 00.0 <..... ~~ ~.;3 =.;3 ~ .~ ~ (l) ~ <Ii' ~ (l) >. ...... rIl ~ 0. (l) rIl (l) .;3 ~ ..... "0 (l) C) ~ ~ (l)"O .~ ~ 8. i-.~ ~ ~ ~ S ..c:: 1::ca Q) S S 'r;J ~~ 0.0 (l) I-< 00. ~"O .5l ~ ~ C) 1-<..... ............ rIl rIl ..... ~ ~ ..... ..... rIl .@.s ~ ~ Q) ~ .;31:: "0 .2 ~~ C't U ~ (l) ~ .;3 .;;; rIl (l) (l)..... OJ)~ ~"O ..c:: I-< C) (l) ..c:: ~E S~ Q) I-< ..c:: (l) ......0. ~.8 ..8 S OJ}(l) ;::l.;3 O..c:: ~.~ 00"0 < (l) ~l ~ C) = ~ ~..c:: I-< (l) ..c:: ~ o I-< (l) ..c:: I-< g o ..c:: "0 ~ (l) N 'S OJ} o C) ~ >. ...... C) ..... :g 0. o ...... gf 'f! ~ rIl ..... ...... ..... (l)~ C) 'E (l) rIl c,.., o "0 I-< o C) (l) I-< (l) ~ I-< 1 ] (l) ~ caE :> (l) I-< S Q) >. ..c:: 0 c,..,...... o 0. ~ S .5l ~ .t:: c,.., ~ 0 8~ (l) rIl I-< I-< ~ (l) ..... :> ~] ~i3 ~..... = .E ~~ o E-- ~ ~~ o;;;J >~ E--E-- u~ ~~ =~ E--z ~< 000 ...:lZ ~o u~ ZE-- ;;;J< O...:l U;;;J ~E-- =~ E--~ =z E--o ~u ~~ ~~ =u E--z ~~ ~oo O~ E--;;;J "0 ~~ Oz ~~ ~~ .,~ ~> 0= ~~ ;~ ~= ...:l ., ~~ ~o ~~ ~z .,z ~~ o~ ~z ~o ~E-- =~ E--~ ~~ z~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~U~ ~~~ E-.c~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~CC ~~~ =<=<~ ~~U ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ c,.., o ~ "0 .s 1.0 ...... rIl :E ...... "0 (l) ~ !+=: ~ (l) ..D o ...... ~ .8 OJ} ~ .~ ~ c,.., o .0 U .s c,.., oaca Q) r/) (l) .;3 "0 Q) rIl ~ C) "0 ~ ] S' ...... (l) rIl o ~ (l) I-< .,g (l) ~ ..c:: ...... ~ o ~ ~ 00 000\ ~O\ z~ E-- ~ ~...... ~~ z ;::l ~~ ~ o 1;; i:2 "0 ca I-< (l) d I-< o ~ ::E .0 ..... ~ u.8 (l) OJ} .;3 .s ~ ~ ca~ (l)c,.., r/) 0 Q) ~ o 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: Citizen Complaint - East Farmington Truck Traffic and Related Activities DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION 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 12th Street access road on to the East Farmington 6th Addition site. These issues included truck traffic on 12th Street, traffic safety, temporary signage, environmental concerns, weed concerns, soil erosion, air quality, future access routes, street cleaning, and road weight limitations. Council directed staff at this meeting to take appropriate actions as soon as feasible relative to the private access road and review the need for temporary traffic safety measures, with other issues to be reviewed by the next Council meeting. DISCUSSION The City has taken the following actions to address the access road and in review of any temporary traffic control measures. In addition, staff has reviewed other issues associated with the resident's complaints. 1) Access Road - The access road leading into East Farmington 6th Addition was upgraded with Class 5 materials and layered with calcium cWoride for dust control. Subsequent review of the access road suggests that the resident's concerns with blowing sand and dirt have been appropriately addressed. As the fill materials were being generated off of public improvement projects, it was appropriate for the City to expend time and materials to address the condition ofthis private access road. 2) Traffic Control - In response to Council directives to review the possibility of installing temporary stop signage, Chief Siebenaler has indicated that he would not recommend a temporary stop sign coming off the Sienna Property as there are already 2 stop signs on Walnut Street at the east and west intersection points. This requires traffic at the west and east points of the intersection to stop. In addition, it was determined that another stop sign at the north and south access points on 12th Street would result in trucks having to come to a full stop that would create even more noise and dust as vehicles change gears to come to a Mayor and Council Members Citizen Complaint - East Farmington Truck Traffic and Related Activities Page 2 of3 stop and start again. This intersection will be monitored for potential violators as circumstances and resident complaints warrant. 3) Street Sweeping - Walnut Street and 12th Street at the intersection and one block to the north of the intersection on 12th Street and one block to the west on Walnut street were swept on Tuesday, August 3 and Wednesday, August 4 to address any residual sand or dirt remaining on the streets. As was previously indicated, City streets in new developments are inspected on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and are swept on Wednesdays and Fridays as needed. 4) Construction Activity - Under the City Code, home construction activity is enforced under the City's Disturbance of the Peace ordinance. Currently, there are no specific times or days that restrict this type of activity, but rather complaints are reviewed according to standards of reasonableness. Development activity, such as site grading, utility installation and street construction are restricted within specific development contracts to certain hours and days. Mr. and Mrs. Overfield were previously sent a copy of this information (see attachments). Council may wish to consider the implications of placing further restrictions on home construction activity in terms of specific enforcement concerns and difficulties associated with identifying the specific activities that would be restricted, i.e. remodeling, additions, roofing, siding, storage sheds, garages, decks. 5) Weed Concerns - Staff has responded to previous complaints generated by Mrs. Overfield regarding the status of the medians. In response, the developer did grade all medians and will be sodding and planting the medians within the next 30-60 days as seasonal weather conditions permit. 6) Road Weight Restrictions - The issue of heavily loaded trucks driving on neighborhood streets was raised by the residents. In review, it is highly preferable to have these trucks drive on streets prior to the installation of the final lift. This allows time for the roadway to settle, with any defects or unnatural depressions or cracks inspected prior to the final lift. As Mr. Mann indicated these roadways are constructed for 9-ton limits, that fully allow for this category of vehicle. City improvement projects will result in more soils being deposited on the East Farmington 6th Addition. City trucks and contractors doing work on municipal projects will be utilizing the 12th Street access, but will attempt to utilize neighborhood streets in a consistent manner, whenever possible. 7) Silt Fence - All new housing sites are inspected, with any violations documented and enforced according to City policy. 8) Alternate Roadway Access - First and foremost, it is important to recognize that from a legal standpoint, City streets are public roads. In certain cases, the City can restrict specific accesses as long as alternate routes exist that minimize certain undesirable traffic patterns or conditions. In this particular case, only one access onto the development site is currently available. While certain alternate traffic patterns exist within the neighborhood to access the site entrance, it could be undesirable to designate particular routes within the subdivision due to perceptions of discriminatory treatment on the part of the City. Staff has discussed this Mayor and Council Members Citizen Complaint - East Farmington Truck Traffic and Related Activities Page 3 of3 situation with the developer to determine whether another entrance to the site is achievable by way of State Highway 50 (see attachment from Sienna Corporation). It should be emphasized, however, that this would only apply to general site development activity, with individual homebuilders utilizing subdivision streets to access particular lots as needed. 9) Environmental Concerns - The residents indicated their concerns relative to the amount of dust and sand in the ambient environment. As their home is adjacent to a future development site, as well as individual home construction sites, there will be an above average amount of dust in the air due to construction and site development activities. This type of activity, while temporary, can be minimized though not eliminated entirely. Weather conditions will have the most effect on soil characteristics, and the developer will be advised to be sensitive to these changing environmental conditions. ACTION REOUESTED For Council information and discussion. ohn F. Erar City Administrator Attachments File Cc: Mr. and Mrs. Overfield, 511-12th Street, Farmington Rod Hardy, Sienna Development Corporation City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us June 14, 1999 Mrs. Bonita Overfield 511 12th Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mrs. Overfield: This letter will serve to respond to a number of concerns you have raised with my office regarding private construction activities in the East Farmington 5th Addition. The nature of your concerns, as I understood them from our recent telephone conversations, included building activity noise, dust and dirt on City streets, duration and times of construction activity and your perceived lack of City enforcement efforts associated with your complaints. First and foremost, citizen complaints are taken very seriously. Your complaints have been reviewed and acted upon to the extent called for and appropriate under the City Code. Issues you have raised concerning building activity are unfortunately an integral aspect of new home construction. Lot grading, vehicle and truck traffic, site work, and general home construction activities can, at times, be challenging and disruptive to neighboring property owners. However, the nature of this activity, while intense, is temporary and short-lived. Under the City Code, the Police Department reacts to community disruptions as circumstances and situations warrant. Officers use their best judgement in enforcing laws adhering to a standard of reasonableness in determining the best method to handle a variety of community and resident situations. In general, building activity is not considered a disturbance of the peace unless such circumstances, as determined by the responding officer, suggest a malicious, intentional or unnecessary disturbance to the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. The officer must make a determination as to the "Reasonableness" (as interpreted by Court Standards) of the activity or noise in the overall context of the neighborhood. Home construction activity, while irritating and, at times, loud, is a lawful and reasonable business-related activity within the City, and in particular in a neighborhood under active new construction. According to conversations I have had with the Police Chief, his officers have responded to your complaints and have taken appropriate actions as deemed appropriate and reasonable. Under the existing City Code, private building activity is not restricted to certain hours, but is generally enforced according to standards of reasonableness. For example, starting a generator on a building site at 6:45 a.m. does not qualify as a citable offense under the City Code. The distinguishing features of "development activity" versus "building activity" is underscored by activities that transform a raw site into buildable lots. This type of activity includes, but is not limited to, the construction of streets, the installation of utilities and the rough grading of the entire site. Performing these types of major activities are generally restricted in a separate document called a development contract. In general terms, major development-related activities are restricted to certain hours and days, and may be granted exceptions to subject to approval by the City. With regards to dirt on the streets, private developers are primarily responsible for keeping streets clean during building activity. To facilitate this stated objective, the City has taken proactive steps by contracting with a private street cleaning service to ensure that streets affected by building activity are maintained appropriately. In this regard, the City inspects these streets every Tuesday and Thursday, and, as appropriate, has them swept on Wednesdays and Fridays as circumstances warrant. The City does not use water to clean streets, as dirt and sediment on the streets wash into the City's storm sewer system and negatively affects underground lines, catch basins and holding ponds. While the City appreciates and recognizes your position, the City Code determines the types of action staff can take in response to citizen complaints. The City Council, in developing City ordinances and policies, considers all aspects of an issue to ensure a fair and sensible approach to community issues. Accordingly, it is not always possible to satisfy every request or concern without infringing upon someone else's rights. In conclusion, the City recognizes that your concerns are very important to you, and makes every attempt to reconcile those concerns in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances. In order to assist you, I have included copies of the applicable City Code, Section 6-1-18 regarding disturbance of the peace, and included a copy of the applicable Development Contract section regarding East Farmington 5th Addition development activities. It is my understanding that development activities for the 5th Addition have been completed, and that 6th Addition development activities have not yet been authorized by the City. Thank you for your time and patience. Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions at 651.463.1801 during normal business hours. Respectfully, .L -Ji:rl Jo}fu. F. Erar Ihy Administrator file Cc: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer David Olson, Director of Community Development Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief / .,/ ". . This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer's request the City will execute and deliver a release to the Developer. I. Developer shall take out and maintain until six months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,000,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $200,000.00 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, and Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City signing the plat. J. The Developer shall obtain a Wetlands Compliance Certificate from the City. K. Upon breach of the terms of this Agreement, the City may, without notice to the Developer, draw down the Developer's cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit as provided in paragraph 26 of this Agreement. The City may draw down this security in the amount of $500.00 per day that the Developer is in violation. The City, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether the Developer is in violation of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 30 hereof, this determination may be made without notice to the Developer. It is stipulated that the violation of any term will result in damages to the City in an amount which will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain. It is agreed that the per day sum stipulated is a reasonable amount to compensate the City for its damages. L. The Developer will be required to conduct all major activities to construct Plans A-F during the following hours of operation: Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Not Allowed This does not apply to activities that are required on a 24 hour basis such as dewatering, etc. Any deviation from the above hours are subject to approval of the City Engineer. M. The Developer is responsible to require each builder within the development to provide a Class 5 aggregate entrance for every house that is to be constructed in the development. This entrance is required to be installed upon initial construction of the home. See City Standard Plate No. 362A for construction requirements. . N. The Developer shall be responsible for the control of weeds in excess of twelve inches (12") on vacant lots or boulevards within their development as per City Code 6-7-2. Failure to control weeds will be considered a Developer's Default as outlined in Paragraph 30 of this Agreement and the Developer will reimburse the City as defmed in said Paragraph 30. 32. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: Rodney D. Hardy Sienna Corporation 4940 Viking Drive Suite 608 Minneapolis MN 55435 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either and delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail or registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: John F. Erar, City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 7 6-1-15 6-1-23 (I) Furnish a minor under eighteen (18) years of age with a firearm, air- gun, ammunition or explosive without the written consent of his parent or guardian 01" of the Police Department of the Village. 6- 1- 16: DELINQUENCY, ENCOURAGING: It shall be unlawful for any person, by any act 01" neglect, to encourage, aid or cause a chi.ld to come within the purview of the juvenile authorities; and it shall likewise be unlawful for any person, after notice that a driverls license of any child has been suspended or revoked, to permit such child to operate a motor vehicle during the period that such driverls license is suspended. 6- 1-17: DISORDERL Y CONDUCT: It shall be unlawful for any person to enga~ in any illegal or improper diversion or to use insulting, indecent or immoral language, or to be guilty of any indecent, insulting or immoral conduct or behavior. 6- 1-18: DISTURBING THE PEACE: It shall be unlawfulfor any person, wilfully, maliciously, intentionally or unnecessarily, todisturb the peace and quiet of another or of any neighborhood or family or religious congregation or other assembly by loud or unusual noises or indecent behaviOl" or by offensive or unbecoming conduct or for any person to threaten, quarrel, fight or provoke an assault or battery or curse or swear or utter any obscene or vulgar or indecent language in the presence of another. (1970 Code) 6-1-19: . DRUNKENNESS: (Rep. 7-19-7T) 6-1-20: ESCAPE, AID IN: It shall be unlawful for any person to aid or assist any person to escape from lawful confinement or to assist any person to escape from the custody of any peace officer. 6-1-21 : ESCAPES: It shall be unlawful for any person convicted of any offense or in lawful custody to escape or attempt to escape from custody. 6-1-22: EXPECTORA TING ON SIDEWALK OR IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS: It shall be unlawful for any person to expectorate or spit upan any sidewalk or upon the floor of any public building or room used for public assemblies. 6-1-23: FALSE PRETENSES: It shall be unlawful for any pel"son to obtain any food, drink, goods, wares 01" merchandise under false pretenses, 01" to entel" any public place and call for I"efl"eshments or othel" al"ticles and I"eceive and I"efuse to pay fol" same, 01" depart without paying for 01" satisfying the person fl"om whom he I"eceived the food, goods, wal"es and mel"chandise. 871 ii SIENNA CORPORATION Suite 608 . 4940 Viking Drive' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 . 612-835-2808 FAX:612-835-7008 August 5, 1999 John F. Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Site Development Activity and House Construction Activity-East Farmington Sixth Addition Dear John: This letter is to confIrm our conversation with you at our meeting on Wednesday August 4, 1999. We have jointly agreed that with respect to all development activity in the Sixth Addition we have instructed our general contractor that all construction traffic will access the site from Highway 50 at the south end of our P U D Our engineers and contractors will secure necessary temporary access permits from the appropriate entity. A temporary access road will be built within the Twelfth Street Right of Way from the South. All development related traffic will be minimized into the Third and Fifth Addition. Planners . Developers . Contractors '>"- .., John E. Erar August 5, 1999 20f2 With respect to the house construction traffic we will notifY all the builders to use the South entrance where possible and that all material deliveries must be made from the Highway 50 entrance of Twelfth Street. When house construction begins we will notice the builders on a regular basis and assist in monitoring the situation. The plans have been returned to the City of Farmington and the Pre con meeting is Monday afternoon. Please feel free to contact myself or our site representative Mike McAllister (612414- J073) if there is any question. Sincerely yours, "..~ ./" (\ e-(l/(J{5-H-m~{ t/ . i,) Rodney D. Hardy Vice President I:;~ Cc: Enebak Construction On':Site Marketing 70- COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR August 2, 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, Strachan, Verch None' City Administrator Erar, City Attorney JamL.ik, City Management Team 4. APPROVE A GENDA MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda, pulling items 7a and 7b. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Everest Path Traffic Concerns Citizens in Nelsen Hills have expressed their concerns regarding speeding vehicles along Everest Path, north of 190th Street. The City's traffic engineer has visited the site and has indicated that striping Everest Path with a center line and 12-foot lane edge lines could result in slowing average speeds by 2-3 mph. The estimated cost of striping is $7,000. In regard to the trail crossing on Esquire Way, the traffic engineer agreed that an advance warning sign for the trail located below the stop ahead warning sign would be appropriate and acceptable. Staff will order and install this sign. The speed trailer will be available this week. Mr. Brad Beggs, 18585 Everest Path, inquired if the speed trailer records high and average speed. Staff replied the Farmington trailer does not. The Police Officers have noted speeds up to 26 mph. Mr. Beggs felt there is still a speeding problem at average speeds of 24-26 mph. Councilmember Strachan requested additional monitoring by the Police Department, recording specific dates and times, before authorizing striping. The data will be presented at the September 7, 1999 Council Meeting. Mrs. Bonnie Overfield, 511 12th Street, expressed concerns regarding developing in the area and site renovation. She stated trucks begin hauling at 7 a.m. and there are too many to count. The trucks are speeding and residents are concerned a child will be hit. The residents would like a stop sign at the comer coming out of the construction area to make the trucks slow down. They felt the load the trucks are hauling is too heavy for the road. A major concern is the dust. Mrs. Council Minutes (Regular) August 2, 1999 Page 2 Overfield also inquired if the developer paid for cleaning the streets, and felt the streets should be cleaned twice a week. She stated the residents were told there would be an access road built to Hwy 50. The residents would like this access road built and gravel put down to reduce the dust. Generators are started at 6:15 a.m. Mrs. Overfield felt the 7 a.m. curfew should be enforced. There is also ditch erosion,in the boulevard. The code states the developer should not let weeds overgrow on common land. The developer will not be able to sod until Fall. After heavy rain there is erosion which washes into the storm drain. Staff replied the trucks are driving on the road without a final lift put on the road. The Development Contract states the City will provide all soils coming out of public projects. The City does not have the authority to regulate the developer's hauling. The Development Contract does not cover what is happening with the soil. Speeding trucks are an enforcement issue. Staff will look at what materials are available to lay on the street that the trucks are using. Staff stated streets are inspected and swept twice a week, and will look at the area to see what can be done. Installing a stop sign at Walnut will be reviewed. The Overfield's would like a moratorium on hauling until the situation is resolved. The City Attorney will see if the developer is complying with the Development Contract as far as hours of operation, dust, and speed of the trucks, However, the Development Contract controls the developer of the site. The developer is not engaging in construction activity at this time. These are vehicles that are coming off of a public improvement proj ect and dumping soils onto the developer's property. Staff will review the area to see what can be put down to reduce the dust and address the other issues. Council authorized staff to do whatever is necessary. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to approve the Consent Agenda, pulling items 7a as Councilmember Soderberg wanted to abstain, and 7b as Councilmember Verch wanted to abstain, as follows: c) Acknowledged Resignation - Community Development d) Acknowledged Resignation - Police Department e) Approved ENRON Right-of-Entry Request f) Adopted RESOLUTION R74-99 approving City General Records Retention Schedule g) Received information on School and Conference - Parks and Recreation h) Received information on School and Conference - Police Department i) Set Public Hearing to Consider Wine License j) Appointed City Delegate - VRWMO k) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch to approve Council Minutes (7/19/99) (Regular). Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Strachan, Verch. Abstain: Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) August 2, 1999 Page 3 MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Fire Relief Association Pension Request for 2000. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan. Abstain: Verch. MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Proposed 2000 City Budget - Distribution Proposed 2000 budget highlights include: A planned reduction in the City's local tax capacity rate from 33.06 percent in 1999 to 32 percent in 2000, marking the third consecutive year in which the City's tax rate has been reduced. The designation of approximately $19,339 to general fund balance reserves will increase the existing fund balance ratio of 19.38 percent to approximately 22.35 percent of planned fiscal year 2000 expenditures. A planned reductien in residential sewer rates from $28.00 per quarter to $26.50 per quarter. The proposed purchase of a new Fire Department Punlper Truck that will replace the existing 30-year old model. The proposed purchase of two new heavy-duty plow trucks in the Public Works Department to facilitate snow removal services and other related street maintenance activities. The planned purchase of a Sewer Jetter to facilitate the cleaning and maintenance of the City's extensive and expanding sanitary sewer infrastructure. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to accept the Proposed 2000 Budget and approve the scheduling of a Council workshop to review the Proposed 2000 Budget August 18,1999. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Railroad Crossing Mitigation Issues At the June 21, 1999 City Council meeting, the Federal Railroad Administration gave a presentation regarding train whistles and related issues. The construction of barrier medians at railroad crossings was discussed which would lead to the establishment of a "quiet zone." Barrier medians discourage vehicles from being able to drive around the gates at a railroad crossing. If this is done, the FRA indicated that the Railroad might be willing to lessen or eliminate the train whistle blowing for such a crossing. Assuming the Railroad agrees to this, medians would need to be installed at the crossings on Ash Street, Spruce Street and Elm Street. Council Minutes (Regular) August 2, 1999 Page 4 b) Castle Rock Township - Revised Joint Powers Agreement The City Council and Castle Rock Township Board held ajoint meeting on July 20, 1999 to address a number of remaining issues raised by the township relative to their adoption of the Joint Powers Agreement authorizing a new project feasibility study. The City and Township came to an agreement on the issues and a revised Joint Powers Agreement was presented to the Council. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to accept the Joint Powers Agreement, as amended, by joint agreement between the Farmington City Council and Castle Rock Township Board. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Ordinance - Municipal Archery Deer Hunting Ordinance Staff has prepared an ordinance that allows for archery deer hunting in areas previously restricted by ordinance. The proposed ordinance specifically allows for archery deer hunting on MUSA property with written permission of the property owner and in accordance with State hunting regulations. The ordinance further requires that hunters remain at least 300 feet from the nearest building or person. The second section allows for archery deer hunting on publicly owned park property. A restriction has been placed on the number of hunters on public property. MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg to adopt ORDINANCE 099-436, authorizing archery deer hunting and the issuance of municipal archery hunting permits. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) CEEF Mt. Dew Days - Police Services The City Council received a request for a clarification of the fees for police services billed to CEEF for the 1999 Mountain Dew Days celebration. A revised invoice of $3,622.24 will be forwarded to CEEF for Police Services during Mountain Dew Days. Councilmember Strachan: 'He assisted Farmington Police and Fire with a ruptured gas line, and was very impressed with the work of both departments. The new signs on Hwys 50 and 31 look great. Councilmember Soderberg: He received an e-mail from a resident in Deer Meadows who was pleased with the completion ofthe drain tile, City Administrator Erar: A legislative meeting has been set for October 6, 1999 at 7 p.m. An agenda will be prepared on September 20, 1999. The Facilities Task Force meeting is August 3, 1999. Staffis waiting to hear from Lakeville to determine a date for the joint City/school district meeting. The process is moving forward with a Joint Powers Agreement with Apple Valley and Rosemount for Cable TV broadcasting of public meetings. There have been significant changes along the railroad as far as cleaning out weeds and railroad ties. Council Minutes (Regular) August 2, 1999 Page 5 Community Development Director Olson: Empire Township has confirmed a meeting of the Joint Planning Board for August 11, 1999 at 11 a.m. Mayor Ristow: Regarding the house at 15t and Elm Street, the extension has run out. Staff will contact the owner and report back to Council. He received a thank you from the AMM for letting them attend the Council Meeting to discuss obtaining membership in the organization. He received an invitation from Lakeville for August 4, 1999 to attend the meeting for the Economic Development Partnership. There will be a farewell reception for John Gretz, the Apple Valley Administrator on August 25, 1999. There was an NSP power outage Wednesday night which involved several blocks. NSP stated they would restore power the next morning, so the Mayor called the Governor's office to get power restored that night. Staff will send a letter to NSP citing concerns regarding their response. The Mayor also received an ISO insurance letter, stating the rating stayed the same. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 9 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~ >>7~~ 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 /.6 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: SUBJECT: Authorize Change Order - Fire Station Modification DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City currently has a contract for one portable generator for the water system and three portable generators for the sanitary sewer system. The contract includes the addition of receptacles and transfer switches at the pump houses and lift stations to allow the generators to connect and provide power in the case of a power outage. DISCUSSION During the analysis of the City's Y2K readiness, the City's Y2K Contingency Planning Team has identified the need to outfit the Fire Station with a receptacle and transfer switch for the Fire Station. It is proposed that the Fire Station be outfitted with equipment that would allow the Water Board's 200 KW generator that is currently on order to be connected to the Fire Station, if the need should arise. The Water Board has ~greed to allow the Fire Station to utilize their generator as long as the Water Board does not need it to pump water. In the future, if the Fire Station were to purchase its own generator, the proposed equipment would still be able to be used. BUDGET IMPACT It is recommended that the work to outfit the Fire Station be change ordered to the generator project. The Contractor for the generator project has forwarded a price for the work and the proposed cost is reasonable. The proposed cost to install a receptacle and transfer switch at the Fire Station for a portable generator is $8,200.00. Funding for this unbudgeted capital expense would come from the capital acquisition fund and will be presented to Council as a 1999 Budget Re-appropriation item in November of this year. ACTION REOUESTED Authorize a change order in the amount of $8,200 to Electrical Installation and Maintenance Co. for the addition of a receptacle for a portable generator at the Fire Station. Respectfully submitted, ~h1~ 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 ?c TO: FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administratorft/ Daniel M, Siebenaler Chief of Police SUBJECT: School and Conference request State Chiefs of Police DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association will be sponsoring their annual Fall Training Symposium at Breezy Point on September 7-9, The main topic of the symposium will be Police Executive Responsibility in dealing with Missing and Exploited Children, Topics will include; strategy, policy, training and available assistance for the police executive, BUDGET IMPACT Registration and Lodging for the Fall Conference is $300.00 and is included in the 1999 budget. ACTION REQUESTED Information only, Respectfully submitted, ~ Daniel M, Siebenaler Chief of Police City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.fal1flin~on.mn.us ?cI TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Lee.M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: SUBJECT: Authorize Change Order - Pond Maintenance Dakota County Estates DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION City staff has received information regarding a collapsed storm sewer pipe from a resident that lives on 182nd Street in Dakota County Estates. The resident's property is adjacent to the existing pond between 180th Street and 182nd Street, west ofEly Avenue. DISCUSSION The pipe in question is the outlet for the above referenced pond. A substandard construction joint has failed and several sections of pipe need to be replaced. In staffs conversations with the property owner it was indicated that the pipe frequently plugs up with debris and the property owner ends up cleaning it out. In addition to the repair of the pipe, it is recommended that a skimmer structure be constructed for the outlet to eliminate plugging of the pipe with debris and to facilitate the efficient maintenance of the outlet. BUDGET IMP ACT It is recommended that the work to repair the storm sewer and add a skimmer structure to the pond be change ordered to the Prairie Creek Storm Sewer Upgrade project. The Contractor for the project has forwarded a price for the work and the proposed cost is reasonable. The proposed cost to repair the pipe and add a skimmer structure to the pond is $16,236.24. As this work is related to maintenance and repair of the storm sewer system, the costs would be funded out of the Storm Water Utility fund. ACTION REOUESTED Authorize a change order in the amount of $16,236.24 to Redstone Construction Company, Inc for the purpose of performing the repair work to the storm sewer system at the pond in Dakota County Estates. Respectfully submitted, ~/h~ 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 7e TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Set 1999 Seal Coat Assessment Hearing Date DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City Council awarded the 1999 Seal Coat project at the April 5th, 1999 City Council meeting. DISCUSSION The 1999 Seal Coat project has been completed. Streets in Dakota County Estates, Deer Meadows 15t and 2nd and areas in downtown Farmington were seal coated with this year's project. BUDGET IMPACT At the April 5th Council meeting, Council directed staff to prepare the assessment roll allocating 50% of the project costs to the benefiting properties not to exceed a unit price of $60.48 per buildable lot, The City portion of the project cost will be funded through the Road and Bridge fund. The final project costs and proposed assessment roll will be forwarded to Council prior to the assessment hearing. The Council's action to adopt the final project assessment roll will occur at the October 4th assessment hearing. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution setting the 1999 Seal coat project assessment hearing for October 4, 1999. Respectfully submitted, ~YJ1~ Lee M, Mann, P,E, Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R - 99 CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PROJECT NO. 99-12- 1999 SEAL COAT 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 of the 16th day of August, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution. WHEREAS, a contract has been let (costs have been determined) for the following improvements: Project 99-12 ; and, Description 1999 Seal Coat Project Location various - see Attachment A WHEREAS, the improvements for the project are complete; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No, 34-99 of the Council adopted on the 5th day of April, 1999, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the costs of said improvements; and, WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assessment will be completed and filed in the clerk's office for public inspection prior to the assessment hearing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. A hearing shall be held in the Council Chambers in City Hall on the 4th day of October, 1999 at 7:00 p.m, to act upon such proposed assessment at such time and place and all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and the clerk shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Notice shall be provided in accordance with the requirements provided under M.S. section 429.061 subdivision 1. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of August, 1999. Attested to the 16th day of August, 1999. Mayor City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651') 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7.( TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator1k- James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION A donation has been offered to the Ice Arena. DISCUSSION The family of Al MaId, in his memory, has offered to donate a trophy case to the Ic,~ Arena, The family has asked staffto order an exact replica of the trophy case already in use at the arena and to have the manufacturer bill them directly, Staffwill communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the Council to the family for their generous donation, ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the donation of a trophy case from the family of Al MaId, Respectfully submitted, ~~~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director PROPOSED RESOLUTION No. R - ACCEPTING DONATION TO THE ICE ARENA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of August, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member ------ introduced and Member ----- seconded the following: WHEREAS, the family of Al Maki has offered to donate a trophy case to be used for the storage of trophies at the Ice Arena, and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept such donations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts the generous donation of a trophy case from the family of Al Maki to be used as stated above. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of August, 1999. Mayor Attested to the day of August, 1999. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator J~ FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Capital Outlay Purchase - Fire Department DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION/ DISCUSSION The Fire Department is requesting to purchase a Signal Control to be installed in the Fire Cl-ief/Fire Marshall vehicle. This device will allow for additional protection for the rear of the vehicle. BUDGET IMPACT Approved in the 1999 Capital Outlay Budget. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, K~W\JA~ Ken Kuchera Fire Chief & City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ct.farmington.mn.us /4 FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ Daniel M, Siebenaler Chief of Police TO: SUBJECT: Capitol Outlay Purchase Squad car computers DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The 1999 budget authorizes the purchase of laptop computers for the police squad cars. Staffhas obtained quotes for the purchase and installation of these units from three vendors and fmds that the Field Works Inc, contract price available through the Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) is the lowest. The units will be delivered 60 days from date of order, This purchase will equip 4 of the 5 squad cars with laptop computers, The remaining unit will be purchased through the year 2000 budget. The mobile computer is the third and fmal component of the new Records Management and Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system recently installed in the police department. The mobile computer enables a call to be dispatched via computer and enables a police officer to communicate with other squad cars both locally and with other police departments as well as access local and regional police department records information and the State of Minnesota computer system, As a result of this communication tool police dispatcher time and radio time is used far more efficiently. BUDGET IMPACT The total purchase price for the proposed laptops will be $29,625,00, The authorized 1999 budget is $29,200,00, The balance of the purchase will be funded through the use of police forfeiture funds, ACTION REOUESTED Authorized in the 1999 budget. Information only, Respectfully submitted, Daniel M, Siebenaler Chief of Police 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 Services Manager SUBJECT: 3.2 On-Sale Beer License - B & B Pizza DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION City Ordinance 3-2-5 states that the City Council has the authority to approve On-Sale Beer Licenses. DISCUSSION B & B Pizza, 216 Elm Street, has submitted a first time application for an On-Sale Beer License. The appropriate forms, fee and insurance information have been submitted with the application. The Police Department has reviewed the information, conducted the background check and approved the issuance of a license. BUDGET IMPACT The annual fee of$125.00 for an On-Sale Beer license has been submitted with the application. ACTION REQUESTED Approve an On-Sale Beer License for B & B Pizza from August 16, 1999 through December 31, 1999. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin&ton.mn.us ?5a., TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administratorfv FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Vacation of Utility Easement(s) - Industrial Park DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION 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 (PIC) (Lot 1, Block 4, Industrial Park 1 sl Addition) and the south lot line of the lot which they are currently purchasing from the HRA (Lot 1, Block 4, Industrial Park 2nd Addition). DISCUSSION This vacation is being requested to facilitate the expansion of PIC's existing building to the north. The expansion will require the construction of the new building space on top of the existing easements. Since both lots will be under common ownership, there is no longer a need for easements along the side property lines. A similar request was approved for nT Powdercoating in 1997. The vacation would be contingent on the sale of the land to PIC. BUDGET IMP ACT None ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolution vacating the five utility easements on the north side of Lot 1, Block 4, Industrial Park 1 sl and the south side of Lot 1, Block 4, Industrial Park 2nd except for the east and west 10 feet of both lots contingent on the sale of the additional lot to PIC. cc: Wally Sapp, PIC ....... RESOLUTION NO. R - 99 VACATION OF A 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT IN FARMINGTON INDUSTRIAL PARK 1ST AND 2ND ADDITIONS PERFORMANCE INDUSTRIAL COATINGS 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 City Hall of said City on the 16th day of August, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, Performance Industrial.Coatings, located at 21025 Edmonton Avenue proposes to expand their existing facility to the north and has requested the utility eas~ment along the northern border of Lot 1, Block 4, Farmington Industrial Park 1 st Addition and the utility easement along the southern border of Lot 1, Block 4, Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition, except the west five feet thereof and the east five feet thereof, be vacated; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 16th day of August, 1999 after proper published notice, to consider said vacation of the utility easement; and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to vacate said easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Farmington hereby approves the vacation of the following utility easements: The utility easement along the northern property line of Lot 1, Block 4, Farmington Industrial Park 1 st Addition except the west ten feet and the east ten feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County Minnesota; and, The utility easement along the south property line of Lot 1, Block 4, Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition except the west ten feet and the east ten feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this vacation is contingent upon the sale of Lot 1, Block 4, Industrial Park 2nd to Semling Development Inc. In the event there is not a sale to Semling Development by December 31, 1999, this vacation is null and void. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of August, 1999. Mayor Attested to the day of 1999. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us JOe, TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrato,~ David L. Olson Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: Initiate Easement Vacation - Industrial Park DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The HRA Board authorized the sale of the lot adjacent to Performance Industrial Coatings (PIC) to facilitate an expansion of their existing facility to north, The proposed expansion will necessitate the vacation of the utility easements along the side lot lines of both lots, DISCUSSION As the proposed site plan for PIC's proposed expansion indicates, the expansion will extend across previously established lot lines and utility easements, In order to fac:litate the expansion, the utility easements would need to be vacated, The original need for the easements would have existed if the lots were developed separately, Since they are proposed to be combined into one building site under common ownership, there is no longer a need for the easements, The City Council is required to hold a public hearing prior to the vacation of any right-of-way or 'easements. A similar action was taken previously to provide for the expansion of llT in the eastern portion of the Industrial Park. ACTION REOUESTED Schedule a public hearing for August 16, 1999 to consider the vacation of existing utility easements along the north lot line of Lot 1, Block 4, Industrial Park 1st Addition and the south lot line of Lot 1, Block 4, Industrial Park 2nd Addition, Resp. ectfully sUbmitted,. _ ~?' ~~~ . :Olson - . - Community Development Director cc: Wally Sapp, PIC I' I I.. I" I I : I II I I I I I I\~l ..,....<11' - .'\ .~ ----- ...--- ~ --- --- ----- -- I --- .,.- --- ---- ;,...----' - w '" J f- ~ ill lL o ~ lL ,,$; 150'-0. ~NEW BITUMINOUS 1 i i I ., NEW II DOCKU PHASE I PROPOSED EXPANSION, 20..400 5.". ~~;~': . ':; ''I'1:io-- ~t~'~P': .' REMOVE EXIST / <:. PATHWAY__ t"~ __ 1 - / I I I .",-~,.., ;:~:'~~":,...,, , ~ . -~ 3:~:_ :j~]" DOC'S .~Jiu-c....~J p~c~ EXIS TINe. BUlL DINe., ,Jl ,,,'.'Q o I o o N 30.000 S.F, o ::;:c:/f:; ;, N LOTS S140WN FARMINGTON "mus' BLOCK'" LeT I ';", FARMINGTON INCCS BLOCK 4 LOT I l.1l z.. ~ - G) G) u. o o o - ~ lII: ::I 0 ! i 0 a- .. 0 It) :I: I lII: A- I; t- ea lII: II z ::I 0 ::E . .. CD a.. e 9A'tI uOP!3 lII: 1i c e (.) >- CIJ :I: ;II e - A- I lII: lII: ea ::I :I: ::E 3: ..I I 3: .- - 0 a- en .J: ... - e '"" lII: tn e '"" :I: It N ::3 -c e z! lII: C II - >- 0 :I: 0 . ... lII: It) . ::I i e II :E lII: :I: C 1! 0 ... 1 C) 1 C 1 .- E 3:1 ~ wi - a- - - ca CD iil CD Cf) 0 Cf) LL ca ~I ca .c .c ~ Q, .... Q, N ~I ClO -,"" u..1 CcJ, j~ I 0_ .J~ I :E~ 1 &;! 0,- U~ Pl::I qOU)t nd 8Jnp':I mC -Q) CE 80. Q)..2 I/)Q) m~ l.o .,~ 1/),_ CC 0::3 ""'E l8 E ::3 0 ou City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us CJb TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing-Wine License Request-B & B Pizza DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to City Ordinance 3-12-6-2, a public hearing must be held to issue an On-Sale Wine License. DISCUSSION B & B Pizza, 216 Elm Street has 'submitted a first time application for an On-Sale Wine license. The required attachments, fees and insurance information have been submitted with the application. The Police Department has performed the background check, reviewed the forms and approved the application. Public Notice establishing the public hearing date and time was published on August 5, 1999. BUDGET IMPACT The annual fee of $200.00 has been received. ACTION REOUESTED Approve an On-Sale Wine License for B & B Pizza at 216 Elm Street, to be effective until December 31, 1999. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us '6c TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ . Lee Smick, , ^ r() Planning Coordinator y-x FROM: SUBJECT: Vacating an Existing Drainage and Utility Easement and Designating a New Drainage and Utility Easement in the East Farmington 6th Addition DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Developer seeks to vacate an eXlstmg 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 in question is located at the northwest intersection of Locust Street and Twelfth Street. DISCUSSION The Developer for East Farmington has requested that the City vacate the existing drainage and utility easement as shown on the attached exhibits, 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. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed vacation of the existing drainage and utility easement in Lots 3, 4 and 5 in Block 5 and designating a new drainage and utility easement in Lots 2 and 3 in Block 5 of the East Farmington 6th Addition, ACTION REQUESTED Adopt a resolution to vacate an eXlstmg 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 as shown on the attached exhibits, Respectfully submitted, ~J2J2 Lee Smick,.AICP Planning Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. VACATING AN EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE EAST FARMINGTON 6111 ADDITION ON LOTS 3, 4 AND 5 IN BLOCK 5 AND DESIGNATE A NEW DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE EAST FARMINGTON 6111 ADDITION ON LOTS 2 AND 3 IN BLOCK 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of August, 1999 at 7:00 P,M, Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has received a request to vacate the attached existing drainage and utility easement and designate a new drainage and utility easement as described on the attached exhibit: See attached Sketch and Description, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 16, 1999 to consider the vacation of said drainage and utility easement and the designation of said drainage and utility easement after proper publication and notification, at which time public comment was heard thereon; and WHEREAS, it is determined that said drainage and utility easement is no longer necessary and a new designation ofa relocated drainage and utility easement is necessary and beneficial to the City, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above described public drainage and utility easement are hereby vacated and the above described public drainage and utility easement are hereby designated, This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the lOth day of August, 1999, Mayor Attested to the _ day of August, 1999. City Administrator SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION For: Sienna Corporation, Inc. LOT 2. Proposed Drainaie and Utility Easement An easemenl for drainage and ulilily purposes over, under and across lhe norlh 4.00 feel of lhe soulh 10.00 feel of the east 94,00 feet of lhe west 100,00 feet of Lot 2, Block 5, EAST FARMINGTON SIXTH ADDITION, according to lhe recorded pia l lhereof, Dakola Counly, Minnesota, LOT 3. Proposed Drainaee and Utility Easement An easemenl for drainage and utilily purposes over, under and across lhe soulh 4.00 feel of lhe norlh 10.00 feel of lhe easl 94,00 feel of the west 100.00 feet of Lot 3, Block 5, EAST FARMINGTON SIXTH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, LOT 3. Proposed Vacation of Drainaee and Utility Easement A 4.00 foot wide strip of land over, under and across lhat parl of Lol 3, Block 5, EAST FARMINGTON SIXTH ADDITION, according lo the recorded plat thereof, Dakola County, Minnesota, the northeaslerly line of said slrip is parallel with and distant 10.00 feet northeasterly from, as measured at righl angles lo lhe common lot line between said Lol 3 and Lol 5, said Block 5. The side lines of said slrip shall be prolonged or shortened lo lerminate on the north line of the south 6.00 feet of said Lol 3 and on the southerly extension of the east line of the west 6,00 feet of Lot 2, said Block 5, LOT 4. Proposed Vacation of Drainaie and Utility Easement The east 4,00 feet of the west 10,00 feet of the north 64.00 feet of the soulh 74,00 feel of Lot 4, Block 5, EAST FARMINGTON SIXTH ADDITION, according lo the recorded plat lhereof, Dakola County, Minnesota. LOT 5. Proposed Vacation of Drainaee and Ulility Easement A 4,00 foot wide strip of land over, under and across lhat part of Lol 5, Block 5, EAST FARMINGTON SIXTH ADDITION, according lo lhe recorded pial thereof, Dakola Counly, Minnesota, lhe westerly line of said slrip is parallel with and dislant 10.00 feet westerly from, as measured al righl angles to lhe common lot line bel ween said Lot 5 and Lots 3 and 4, said Block 5. The side lines of said strip shall be prolonged or shortened lo terminate on lhe north line of the south 10,00 feet of said Lol 5 and on the soulh line of the north 6,00 feet of said Lot 5. "THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY" ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE RECORD PLAT OF EAST FARMINGTON SIXTH ADDITION. I hereby certify thal this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direcl supervision and thal I am a duly licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of lhe state of Minnesota, Signed this 9lh day of July, 1999, F'or: James R. Hill, lnc, By: ~M,M~ Randy M. Morton, Land Surveyor, License No. 21401 "U m )> "U (J1 ;0 --.J 0 James R. Hill, Inc. G) ;0 -(') ;0 fT1 m 0 .j>.)> 1Tl'0 ;lJ)> ~ c... (1)0 ;5; 0)> ITl ^ 1l:~ .... (') !a ~;;1 .j>. --< -l2J ~ to 1l:OJ PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS 0 ' ,... .., Z OITl VI to -< 9 :E '" G) 2500 W. CTY. RD. 42 . BURNSVILLE, MN, 55337 . 612-890-6044 JUL-14-1999 08:56 JAMES R. HILL. INC. 612 890 6244 P.02/04 PETITION TO VACAn: Drainage and Utility Easements ~e. the undersigned owners of record of 100% percen~ of the property abu~ting upon Lots 2-5 Block 5 Ea~t Farminqton Sixth Addition loca~ed v1thin the City of Farmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota. hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fa~ngton, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, to vacate ehe drainaae and utility easements. legally described as: See Attachment 1. Rodney Hardv, Sienna Print Name 2. Siguature Print. Name 3. Signature Priut Name 4. Sigua~ure Print Name 5. Siguature Print Name Address ~ ~940 Viking Drive, Suite 608 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Corporation 7 14 99 SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION For: Sienna Corporation, Inc. 6\ PROPOSED EASEMENT -". 110 "'- f'\ I ITI r\' ^ 376 SQUARE FEET 0 VVIL.VI n. 1-- c=AST I () I ...., C:l L- <t <( ':-^ C)~ ""11''\.''1\1 <t I nI\IVII'~']IVI~ r-, r-TI I ,- 1,- I rl .--. 110.00 .--. ^ """Ir'\I\' r- nLlLlI' IV, ~ to W W -..... a: <t -'- ~ t:: 0 "... -:; (,') 0 6 .n ~" to PROPOSED VACATION J to I 197 SQUARE FEET }U 16 N I -- en lL p to --- 80.00 --- to --........... 0 z ..J I J z to to W 0 ~t;j -fl ~ "'- 0 U~ I- 0 c:i ~w w 1-- \; ~I ~QZ '" ..... ll: I \./ h :::) Q<( I w~o -". v rz:l::> ~ I ll:O~ A "'- f/l~ 0 4t- 0 <(0..< :~ 0 01') N 0 50~ c:i c:i iJ::: 0..1/") en <Xl Vlg:> <Xl I I ~<t 0 I <( b I <D LI. 0.. I I/") 0 N ~J Vl . 4 r.f~~' 1-- 4 \J (,') ~6 6L '(-,,,. <~10 6 6 LtJ I I ~ ~ 60.00 \ 80.00 \ N89050'39"W LOCUST STREET N "THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY" ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE RECORD PLAT OF EAST FARMINGTON SIXTH ADDITION. Scale: 1 inch - 30 feet Page 2 of 2 James R. Hill, Inc. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us /O~ TO: Mayor, Council Members, City AdministratoiJ'i: Lee Smick, AICP -rv() Planning Coordinator lJV FROM: SUBJECT: Farmington Townhomes 1 st Addition Preliminary and Final Plat/Final PUD DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION 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 proposed project is located south of Budget Mart, east of Trunk Highway 3, west of the East Farmington PUD development and north of the Henderson Addition. DISCUSSION 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 about the project. At the July 13, 1999 meeting, the residents opposed the following land use items on the original site plan: I. Landscaping/Screening Concerns 2, Traffic Concerns The landscaping/screening concerns were resolved at the August 10, 1999 meeting after staff reviewed the landscape plan with the Planning Commission and residents stating that the blue spruce trees will provide adequate screening of the interior of the development because of the trees spreading characteristics, The traffic concerns consisted of the opposition to the increased amount of traffic that may be generated from this development as well as the number of driveways accessing directly onto public streets, Traffic generation is in direct relation with the density of the land use, The Developer proposes 10,2 dwelling units per acre (or 16 total units on the site), whereas in 1993 this multi-family land use was approved for 12 dwelling units per acre (or up to 20 total units on the site). The amount of traffic generated is approximately 100 vehicles/day, Traffic from this project will most likely leave the East Farmington PUD from Larch Street to access Trunk Highway 3, The need to travel into the single-family portion of this development from this project will be minimal. Therefore, traffic generated from this project has been reduced from the original concept in 1993 because of the lower density and most of the traffic movements from the project will be destined for Trunk Highway 3 rather than through the single-family portion of the East Farmington PUD development. The eight driveways proposed on the original site plan were a concern for the residents from a traffic standpoint because of the need to back out onto the public streets and driveways proposed directly across the street from business or residential driveways, At the July 13, 1999 meeting the Planning Commission requested the developer look at revising the site plan to invert the townhomes with the front entrance towards the center of the property (see Revision #2), However, City staff pointed out a number of problems with this site plan as stated in the letter to the Developer dated July 23, 1999, City staff continues to acknowledge that the site plan discussed at the July 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting complies with the requirements of the Zoning Code, Staff did suggest minor changes to the original site plan in the July 23, 1999 and August 3, 1999 letters to the Developer 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, However, staff points out that it is imperative that the turning movements within these accesses meet the guidelines of the City, Therefore, the Planning Commission determined that Revision #4 met the requirements of the City and the requests of the residents concerning land use issues, The Planning Commission stated that 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. Finally, Revision #4 provides greater stacking distances from the driveways to the stop signs along Larch Street and the Trunk Highway 3 Frontage Road, The Planning Commission recommends approval of Revision #4 for the Farmington Townhomes Preliminary and Final PlatlFinal PUD contingent on the following: 1, Engineering requirements be met. 2, MNDOT requirements be met for the Trunk Highway 3 Frontage Road access locations, 3, And a sidewalk be shown from the existing sidewalk termination point along Larch Street to the driveway along the Trunk Highway 3 frontage road, ACTION REQUESTED Adopt a resolution approving the Farmington Townhomes 1 st Addition Preliminary and Final PlatlFinal PUD Revision #4 contingent on the above requirements, Respectfully submitted, ~~~-W Lee Smick, AICP . . Planning Coordinator cc: Sherman Associates RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF FINAL PLAT FARMINGTON TOWNHOMES 1ST ADDITION Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of August, 1999 at 7:00 P,M, Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the preliminary and fmal plat of Farmington Townhomes 1 sl Addition is now before the Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the 13th day of July, 1999 and continued to the 10th 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 and fmal 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 preliminary and final plat be approved and that the requisite signatures are authorized and directed to be affixed to the final plat with the following stipulations: 1, The major engineering issues on the site have been resolved, 2, Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, 3, A sidewalk be shown from the existing sidewalk termination point along Larch Street to the driveway along the Trunk Highway 3 frontage road, 4. Final Plat approval at the City Council will be contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of the construction plans, 5, The Developer reimburses the City for all engineering, administrative, legal and SWCD costs, 6, The Developer agrees to furnish the City one (1) reproducible and one (1) eight and one-half inch by eleven inch (8 W' x 11") reproducible copy of the filed plat in accordance with Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 3 (E) of the City Code, This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of August, 1999, Mayor Attested to the _ day of August, 1999, City Administrator MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED, MOTION by Larson, second by to approve the variance of 3.9 feet on Elm Street and 11 feet along 1 st Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED, 6. Chair Rotty.introduced the scheduled public hearing for the Farmington Townhomes 1st Addition Preliminary and Final PlatlFinal PUD. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report. Smick stated that Sherman Associates is seeking Planning Commission approval for the 16 unit rental townhome project on approximately 1.6 acres in the location of Trunk Highway 3 frontage road and Larch Street. Smick added that the project is part of the East Farmington Planned Unit Development and meets the proposed land use of multi-family, Smick indicated that the multi-family area that was designated near County Road 72 was amended in 1998 to clear room for single-family development in a PUD amendment which was approved contingent that the remaining identified multi-family areas would remain. Smick stated that the property has been identified and is part of the calculations of the Livable Communities requirements. Smick continued by outlining details of the townhome project. Chair Rotty requested if the applicant had anything to add to the staff report. George Sherman introduced himself and presented a color site plan of the project. Mr. Sherman discussed the neighborhood meeting that was held earlier in the year and shared with the Commission some of the resident concerns toward the project. Mr. Sherman stated that rental housing is a vital component of the City's housing mix. He continued his presentation with details relating to the project, Chair Rotty requested any comments or questions from the public. Karen Nichols, 604 Fairview Lane: How much has the City met toward the Livable Communities Goal? David Olson responded that the City in 1995 was around 25%. The City has not had any new rental housing since probably 1986, Karen Nichols voiced concern about the number of driveways and the number of people that will be backing out onto the streets with the number of children in the neighborhood. Mr. Sherman defended the proposed layout with the original layout that was accepted as part of the PUD. Ronald Galloway, 617 10th Street: Asked about the lease agreement and the number of adults permitted in each unit. Mr. Sherman replied that only two related adults are allowed and that the lease and financing agreement will specify that. The rents are geared for families that earn 60% of the median income in Dakota County, which is currently $61,000, Cynthia Sandey, 901 Larch Street: How come there is no screening in the front of the units, but only on the south side? Also voiced concern over the additional traffic. Lee Smick replied that there will be trees planted every 30 feet on the boulevard. Barb McHenry, 708 9th Street: Traffic in the area is already bad because of Highway 3 and Budget Mart, why can't a traffic study be conducted before the townhomes are constructed? Chair Rotty replied that the Police Department would need to conduct that study, Pam Galloway, 617 10th Street: Will the units have maintenance rules? Mr. Sherman replied that the units need to be maintained by the requirements of the investors and there will also be a manager on site. Lawn services will be contracted. Dave Fischer, 708 10th Street: Voiced concerned about the number of driveways on Larch Street. Kevin Hand, 509 10th Street: Asked Mr. Sherman if he would be willing to adopt the Homeowners Association agreement for the development? How long are the leases? Do the Bristol Square Townhomes go toward the Livable Communities goal? Mr. Sherman responded that he would be willing to review the covenants of the association and possibly adopt them. Leases are 1 year, Community Development Director Olson responded that the Bristol Square development does count toward the multi-family portion of the Livable Communities formula, Tony Wading, 704 9th Street: If the property is sold will the maintenance requirements stay with the property? Mr, Sherman answered that they must retain ownership for at least 15 years, after that time ifit were sold he is not sure if the same requirements would run with the property. Paul McHenry, 709 9th Street: Stated that the 1993 PUD plan should not be relevant to the proposed townhome plan because the City was unaware of how much the City would grow, Also questioned the unrelated adult restriction. David Olson, Community Development Director, replied that the both the City and development have probably exceeded their growth expectations, But the City and developer were aware of the types of uses and the need for adequate accesses. Paul McHenry: Will sidewalks be added along Larch Street and south on the frontage road and can parking be restricted on both sides of Larch Street? Lee Smick replied that a sidewalk along Larch would be possible, but to extend it south along the frontage road may require MNDOT permission plus the sidewalk would not tie into any other existing sidewalks, Chair Rotty responded to the restricted parking question by stating that both the Police Department and City staff will need to examine that issue. Shirley Wood, 816 Maple Street: Voiced her concern about the placement of the driveways along the frontage road and that she would be in favor of a sidewalk along the frontage road for the safety of the residents. Terry McClaflin, 700 9th Street: Isn't there a concern over the location of the driveways across from the Budget Mart driveway? Chair Rotty responded that the number and location of the driveway accesses may warrant additional review by staff because of potential safety concerns. Discussion continued over citizen issues related to the project. The Commission and staff also explained to residents what remained of the approval process. The Commission and staff also agreed to re-notify residents of the City Council meeting; though the City is not legally required to do so, Chair Rotty requested any comments or questions from the Commission. Commissioner Ley commented that the proposed layout blends with the surrounding neighborhood in that they front the street and there is common space in the rear, though there is concern with the alignment of the driveways with the Budget Mart. Commissioner Larson agreed that there might be a concern with the driveway alignment with Budget Mart and more time should be taken by staff to analyze the situation. Commissioner Johnson stated the property may be limited to an alternative land use and that if some of the issues such as driveway alignment and traffic can be resolved that it should be acceptable. Chair Rotty asked if there is time to continue the public hearing. Staff stated that they are still awaiting comment from MNDOT to approve connection on the frontage road, so there is time to continue the hearing, MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to August 10, 1999. APIF, MOTION CARRIED, 7. Chairman Rotty introduced the continued public hearing for the conditional use permit for a fast food establishment and office space for Brett and Amy Jensen. Planner Schultz presented the staff report, Schultz briefly described the location of the project. Schultz outlined each of the requirements and staff recommendations relating to the project. Schultz stated that the proposed landscaping after staff review is over planted and that staff will work directly with the architect to modify the landscape plan. On-site parking meet City standards but additional diagram details on signage and handicap parking are needed, also accesses should still be shown to align with the Budget Mart shopping center and Dakota Meadows Townhomes, Schultz went on to briefly describe the building design and suggested to the developer that they consider larger commercial size windows to accommodate advertising. Signage for the multi-tenant building can be discussed at a later date. Signage plans for multi- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmlnilon.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission Lee Smick, AICP f\; 0 Planning Coordinator r FROM: SUBJECT: Farmington Townhomes I st Addition Preliminary and Final Plat/Final PUD DATE: August 10, 1999 INTRODUCTION Sherman Associates proposes a 16-unit rental townhome development on 1.6 acres of land east of Trunk Highway 3 within the East Farmington PUD development. This is a continued public hearing from the July 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, DISCUSSION The Planning Commission continued the public hearing after a number of residents from the East Farmington PUD raised concerns about the project, At the July 13, 1999 meeting, the residents opposed the following land use items on the original site plan: 1. Landscaping/Screening Concerns 2. TrafficConcerns Landscaping/Screening Concerns The residents recommended that landscaping and fences be installed along Ninth Street to screen the interior of the open space. Stqff Response In Section 10-6-13 of the City Code, screening is required in residential districts when any off- street parking lot contains more than six parking spaces and any material or equipment other than recreational equipment is stored on a residential lot. These requirements do not apply to the proposed project. The Developer proposes three Blue Spruce trees to screen the interior of the open space, The length between Building 2 and 4 is 35 feet and the spruce trees generally spread a distance of 10 to 20 feet ensuring that the open space will be screened from Ninth Street. Additionally, five existing trees remain along the Ninth Street boulevard, increasing the amount of screening at this location, Traffic Concerns At the July 13, 1999 meeting, the residents were strongly opposed to the amount of traffic that may be generated from this development as well as the number of driveways accessing directly onto public streets. Staff Response Traffic generation is in direct relation with the density of the land use. The Developer proposes 10 dwelling units per acre, whereas in 1993 this multi-family land use was approved for up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The amount of traffic generated is approximately 100 vehicles/day. Traffic from this project will most likely leave the East Farmington PUD from Larch Street to access Trunk Highway 3. The need to travel into the PUD development from this project will be minimal. Therefore, traffic generated from this project has been reduced from the original concept in 1993 because of the lower density and most of the traffic movements from the project will be destined for Trunk Highway 3 rather than through the East Farmington PUD development. The number of driveways on the original site plan were a concern for the residents from a traffic standpoint because of the need to back out onto the public streets and driveways proposed directly across the street from business or residential driveways. At the July 13, 1999 meeting the Planning Commission requested the developer to revise the site plan and invert the townhomes with the front entrance towards the center of the property (see Revision #2), As evidenced by the letter to the Developer dated July 23, 1999, City staff continues to acknowledge that the site plan discussed at the July 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting complies with the requirements of the Zoning Code. However, staff did suggest minor changes to reduce the number of driveway accesses proposed for the project. This is reflected in the latest (draft) revision of the site plan (Revision #3) showing the reduction of one driveway for Building 1 and 3, However, it is imperative that the turning movements within these accesses meet the guidelines of the City. City staff reviewed (draft) Revision #3 on August 3, 1999 at the Development Committee and was in favor of the reduction of driveway accesses, but requested a final reduction of a driveway for Building 4 (see Revision #4), The Developer is drafting the plan at this time and if the reduction of one driveway for Building 4 is feasible, the Developer will present the revision as recommended at the August 10, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, City staff recommends that the townhomes continue to face towards the public streets, which will provide an open space in the center of the property, Additionally, City staff recommends that Building 1 and 3 be reduced to one driveway access each and if feasible, Building 4 also be designed with one access, ACTION REQUESTED Approve the above recommendations for the Farmington Townhomes 1st Addition Preliminary and Final PlatlFinal PUD contingent on engineering requirements and forward the recommendation to the City Council on August 16, 1999. Respectfully submitted, t3f~~ Planning Coordinator cc: Sherman Associates ~ ~4::a ~ ~& om ~lo-rn i o1d~L ! !! 'I! i i! · ~!! Ii i I. ~ II I g . 51 ~ . I . n:=r-=. E' i 'II j , . I~~I: I ; LLj~~ II] IIj t11 ~ []; , L}: !+____, . . [11 I-r----u - DO r-l[] dj ,I~f~:::-:: " ,. ..' DO~.' .... ~Il :1 t::~-:-~ DC ~ ~ O( . liD' ) . !jl i!--- i.' U J~~,' " . I-, _ _ __, ,.., '-.II ,n.". iT 1 Lm___ . ''"'' I L-m- ~ m-'1 I ~. . I :::;:1 I. . .f.-:::r -- - ._-- --of --iln--r--n --------r- -f \-:--1 ! I II I I~_ I I I II. 'UN ""M" ,UHnoO . . .Nt ,,:' , J..... ?toi~f-i----r.m ~ . _.n~' ~._- ,".~ . I . = .'1 = I. I ~ g ,-. g . '~... ._~ ,gd':.'.! a~ : ~ I .. u I -I I \ \ \ t: '" .. ~ .. . I . I . I \ \ \ !I ' 'Inn: II ;ij I r .LJ- :r 12 <I ...J _ ~3_9 H.l:NIN i ..1 .~ -: . >.l'-:-.:~,,;. ;r.~. f':;'.'~'~ ~\. t . '-"" j -,' ..... .~..,:';.'. ; ;,:.':. ~.~ . -~ -," ' ~~! _._.,....-~- -------.--.--- ~ ~ :t:. ~ " \ I ~ II 'b ~ -~ ~ -::" ~ () - V> "" ~ ~ ~ H!Nlfi / r , i ! ----- , "It ! [J "i- -f 1 I i 1 ~ -"" ~ '~ ~, '~ .. ". "., " ~." ~.--- " ~ ~. ~ ,.~"_.__.._-_ _. ~-iNo~;i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 2- ~ .c'itytoi.. F4Illttington 325 Oak Street, FarntingtQI1" MN 55024 (6504(i3-7111 F<lJX ((i,51) 463-2591 www.ci.fanpington.mn.us ]qly23,J999 ~.G~OI'g~ Sh~rm@. President Sbermail AssQ.ciates 152~Sg.4tl1~tr~t,.~uHe20Q Minneapolis, MN..' 55454. RE: ffU1l1ingtonTo\YtllioIJ:1Qs.,..R~Vie\V (>fR~vised'~ite}-l18l1 De~ George: ~', .-.. -- '- '-, :_._ _,' ','_': :".':,:", '_ -:,,; ':':':>-:'_"." _,_:"_'_<"'.: ,',. _ '_.' _,_: '"d'.,,",_,:',-, ,,"-':'-",:,: '.. .'.-.."-',.~:'._: :_": ......._.--.' --:;-'~-'.':,:"_::-" yity. swr. h~ Je()e.ntlyr~vi~\Ve,dther~yisiQ.IlsJlladeto the.Fannin~otlTQwnltgIl1~$.site plan submitted to. the.iCity<m July 16, J999. . TherevisionscoIlsist <lfthe. driye~y$ iItvert~d tqw!lfdsthecentel'ofth~pr()p.erti. . .... . .... . . . . . .. .. ... . . . . ..... CitY staff aClmowledgesthaf the revised site plan improves . tnuficby .diJ'~ctin~.the drivewaystoth~ . center gftlte. pro~rtyapd elip:rinatin.g the nllmerousacce.~s~ .tot.~h ,. . and NinthStteets. . Ho\Vev~r,~om ..~.plaplling .stafi4pointstaffCOIltinllesto ackno\Vled~e. thlitthis<le$ignis notcondllch'e to .livabilityissqes. . A number of issqesreduce the qtm1ityqflife on the . property thlit is directly related to the revised site plan. The following liI'ell~gatiV~st91h~ revis~d site plan: 1. The Joss Qfgreen sAAce redllces theabiUty J.QPI'oyidelid~qulitespace for the proposed tot lot along with the ability to access the tot lot directly from the townhomes. Children from the buildings on the northern end of the site will have to cross the drivewliYs to get to the. tot lot. 2. The amount of asphalthas been increased within the lot causing aesthetic and environmental issues. The aesthetics of the site have been reduced greatly due to the large expanse of asphalt proposed on the revised site plan. Additionally, the increased runoff and pollution created by the increased amount of asphalt promotes negative impacts to the environment. Therefore, City staff continues to acknowledge that the site plan discussed at the July. 13, 1999 Planning Commil:ision Illeets the requirements of the Zoning Code and land. use issuesassQciated with the Code. However, the staff does have minor recomme]j~tions for thil:i site plan. Staff recommend~ that one entrance be provided for the. four units in . buildin~$ 1 am! 3. This will eliminate dIiveways near the intersection of Larch and the TH 3 frontage road and reduce the nUnlooJ;'of qnyeways onLarch Street to three. The buildingstn8y n~to Qe relo. catyd further fromtb,e streel to allow for turping moVemynU) cr€mted bYQPe e.u..tran..................... ..c..... e......~.. ,h....o. w. e~..er.,.......th.........~. '. v... e.lu. :c.le.... s.. .......l..ea.. .'VID. ........... .... g~... uil. di..:ngs.:............l.. ..... an.d....) .w..l'.ll b. e...............ab. ....l..e.to.. .8P...9....e.s....... s..............9.'. Q... ......t......o... ...th................e..........< . ~~t..fa~~g f9rward .rather. :tMn.ba~klt1g . outQnt()..astreetwithapearby~tet'se~tion. S. ec......o. ndly......,..i.eIQc. atin...g.....the....... ..dIi......v.e.wa.....y .t...o.the. eas.t.....Im. . d.. e......lhnin. atmg.... a dri... ..'v. ew. li.y..en..:.....J........an. .......Ce.............Ill........ay reduce the, potential for trafJicconflicts near .theIJ\1dget . Mart entrance ()n L8fQh.$~t " ." . '- . -' . .:'. If yo#ha"eantC)therco~ijptsorquel:i1ionscoQcerniI)g the.. abov~rec()mm.el)9a~~Jl$, .... pl~e call meat 463-1840. . . Lee Smick, AlCP . . Planning Co()rdinator ' U:""o...~O'~.. ~o J,'n.a... U.L_~ __ ..1.._ _ - ..-~- .. . ---..- .:.L~ vJ. b r .__--"~ 'r . . d l\ ~\ . \p -:1: ~ ~ \ . .j -B~~d I I ,l'f) ~ ~ ~ ......... V) ~ ~. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 F~ (651) 463-2591 www.ci~fal.J1linlfo....mn.us Aug~t 4, 1999 Mr. George Shennan President Sherman Associate& 1525 So. 4th Street, Sllite200 Minneapolis, MN. 55454 RE: Farmington To\Vnhomes Revised Site Plan Review byI)e"elopment COllUllittee cOllcermng Dear Qeorge: The. DevelopmenfCol11111ittee. reviewed the revised. site plan on August. 3;'1999 Showing thre.e driveways on. Larch Street and one driveway on the frontage roaq. The cOlnmittee expressed approval of the changes made to the driveways and will recollUllend approval ofth~revised site plan.. However, the DevelopmentConuninee al&oreconunends that one driveway beq~si~lled for Building 4 if feasible, to elimil1ate the complaints from the neighbor on. the otherside of Ninth Street. The cOllUllittee recommends that the southern driveway remain open to th~ street while.the northern driveway be closed and designed similar to driveways in Building! and 3. This may require that Building4be relocated further to the west. If you have any other comments . or questions concerning the above recommendation, please call me at 463-1820. s~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. J T F~r~Ge T JfQqo ....-... . r-- , 'I I 1 r- I I I , I ] I I 1 I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I ~ . I r- A- I , > .. . --e I ~ a , lA QJ:! I ;I ,., ,~i I n -1 iI I ~~ I I I I I .1 I L_ . l I I. I __...J . , " .... I ~ NMH S1REE1 -\- _ A- I I~ ~- ~" kec// 3/:O~ ~y 08/05/1999 12:31 5514505444 ---- t"14t<:I"I.lI'f\:lII'f l..,t"1I-lIYIOc:.~ <...u r HUe:.. tJ.L TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Farmington City Council Tom Segar, President Farmington Area Chamber of Commerce Rental Housing AugustS, 1999 FARMINGTON AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 317 4th Sf. Farmington, Minnesota 55024 (651) 480-6444 T~e Farmi~gton Area ~hamber of Commerce would like to encourage the Farmington City Council to work with area developers/investors to encourage the establishment of new rental housing units. The Chamber office receives requests for rental housing on a weekly basis. There is not enough rental housing available in our area. The latest survey from the Dakota County HRA verifies this need. Many of the larger businesses in the Farmington area are finding it difficult to staff their businesses. We know that the unemployment rate is at record lows, and this certainly impacts local employment. However, we do know that another factor in the employment dilemma is the lack of affordable housing. If workers cannot find housing in the area, they won't consider employment in Farmington. The Chamber would like to encourage the Council to consider housing and employment needs when reviewing the plans for the Sherman Townhomes. While we are not in any way promoting a private development, or asking you to blindly approve the town home development, we are asking that you work with the developer to expedite the approval of rental housing. We know that as members of the City Council you are aware of housing needs in Farmington. We will be happy to work with you in any way we can to promote new housing opportunities in our area, We will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Cc: John Erar David Olson FOR A BETTER COMMUNITY SUPPORT YOUR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE _JAN~2~-99 rUE 8:17 ~ SHERMAN ASSOC FAX NO. 8888888 P. 02 MEMORANDUM TO: DAVID OLSON COMMUNIlY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM; JAMES MILES DATE: JANUARY 22) 1999 SUBJECf: FARMINGTON TOWNHOMES The Fanningron Townhome project will consist of four buildings each with four 3.Bedroom units. Each unir will be lAOS gross s.f. with an atrached one stall garage. Base Rent $790.00 {including utilities) Max Income $37,950.00 Bas3d on 60% of area median income. Adj:lsted for a family size of 4.5 people. ThiH is an average. Minimum Income $31,600.00 Based on rent being 30% of income Family Size Based on 1.S per bedroom which equals 4.5 people. This is a HUD aVI~rage. Example: Family of 3 kids, 2 adults equals household size of 5. They C~tn have an income of $39,420 or less down to $31.600 and qualify for this project. Family of two kidfi, two adults equals household size of 4. They can have an income of $36.480 or less down to $31,600 and qualitY. $37,950 is the average between these two examples. Also this income is adjusted gross income from the bottom line of A 1040 Tax return. $37,950 could be about 90% of your gross income of $42,166. This is hardly low incomE. HUD involvement is [0 provide a credit enhancemenr in the fonn of FHA insurance on the mortgage1 under the 2;! 1 (d)4 program. In exchange for this insurance they require the above renr and income limits. The mortgage itself is private, as is the ownership of this project. This FHA insurance allows an interest rate below market date, by abouT 1/4 poinr. ,JAN:-26-99 rUE 8: 18 v: SHERMAN ASSOC FAX NO. 8888888 p, 03 The market for this project should have roughly the ~ demographics as the single family homes in the neighborhood. The difference being a transitional group, without the down payment, or maybe [he credit to qualify, or just not ready to own yet. Their incomes should be roughly the same: House Price 80% mortgage == Payment @ 1.25%, 30 yrs Taxes & Insurance TOTAL $110,000 88,000 $ 597.00 237,00 $ 834.00 Qualifying income: $33,360.00 The Cost of Obtaining Affordable Housing $1,000 $800 1ftImmt...... . I II J:IIII::l Average Monthly Rent for a 2-bedroom Aparlment $708 - Average Monthly Rent for a 3-bedroom Aparlment $893 Monthly Cost 10 Own a 1,000-1,500 Square Foot Home $9251 $900 $700 $600 $400 0[0) . 0[0) .~. '~'. .. ;'!. I A Family Making Between $15,000 - $18,000 per year can afford $375 - $450 a Month For Housing (Jabs ID thI. nap IDdude: buk teller, hcae IteaIth .we. ralalll'lUlt eook, tile derk, lIIld h_d_n) 0[0) .... .i A Family Making Between $18,000 - $23,000 per year can afford $450 - $575 a Month for Housing (Job.. tJda .....dude: IdaooI bus .....en, rectpdoabts, .edkaI........... aDd tra~eI......) $500 $300 A Family Making $15,000 or less per year can afford $312- $375 a Month For Housing (Job.. thI. .....dude: host, hostea, COUIlter derks, fttaI) IIlIeI, lIIld daDd care "orken) Housing is considered affordable if it does not exceed 30 percent of the households monthly income. Families who earn wages between $0 - $23,000 would have a difficult time renting or purchasing a home at current rates. For a family to be able to afford an average monthly rent payment on a two bedroom apartment they must make at least $28,320 per year; for a three bedroom apartment the household would need to make at least $35,752. 1. Cost to own a home is based on Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance (P.I.T.I), Monthly utilities and maintenance would add additional housing expenses, City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us lOb TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F.. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Senior Center Advisory Committee - Communications DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City has 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. DISCUSSION The City's 1999 Fee Schedule, as adopted by Council, provides for two separate categories of membership - resident and non-resident. Annual Senior Center membership for a City resident is $3.00 per individual and $5.00 for Joint Spousal; and $6.00 and $10.00, respectively, for non- residents. Facility rental rates are similar in fee structure, with rental rates for non-residents at a higher level. Attached, please find the pertinent section of the Fee Schedule for Council review, It should be noted that the City also charges different user rates for residents and non-residents in the area of Municipal Pool seasonal passes. Daily admission fees for the Pool, as well as for the Ice Arena, is the same for all users as it is difficult to determine and verify addresses of children and young adults using the facility. In addition, as teams generally utilize the Ice Arena, it would be difficult to develop a rate structure that takes resident status into account for individual team members. 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, to a much lesser extent, special agency grants. In 1999, Senior Center operational expenditures were budgeted at $76,567, with approximately 95 percent of funding appropriated through the tax levy. The City receives no financial support from outlying service areas to fund basic operating costs such as capital improvements, staff salaries, equipment costs, etc. Consequently, non-resident membership and room rental rates prior to 1999 were subsidized by City taxpayers. Mayor and Council Members Senior Center Advisory Committee - Communications Page 2 of2 Moreover, the Park and Recreation Department does not currently differentiate between residents and non-residents in City offered special programming as these programs are generally self- funding. In terms of the City's Ice Arena, the facility was initially constructed entirely at the expense of City residents. Operationally, the 'facility is managed as an enterprise fund, with some subsidization through the General Fund over the last several years. In recognition of this financial reality, it was deemed appropriate to propose rates that reflected residency status. Council agreed with this approach in approving the 1999 Fee Schedule, in light of the fact, that townships, while contacted by the City in the past for recreational funding support, had not financially contributed to any City services that are utilized by the growing non- resident service population in the surrounding townships. In response to the Senior Center Advisory Committee's request to charge the same rates for local area residents, the City's corporate boundaries determine residency status. While the City certainly appreciates the time spent by all members of the Senior Center in fund raising activities, there is effectively no difference between an individual living in a township or in another city as in both cases, neither contributes financial support through property tax levies to this facility. It would be difficult for staff to advocate discriminatory treatment on the basis of whether an individual lives in an unincorporated or an incorporated area outside City limits, as in either case, financially speaking, neither contributes to funding basic facility operations. BUDGET IMP ACT The underwriting of facility operations through local property taxes does suggest that City residents should be given preferred treatment in the use of public facilities over non-residents. The elimination of a non-resident rate structure for the Senior Center would translate into both a loss of user revenue, and would continue City subsidization of non-resident Senior Center membership rates and non-resident rental of these City facilities. ACTION REOUESTED Council determination of whether the 2000 Fee Schedule should continue to institute a non- residential fee structure for the Senior Center in the areas of membership and facility rental. Cc: Senior Center Advisory Committee DATE: RE: Farmington City Council Senior Center Advisory Council Gil Anderson Grace Andersen Chris Common Martha Graham July 1999 Farmington Area Community Senior Center Rental/Membership Amy Jensen Fran Jones Marilyn Weinhold TO: FROM: The Farmington Senior Center Advisory Council has reviewed the new rental fee schedule approved by City Council for 1999. We realize that the rental fee schedule for residents and non-residents is consistent with other city fee comparisons. However, we would like the City Council to review this for next year. We understand that ice time at the civic ice arena is charged equally to all users. We strongly feel that the Farmington Area Community Senior Center is an ~ community center that is used by all area residents whether they are actual Farmington residents or not. Many of these people were initially involved when the community worked together to locate a building for the seniors in Farmington. They helped solicit funds and volunteered help to see the Senior Center become a reality. The Senior Center is used by many community organizations that have members from Farmington as well as surrounding townships. These groups include Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, churches, AA, and others. Rental fees from private citizens and these groups help finance programs at the Senior Center. We do recognize that the Senior Center is owned and operated by the City of Farmington through the Parks and Recreation Department. The City budgets for salaries and on-going improvements at the Center, But, we do want to see the Center continue to be used by everyone in the Farmington area. We respectfully request that the City Council review the rate schedule used to charge individuals and groups to join and use the Senior Center. A fee schedule that doubles fees for non-residents seems unfair to us. Could the fee schedule be reduced for local ~ residents and those who are paid members of the Senior Center, and doubled for those who are from other communities? Please keep us advised regarding this matter, and allow us to address the Council with our input before any further decisions are made. Thank you. Cc: ~hn Erar Jim BelllParks and Recreation Missie Kohlbeck Joy Lillejord/Renee Brekken Private Pool Lessons _ 1 Person - 5 sessions @ 30 minutes each 2 Persons - 10 sessions @ 30 minutes each Ice Arena Rates Dry Floor Rental Open Skating (Prime Time Session) (Tues. & Thurs. Lunch) Open Patch - ~90 minute session -Skating Lessons Skate Show Ice Time Prime Time 6:00 A.M. 9:45 P.M. 10:00 P.M. 10:15 P.M. 10:30 P,M. 10:45 P.M. 11 :00 P.M, (Non Prime Time) Civic Arena Advertising Rates Full 4 x 8 Sheet One Year Three Years 4 x 4 Sheet One Year Three Years Ice Resurfacer One Year Three Years Puppet Wagon Performances (To'Nnships) Resident Non-Resident Senior Center Annual Membership Fees Resident Non-Resident 1/1/98 6/30/98 $115.0Q/lloH:f 85. QQ41em- 110,OQ/l'leH:f 105.0Q/l'l0lH' 100.00,Zf1eH:f 95.00,Zf1oW' 90.00.Zf1olH' 85.00/lloW' 43.75 97.50 7/1/99 - 6/30/00 $300/dav + $75 set-up/day $2. 00/pBrsea$3. OO/person 1.00/person J.:OO6.00/person ~O.OO/session ~75.00/session 7/1/98 - 6/30/99 $120.00/hr 90.00/hr 115.00/hr 110,OO/hr 105.00/hr 100,OO/hr 95.00/hr 90.00/hr 10/1/99 - 9/30/00 7/1/99 - 6/30/00 $125.00 $ 95.00 $120.00 $115.00 $110.00 $105.00 $100.00 $ 95.00 $400.00/vear $350.00/year $250,OO/year $225,OO/vear $500.00/vear $450,OO/year $100,OO$50.00/performance $100.00/performance $3.00/person - Individual $5.00/couple - Joint Spousal $6.00/person - Individual $10.00/couple - Joint Spousal Senior Center Rental Rates Resident Non-Resident Main Room $35 Base Fee + $15 per hour $70.00 Large Activity Room $25 Base Fee + $15 per hour $50.00 Small Activity Room $15 Base Fee + $15 per hour $30.00 Kitchen $20 Base Fee + $15 per hour $40.00 All rooms - $100 refundable deposit ifrooms/equipment are clean/damage free. 10 "'\ .... .. .. other private developments will be ~harged for review and inspection based on staff time using current Iy rates as described above. A summary of staff review time for a protect will be forwarded ul'on 'tten request of the developer. -- ~ilr~......................................................................................................................... Fire/Rescue Response (Non Contracted Services) $150/hour + Current Personnel rate per manhour Sprinkler Svstem - New or Altered 1 % of Contract Cost Inspections~ Fire Alarm System - New or Alteration $#1 % of Contract Cost (minimum of $50) ,,^~dd $5 fer saea $5Q9 iaerease oyer $1 QOO -Flammable Tank System 500 gallons or less 501-1000 gallons 1001 plus gallons Tank Removal $15 $25 $25 + $10 for each additional 500 gallons $65 per tank Hood and Duct Cleaning Commercial Cooking Vent Systems Reinspection $40 $40 Fire Permit Processing "'\b Permit -MPCA Permit - 30 days (limited to 2 per vear) Campfire Recreational Fire Permit - Annual False Alarms (after 3, per ordinance) Residential Non Residential $-f4 W.$20 $10 J' Fire Report Fee Fire/Rescue Standby (Org. Request) $75 $150 $15 $7, QO:'ho1:H':'personCurrent hourlv rate/person Par ks an d Recrea ti 0 D. ........ .................... ....... ........................... ...... ......... ........... Municipal Pool Rates Season Pass - Family (Resident) Season Pass - Family (Non Resident) Season Pass - Single (Resident) Season Pass - Single (Non Resident) Daily Admission (Main Pool) Daily Admission (Under 42" in height) Swim Lessons (12 lessons/session) Afternoon Swim Lessons (10 lessons/session) IP AP Lessons $ 75.00 115.00125.00 50.00 ~95.00 2.00 1.00 25.00 20.00 18.00 " 9 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us /OCJ TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request to Initiate Condemnation - Autumn Glen Development DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City has received the attached letter from Larry Frank of Arcon Development requesting the City to initiate condemnation of the necessary utility easement in order for Arcon to access the trunk sanitary sewer located on the Progress Land Company property to the north. DISCUSSION Arcon Development has been in discussions with Progress Land Company for several months in an effort to privately secure an easement to make the necessary connection to the City trunk sanitary sewer located on Progress LandCompany's parcel to the north of .the proposed Autumn Glen development. Up to this point, Progress Land Company has been unwilling to grant the requested easement. Arcon is now requesting that the City utilize its power of Eminent Domain to condemn the necessary easement. They have indicated a willingness to cover all costs associated with obtaining the required easement including legal fees, appraisals, and the actual cost of the easement. Arcon is also willing to continue to attempt to negotiate with Progress Land while the condemnation process is being pursued. The City Attorney has reviewed this request and has indicated that there is a legitimate "public purpose" if the City chooses to initiate condemnation of the requested easement. There is always the possibility that the public purpose could be challenged by Progress Land. It would be staff s recommendation to avoid the installation of even a temporary lift station to provide sewer service to the Malinski property if at all possible. Providing the " connection to the trunk sanitary sewer on the Progress Land property would accomplish this. It should also be pointed out that the Malinski property is currently in the MUSA boundary and thus development of this property at this time is appropriate. BUDGET IMPACT As indicated, Arcon Development has indicated a willingness to assume all costs associated with acquiring the necessary easement. ACTION REQUESTED If Council wishes to grant the request from Arcon Development to initiate condemnation of the requested easement on land owned by Progress Land, it should instruct staff to prepare an agreement with Arcon committing them to paying all costs associated with acquiring the easement including conveying the easement back to the City at no cost. Respectfully submitted, .."....') .' ~~,./.// /:7' . '" /. , /./ ..->;/' ..,-,... ....~".,"".. p>' . , ~. David L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Larry D. Frank, Arcon Development 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, Rrar, 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, ;q-:; ~ ~ '"-.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 C 0.22% EX. MH INV. = 897.14 13 16 14 ).4% -I 9 10 ....,.-- 6 ,---, ADD MH TO EX $AN LINE IN ,= 96.7 ~ ~ I ; IJ-re",por..~ Coosh.ct;oo E..sc./"I"-nT I I I I . N ., Pe.r-MCtJ1ef\+ So..^~+4I'l.t Se.wet E~~e.Met\t" in oJ ,., N PONDING AREA 30' WETLAND SETBACK - - - - -- - 1 -- I I I I / // / ,,~.,~. /' .~1r' . // '" / ,... '" \",// /~~ '" \. /~ ('of/ ./ ',~/ / ,/ _...--/ "..-\) /' // /~"'" ~~>/ /~,/ " '\ // / "\ ~ // /~/^\ ""~5s~,// / "" .,,^,~ ~' \. ~/~ Y.." .\ ~) ....,.'. ~ .--"., ~"" ;. I '-..', <q' ...., Pf~AIRIE CF~EEK ; .----... I l ..:...... .//' " , "-"'/ \./" -'\ I I I I I I I I / ._-~--- 'd ..0:.".- '-':: 1- '{,?,--- t~ r-ra-'--u i;.E: l....L--- i I f--- I ,...-. }----.. ~) / " 1/ ~___~__l:::...~___~~_~..i....~ flROIE ~'==.......... NGINEERING (OMPRNY, INC. L-- 1000 EAST 14ettl STRttf. IlJlJAHS'VU.L, iTF_._ '" 1IIV.....'" 11 f, 11 PONDING AREA ~ " -:- -~ I i I , I . "'--, -., "' , \ \. :-'-=.:::\, , ' ','\ WET LAND' \ \ .< t....... I / / / OUTLOT A 35.59 ACRES -.,... tN'I. -.. " t'l 8 .. n: II Cli 7 10 :'IC " .tot;7 u ~ ," ,,,; !I n: III 1llPootlU ~J.J ~.lO?iI ~ " __J II .. OUTLOT B 11 ~SERYA'nOH All[A .... f.Cll($ .. " " " " ,. ~-:~ ..6 .. PONDING AREA I. I. .:U'7 .. I. .. _u " ,. ,. .. 11 l' " II _lU lHV.1017 ,- ._____.,CO,_RD-'-J::JQ... 64.":"~,____..(J 951!::L.S.JREET WEST) ~ ... - ~. se::' '/Ill"n ,'..,1lIt PRfP-.REO FOR: PRELIMINARY AtJTtJMI ARCON DE\'El.OPMENT 7225 METRO BLW. EDINA, MN 55439 M~ -,~ FARMINGTON. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farptington.mn.us /Od TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administratorr~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appointment to School District Growth Planning Task Force DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Farmington School District is requesting a representative of the City Council to serve on their Growth Planning Task Force. DISCUSSION The Task Force will provide short and long range recommendations to the School Board concerning strategies to accommodate projected growth in the District. Meetings will be held on Wednesdays from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. beginning September 15, 1999 and continuing through December 8, 1999. A total of nine meetings will be held. The School District's proposal for the Task Force and a list of those invited to participate in the project is attached. The other City staff and Commission representatives are also being solicited. ACTION REOUESTED Appoint a member of the City Council to serve on the Farmington School District's Growth Planning Task Force. Respectfully submitted, .~~ David L. Olson Community Development Director FarDlington Independent School District 192 BOARD OF EDUCATION JOHN SWITZER Chair JEROME WACKER Vice-chair ROBERT BROWNAWELL Clerk ROBERT HEMAN Treasurer KIMBERLY HARMS Trustee CAROL MALBURG Trustee ADMINISTRATION ROBERTENDERSBE Superintendent of Schools ICA KITTOCK-SARGENT chool Principal _,~VEN DlBB AssL High School Principal DAVID 11l0MPSON Director of Secondary Education PETER BOELTER Associate Middle School Principal STEVEN GElS Associate Middle School Principal BEN JANUSCHKA Elementary Principal MARGARET MCKERNAN Elementary Principal JONAl1lAN REID Elementary Principal CARLA NOHR SCHULZ Special Servic'eS Director KAREN BERGMAN Cuniculum Spocialisl PERRY 11llNESEN Community Education Director STELLA JOHNSON Business Manager ROSALYN PAUTZKE Educational Technology Director CHARLES MUNZ Activities Director MIKE SCHWANKE ings & Grounds Director Excellence, Integrity, Innovation OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 510 WALNUT STREET FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55024-1389 July 30, 1999 PHONE: (651) 463-5011 FAX: (651) 463-5010 e-mail: wwwJarmington.k12.mn.us Mr, David Olson, Director of Economic Development City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Farmington School District Growth Planning Task Force Dear Mr. Olson: The Farmington School District is assembling a Growth Planning Task Force with the charge of making short and long range recommendations to the School Board on strategies to accommodate the projected growth in the school district, Our community and school district enrollment continues to grow, The School Board believes that a broad-based Task Force should be assembled to address the issues relating to the growth, develop strategies, and make recommendations that will assist the school district in dealing with the challenges and opportunities associated with the projected growth. The participation on the Task Force by one member of your organization's planning department would be welcome and appreciated. The School Board is requesting that the Task Force be broad-based by including as many different community groups and interests as possible. Please see the enclosed organizational document approved by the School Board, In addition to serving on the Task Force, the Task Force's agenda for September 15th includes 15 minute presentations of the Comprehensive Plans of the Cities of Lakeville and Farmington and Empire Township. We would appreciate your approval to have one of your staff members attend that meeting to do a short presentation of your plan and its impact on the FarmingtOn School Districi. The Task Force will be meeting on Wednesday nights from 6:30pm until 8:30pm beginning September 15th and continuing until December 8th. A total of nine sessions are planned at this time, The Task Force will receive presentations from school district and other resource groups that will assist them in their process. Barbara Lukermann of the Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota will be facilitating the Task Force. Informational materials, along with a schedule of meeting dates and topics will be mailed to your representative prior to the first meeting, Again, we would appreciate your participation and/or recommendation of a participant. Please contact the Superintendent's office (651-463-5011) with your response, Since.(r1el}/ .7 . J. /. /$qr ~~~t"~ Bob Endersbe, Superintendent Cc: City Administrator John Erar Enclosure Farmington School District Growth Planning Task Force Charg:e to Task Force .,... e charge to the Task Force is to make both short and long range recommendations to the school board on strategies to :ommodate the projected growth in the Farmington School District, Specifically, the Task Force report should include the following: ~ Identify short (1-10 years) and long range (10-15 years) facility needs in the district, ~ Develop Timelines that will address the facility needs of the district, ~ Recommend facility designs that will incorporate the Task Force assumptions and goals. ~ Identify strategies and recommendations to generate community support of the Task Force recommendations, Task Force Assumptions The Task Force should incorporate the following assumptions into its recommendations: ~ Facilities and Timelines must provide adequate classroom space for all students, ~ Facilities and Timelines must be designed to support the district's current and future policies, programs and curriculum, ~ The district's long range fiscal stability must be maintained, ~ Recommendations should be developed that accommodate or modifies the district's Five Year Plan, ~ Facilities must be designed to provide maximum flexibility for short and long range uses for the school district and community. ~ Recommendations should minimize adverse impacts on the school district and its taxpayers. ~ Members on the Task Force have no conflicts of interest or profit interests in recommendations approved by the Task Force. Membership . Townships - Empire, Castle Rock and Eureka City of Fannington - City Council member, Planning staff, Park and Rec staff, Planning Commission member City of Lakeville - Planning staff or Commission member . Chamber of Commerce . Community members - at large community members not having children in schools . School district - . Teachers - minimum of one per building, Labor Management Committee, ECFE teacher . Support staff-clerical, custodial . Parents - Parent Advisory Network, IPR committee, Parent Councils . Students - two from grades 10 or 11 . Administration - Farmington Elementary Principal, Secondary Education Director, Community Education Director, Activities Director, Special Education Director . Superintendent . School Board (ex-officio members representing the Program and Planning Committees) . Community Education Advisory Council . Bus Company . District Planner . Senior Center . Facilitator . Other interested or available community members representing groups not reflected above Resources . School District - Business Manager, Building and Grounds Director, Curriculum Director, Technology Director, Building Administration, Planning Committee, Program Committee County staff - Planning staff, Social Services Bus Company . ArchitectslFacility Designers . ISD #917 (Cooperative of Schools for Vocational and Special Education services) . Other resources as needed City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington, MN55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmineton.mn.us I / a.., TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Henderson Area Storm Sewer Project - Feasibility Report Update DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION Attached is the updated feasibility report for the construction of. storm sewer in the Henderson Area. The Henderson Area Storm Sewer Project is included in the City's 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Plan. DISCUSSION This report was originally presented to Council in 1997 to discuss the feasibility of providing storm sewer service to the Henderson Area of Farmingtonbetween 7th and 10th Street, including the location of an existing low point located on Hickory Street midway between ih Street and Highway 3. The updated report provides detailed cost estimates, plan views of the proposed improvement area and a tentative project schedule. 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. This will result in the lengthened life of streets" improved drainage at intersections, less ice buildup and safer driving conditions, less infiltration into the sanitary sewer, less flooding of basements and the minimization of flooding on Hickory Street between 7th Street and T.H, 3. The costs for the project along with the project cost breakdown and estimated assessments have been updated. One modification to the scope of the project is included with the updated report. In the original report, it was proposed that storm sewer. be extended to the intersection of ih 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. Removal of this part of the project lowers the overall cost of the project and in the future, this section of storm sewer can be installed when Hickory Street and/or ih street is reconstructed (see Figure 2 in the report). Attached for the Council's convenience is a copy of the CIP Project Development and Process Authorization Schedule, which outlines the steps in the process of a CIP project. BUDGET IMPACT The total estimated project cost for the Henderson Storm Sewer project is $404,000. The cost of the improvements proposed for this project would be split between MnDOT, the benefiting City properties and the City. MnDOT's allocation will be based on their cost sharing policies. The benefiting City properties would be assessed their share of 100% of the costs for lateral storm sewer as outlined in the City's Special Assessment Policy. Per City policy, the remaining trunk storm sewer costs would be funded through the Storm Sewer Fund. Project Cost Breakdown Item Total Costs Assessed City MnDot Trunk Storm Sewer $313,200 $250,200 $63,000 Lateral Storm Sewer $86,300 $68,900 $17,400 Miscellaneous Costs $4,500 $4,500 Totals $404,000 $68,900 $254,700 $80,400 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. The proposed assessment amounts are within the appraised benefit amount to the properties for the improvements as indicated by the appraisal that was completed for the project in 1997, Pursuant to State Statute, the City would not be able to bond solely for this project without an election since the proposed amount to be assessed for this project does not equal 20% of the project costs. However, the project could be part of a bond issue that includes other projects if at least 20% of the total bond amount is assessed. The Finance Director has indicated that the City's Storm Water fund can fund this project without the need to sell bonds. ACTION REQUESTED I. Council consideration whether to approve or reject the Henderson Area Storm Sewer project as presented, 2. If the project is approved, adopt the attached resolution accepting the feasibility report and directing staff to schedule a neighborhood meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~7J1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Proposed RESOLUTION NO. R -99 ACCEPT FEASIBILITY REPORT PROJECT 96-2 HENDERSON AREA STORM SEWER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 16th day of August, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to approval of the 1999 Capital Improvement Plan by the Council, a report has been prepared by the City's Consulting Engineer with reference to the following improvement; Project No. 96-2 Description Storm Sewer Improvements Location Henderson area, between th and lOth Streets and between Maple Street and Ash Street/Highway 50. ;and WHEREAS, this report was received by the Council on August 16th, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project IS necessary, cost-effective, and feasible. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: I. The feasibility report is hereby accepted, 2. A neighborhood meeting for the project is to be scheduled. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of August, 1999. Attested to the 16th day of August, 1999. Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator/Clerk Feasibility Report for Henderson Area Storm Sewer Farmington, Minnesota Updated August, 1999 File No. 141-98-079 Table Of Contents Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Project Description 2. Cost Estimates 4. Project Financing 4. Conclusions and Recommendations 5. Appendix Cost Estimates Project Cost Tracking Sheet Figure 1 - Project Location Figure 2 - Henderson Area Storm Sewer Plan View I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~)r;~ Lee M. Mann, P ,E, ~11t /11 ( Da~e Registration No.: 24541 Introduction The City Council has requested this report to determine the feasibility of providing storm sewer service to the Henderson Area of Farmington including the location of an existing low point located on Hickory Street midway between 7th Street and Highway 3. This report has been ordered to investigate the existing drainage conditions and determine what improvements need to be made. The report also addresses the costs associated with the proposed improvements, Project Description General In May of 1993, the City of Farmington's Facilities Plan indicated that the Henderson area had no storm sewer, large areas of overland flow and a high ground water elevation. The Facilities Plan proposed installing storm sewer and a sump pump discharge line to reduce the overland flow, lower the ground water elevation and provide a discharge line for sump pumps. The Prairie Water Way, which was constructed after the Facilities Plan was published, appears to have lowered the ground water table in the Henderson Area, As a result, the discharge of sump pumps has been reduced a great deal and does not appear to be a significant problem any longer, Based on this information, the sump pump discharge line that was originally recommended in the Facilities Plan has been removed from the project. To guard against possible future groundwater fluctuations, a drain tile will be constructed along with the storm sewer suggested in the facilities plan. This drain tile will connect into storm sewer structures, The storm sewer will then convey the groundwater to the Prairie Water Way, 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, This will result in a lengthened life of streets, improved drainage at intersections, less ice buildup and safer driving conditions, less infiltration into the sanitary sewer, less flooding of basements and the minimization of flooding on Hickory Street between 7th Street and T,H. 3, 2 Storm Sewer Improvements The proposed storm sewer (see Figure 2) will connect into the existing 36" storm sewer in place at 10th and Hickory Streets. The storm sewer will run along Beech Street to 9th Street. Catch basins will be constructed at the intersection of 9th and Beech. The storm sewer will then run between the townhomes and into the pond at the northwest comer of the Townsedge Mall. From the pond, the storm sewer pipe will be jacked beneath T,H. 3 to the west service road. From here it will be open cut to Hickory Street, and then to the low point on Hickory. At the low point, the existing dry well catch basins will be removed and new catch basins will be installed and connected to the storm sewer. The low area on Hickory just west of the service road is the endpoint of this project. In the future when 7th Street is reconstructed, the storm sewer will be extended to the intersection of Hickory and 7th Street and to the north. The drain tile will be laid in the same trench as the storm sewer along the entire route and will be connected to the storm sewer at the manhole locations. Street Improvements Street construction will be limited to repamng areas that are disturbed during construction. Repairs will consist of a two-foot granular subgrade, eight inches of Class 5 aggregate base and four inches of bituminous surfacing, The existing curb and gutter will be replaced where catch basins are to be installed, 3 Cost Estimates The project costs for these improvements are outlined in this section. Estimated construction costs are itemized in Appendix A. A smary of the estimated costs for the proposed improvements is presented below, The costs presented include 10% for contingencies and 27% for legal, engineering, and administration. Right-of-way acquisition costs are not included in the estimated project costs below. Estimated Project Costs Item Estimated Cost Trunk Storm Sewer $313,200 Lateral Storm Sewer $86,300 Miscellaneous Costs $4.500 Total Estimated Project Cost $404,000 Project Financing The cost of the improvements proposed for this project would be split between MnDOT, the benefiting City properties and the City, MnDOT's allocation will be based on their cost sharing policies. The benefiting City properties would be assessed their share of 100% of the costs for lateral storm sewer as outlined in the City's Special Assessment Policy. The remaining trunk storm sewer costs would be funded by the City through the Storm Sewer Fund, per City policy, Following is a project cost breakdown: Project Cost Breakdown Item Total Costs Assessed City MnDot Trunk Storm Sewer $313,200 $250,200 $63,000 Lateral Storm Sewer $86,300 $68,900 $17,400 Miscellaneous Costs $4,500 $4,500 Totals $404,000 $68,900 $254,700 $80,400 4 Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed improvements described in this report are feasible and cost effective as they relate to general engineering principals and construction procedures. The feasibility of the project as a whole is subject to financial review. The improvements are necessary to address drainage issues as described in this report. Based on the information contained in this report, it is recommended that: 1. This Report be adopted as the guide for the improvements for the Henderson Storm Sewer Project. Council to decide whether to approve or reject the Henderson Storm Sewer Project as presented. It is recommended that Council approval of the project be contingent on MnDOT participation in the project. 2, The City conduct a legal and fiscal review of the proposed project prior to the public hearing. 3. A Public hearing be held as required by Minnesota Statue 429. The property owners adjacent to the roadway should be notified for hearing purposes, 4. The following schedule be implemented for the project: The following is a tentative schedule for planning purposes: Accept Feasibility Report August 16, 1999 Hold Neighborhood meeting September, 1999 Hold Public Hearing/Order the Proj ect/ Authorize October/November, 1999 Preparation of Plans and Specs Approve Plans and Specs/Authorize Advertisement for February, 2000 Bids Take Bids/Award Contract March 2000 Start Construction June 2000 Complete Construction September 2000 5 Appendix 6 HENDERSON STORM SEWER ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS-TRUNK ONLY SECTION Revised 8/99 EST, UNIT TOTAL ITEM UNIT QUAN. PRICE PRICE 36" RCP, CL.2 LF 500 $ 60,00 $ 30,000 30" RCP, JACKED WITH CASING LF 180 $ 450,00 $ 81,000 30" RCP, CL. 3 LF 310 $ 45,00 $ 13,950 7,0' DIA MH, 0-8 FT DEEP, wI R1642B EA 2 $ 4,000,00 $ 8,000 7.0' DIA. MH, OVER 8' DEEP LF 4 $ 400.00 $ 1,600 6,0' DIA MH, 0-8 FT DEEP, wI R1642B EA 2 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000 6,0' DIA. MH, OVER 8' DEEP LF 2 $ 300.00 $ 600 5,0' DIA CBMH, 0-8 FT DEEP, wI R4342 EA 1 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400 36" L.R. BENDS EA 4 $ 580.00 $ 2,320 36" APRON wI TRASH GUARD EA 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 30" APRON wI TRASH GUARD EA 1 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600 RIP RAP IN PLACE CY 40 $ 60,00 $ 2,400 6" PERFORATED DRAINTILE wI SOCK LF 810 $ 11.00 $ 8,910 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION MATERIAL TN 10 $ 20.00 $ 200 POND EXCAVATION CY 1000 $ 6,00 $ 6,000 WETLAND SEEDING AC 0,2 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,000 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 1250 $ 3,00 $ 3,750 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1040 $ 2.50 $ 2,600 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONC.vALLEY GUTTER SF 60 $ 20,00 $ 1,200 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONC. SLAB SF 300 $ 20,00 $ 6,000 REMOVE AND REPLACE MAIL BOX UNIT LS 1 $ 500.00 $ 500 REMOVE AND REPLACE 1 0'x15' SLAB wI FENCE LS 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500 REMOVE AND REPLACE 8' CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 40 $ 40.00 $ 1,600 SOD SY 350.00 $ 5,00 $ 1,750 SELECT GRANULAR FILL CY 700 $ 8.00 $ 5,600 REMOVE AND REPLACE TREES EA 3 $ 500,00 $ 1,500 CL. 5 GRAVEL BASE TN 470 $ 10,00 $ 4,700 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GL 50 $ 5.00 $ 250 2" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE TN 120 $ 30.00 $ 3,600 2" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE TN 120 $ 34.00 $ 4,080 Construction Cost $ 206,610 10% Contingencies $ 20,661 subtotal $ 227,271 27% Legal, Eng., Admin. $ 61,363 Total $ 288,634 HENDERSON STORM SEWER ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS - TRUNK AND LATERAL SECTION Revised 8/99 EST. UNIT TRUNK LATERAL TOTAL ITEM UNIT QUAN. PRICE COST COST PRICE 36" RCP, CL.2 LF 370 $ 60.00 $ 10,360 $ 11,840 $ 22,200 15" RCP, CL. 5 LF 130 $ 26.00 $ - $ 3,380 $ 3,380 7.0' DIA MH, 0-8 FT DEEP, wI R1642B EA 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 2,500 $ 1,500 $ 4,000 7.0' DIA. MH, OVER 8' DEEP LF 2 $ 400.00 $ 800 $ - $ 800 5.0' DIA MH, 0-8 FT DEEP, wI R1642B EA 3 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,700 $ 4,500 $ 7,200 5.0' DIA. MH, OVER 8' DEEP LF 1 $ 150.00 $ 150 $ - $ 150 5.0' DIA CBMH, 0-8 FT DEEP, wI R3067V EA 1 $ 2,400.00 $ 900 $ 1,500 $ 2,400 5.0' DIA. CBMH, OVER 8' DEEP LF 1 $ 150.00 $ 150 $ - $ 150 STD 2' x 3' CB wI R3067V EA 4 $ 1,100.00 $ - $ 4,400 $ 4,400 CONNECT TO EX STORM SEWER EA 1 $ 800.00 $ - $ 800 $ 800 6" PERFORATED DRAINTILE wI SOCK LF 500 $ 11.00 $ - $ 5,500 $ 5,500 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION MATERIAL TN 10 $ 20.00 $ - $ 200 $ 200 REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASINS EA 2 $ 500.00 $ - $ 1,000 $ 1,000 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 750 $ 3.00 $ - $ 2,250 $ 2,250 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 900 $ 2.50 $ - $ 2,250 $ 2,250 REMOVE AND REPLACE B618 CONC. C&G LF 160 $ 20.00 $ - $ 3,200 $ 3,200 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONC.VALLEY GUTTER SF 120 $ 10.00 $ - $ 1,200 $ 1,200 SOD SY 50 $ 5.00 $ - $ 250 $ 250 SELECT GRANULAR FILL CY 700 $ 8.00 $ - $ 5,600 $ 5,600 CL. 5 GRAVEL BASE TN 450 $ 10.00 $ - $ 4,500 $ 4,500 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GL 50 $ 5.00 $ - $ 250 $ 250 2" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE TN 120 $ 30.00 $ - $ 3,600 $ 3,600 2" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE TN 120 $ 34.00 $ - $ 4,080 $ 4,080 Construction Cost $ 17,560 $ 61,800 $ 79,360 10% Contingencies $ 1,756 $ 6,180 $ 7,936 subtotal $ 19,316 $ 67,980 $ 87,296 27% Legal, Eng., Admin. $ 5,215 $ 18,355 $ 23,570 Total Project Cost $ 24,531 $ 86,335 $ 110,866 Preliminary Project Cost Tracking 8/11/99 Project - Henderson Area Storm Sewer Description of Project - Storm Sewer Installation Project No.- 96-2 Items Oate Name of Company Cost 1. Construction Costs $ 285,970 Total Construction Costs $ 285,970 2. Contingencies (10 %) $ 28,597 (Contingences and Total Construction Costs) Subtotal = $ 314,567 3. Engineering, legal, Administration (27%) $ 84,933 (Total of Items 1-3) Subtotal = $ 399,500 4. Soil Borings American Engineering Testing $ Subtotal = $ 5. Survey Work Estimate $ 1,500 Subtotal = $ 1,500 6. Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Estimate Subtotal = $ 7, Permits (list) $ 1,000 Subtotal = $ 1,000 8. Change Orders $ Subtotal = $ 9. Environmental Studies, testing and monitoring - EAW $ Subtotal = $ - 10. Testing Services Estimate $ 1,000 Subtotal = $ 1,000 11. Easement/Right of Way Acquisition Estimated Right of Way acquisition Subtotal = $ 12. Demolition/moving Subtotal = $ 13. Outside Consultants $ Subtotal = $ 14. SWCO - plats mainly - development cost NA Subtotal = $ 15. Street & Utility crew costs $ 1,000 $ $ Subtotal = $ 1,000 ITotal Estimated Project Cost = $ 404,000 I .~~~--I~ r-= .. fdJ- BIill~~~ 1m II ~ ~ MA E .' .'" I;': HIlIIJ BJEl ~ COUNTY RD. 72 ~ 1IJIIIIH 7n rnm rnrn ~ ~,~ ~. [H/~~!~!!i~s~~B ~ DIITIIJ IT 'J m B!i WillJ B:lIDUlIl3 JIlt ~ IfuIlIiI " ~ ~ ~~~ ~EWl]U~1tI~ ~~~ ~ == ~ n ~ ~~ E I~ ~I ~ ~ ,.:"', hi ii dj == ~ E E · ~ t:: ~ = h == t::t= - I L-L- I P I- =' ITIJ]] II f- ~ri JT.l1 ti 'J 1= I~ ~ iJ: ST. I I I II rnt W vi 1111 J r- JI~ H T ~ J B :::l ~ '" .JJJ:: _ _ .JB,J; H.J T. ~ . j~..& k.}-rj Ir:;..;;t:: ='- HICKORY ST. '- - ~ ~~ __,..; - ~~ ~j t:I:H...",,!!.....;T=_ JR ~ d" -- ~ j ~~VC } ti == ==~ ~~ -- _ Z --~- I,; ~ 1--'" m ~" I =_ _:....- ~ '-.i---:i-= __ 0- J] / lSHIST.1 CR. 7 I U Ipj JIJ_~ ~ II ~ I u -.ca:, ~ CD ~I I Srtt!] /f ~ ~'l t3~~~ ~~E&1~ / ~~~ ~ ~i~ ~~ ,111111 ~t == ::3~::T r -I _ /~ --\.' ~ ~ I /,~ fiO'f/flR 1IJlf1lAfiq VAT 1 .;a. ~LJ I - Lf} '-....) L In HIoY. 50 CASTLE ROCI( TOV L PROJECT LOaATION illl r-[f.- I i-111 I T1 T1225TH STREET \/. o 1000 2000 -, Sc~ in feet FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA HENDERSON STORM SEWER DATE 4/15/97 97-79 REVISED 8/6/99 FIGURE . 1 . fl. Bones t roo ...... Rosene 8 Anderlik & ,\1, Associates PROJECT LOCATION COMM, 14179 CD I ., (f) --.J fTl )> -I I --.J Z ;0 0 CD 0 s: :;0 - fTl Z ~ ;0 C) (f) -l 0 0 (f) Z Z fTl . ~ (f) s:: fTl -l 0 - :;0 Z ;0 Z ;0 s:: fTl ~o (f) Vi ~ (f) 0 8 rrI fTl ~ OJ~ :E .......-"fTl Z~;O CD CD CD--.J (") o 5: 5: .j>. --.J CD ., C) c ;0 0 fTl (j) () 0 (I) N ::l ...,., (I) (I) 0 ~c~ N o o )>)>:000 en;:,oo en Q. en ;:, o(])(])(]) 0-,;:, en Pi' :::: (]) ;- -"'" 0 ~ "" 0 ~ET I I .. T -- -~---- ::::::;:~L:- ~1 11 : I: I I : I I I i I~-- --I ;0 I H L-i ~ 11-- I "'" ,__~ --l@ -: F= _n__nn ----- -1 I I I I I I ====:=.J \J ::::0 o \J o (f) fTl o (f) -I o ::::0 ~ :r: o ^ o ;0 -< (f) -I ;0 rrl rrl -I , ... ---""T----l--...D..---- I I I ~: J) c- ....-------- -----.......... /> -----" RCP -~- ---- <- -- ------ ------ --- - --:> ,. I. _--- .J r I ;;;-:=- --:~-::= <...t::; :: - - i @ !0 ______._______:::s_ @ I I I I ~I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , >1 ~I -:--------- I ~ = ~ ~ ~:' (J): 1....1 ~~ ! r--l I I r--' . (,J~ r en . I ~I 0 II I II I IL__J II I I RC~ 'I ----------- I~ I I I I I I I I @ I I _...J__I__ :r: o ^ o ;0 -< (f) -I ;0 rrl rrl -I 10 H ,., C -I (f)C fTl::::O :EfTl -I o ::::0 s: L- S.T.H. NO. 3 I 9TH @ STRE T TREET ~ Q~ z~ <~ ~= zu ~oo ~z ~o o~ ~~ ~< >N ~;: QO ~= U~ ~~ ~< ~~ ~~ ~U ~O U~ ~ Q) :s "'0 l-< f:.f) fii .s >.:-;::: 10.- g .D (,) &t+:< . 13S~dS :::: 0 ~ ~.~ 8ui:'+=lS::: ...... Q).::.- 0 S -:S.~ So "'0 (,) ti S.'fii fii .~'fii i: t\S ...... en en ~ en Q) en t\S ~._ bJl 8.s~~] o_~ a.D ~ g =: ,H s::: en......I:::l......:E '::1 t\S "Q)...... "+:l en ~ S.~ en t\S ~.~ ::> <"'O~~t .~...Q)Q) t Q) ~ g 'S Q)'- ~ l-< l-< .= > ~ 0.. 0.. 8Q)=:Q)"'O 0...D .... -:S ~ ~"'O ~ ~ Q) ...."5 lU ...... "'0 Q)O't;"5l-< S...s:: en 0 ~en~~:-;::: o ] r~ t\S g ~ t\S """l en g SQ)l:l:l<U .~ bJl S ~"O .- fii en =: Q) -...s:: .... > .D (,)o't 0 ;::l 0'- ~ l-< O"......U~o.. bJl .....iii;;o.. s::: t) ~:-::: t\S .- Q).D ~ Q) .~ :E' "'0 =: ...... l-<;::lQ)==~ ....... ..8en~~o.. :-;::::: ~enenUS :> .......- en 0 ;;> t\S.~ Q) ~ (,) , l$ en~ g ~ "'Ofii ...... l-< l-< I:::l Q) .s 0.. ~ S:::(,)~~Q) .- t\S .... c., bJl ~t+:<SI:::lt\S ]] Q).sfiiS bJlS:::> ~Q)8l>. t\S 8 0.. 1::: 'i:: ......i3S'O::Q) ~ 8 .-:.::: 0.. :-;:::.- (,)'0 8 oE;:':::l:::lo.. S Q)..g"o o bJlo..~""" u.5 Q) ~ 0 t\S(,)....c:!~:.::: s::: +J ==._ .~ g bJl ~ ~ ~ ~.5 ;: en 8 .5 ] .~ ~ 8 ~ ti .~ S o.....s:: l-<.;:" en gp C .g ~ .~ .~ "'O;::l U ::>c....~bJl ..9 c:. == -,:: d - Q) 0 ~.~ ,p ~.- ~ (,) ...... ...... - ~ Q) Q)cti.g~l:B ~wo..~t\S . . 00 (I) S o u g bJ) $:1 ...... ~ o ....... ....... c.S (I) -B (I) N ./:: o -B ~ 00 (I) u g 00 00 bJ) .~ $:1..... "'0' ~] >.-+-, .t:: u :-;::::: (I) .D'(y ...... ;..., gj 0.. ~~ t) ~ (I) (I) .(y...... ;..., > o..~ ~....... o ro $:1 'u .9- a ~ $:1 a~ 0.."'0 (I) (I) ;..., ....... 0.. .a 'S~ ro"'O ~~ ;::$ 0 00 $:1 $:1 0 o ...... u~ ;..., a o 0.. ::0 (I) a a !+-I~ ~ t\S -+-' -+-' 00 00 ~~ ro.D 00 ....... u (I) .~ 8 ~ ~ - u ] ~ o ta > 8 0.. 0.. < ....... ...... u !3 o u ,......; ~ (I) >. bJ) $:1 ...... "'0 (I) u ~ 0.. ,...c:: g (I) ~ o ;..., (I) "S (I) > o ~ ;..., (I) .D o -+-' U o . . ! ~ ~ - E---4 >. "'0 .8 00 .0 ...... ....... :.0 ...... 00 t\S (I) ~ ~ o $:1 o ...... ~ 'S (I) 00 ~ ~ C'l 00 1:: (I) $:1 o 0.. S o U >. "'0 .8 00 >. .t:: ....... ...... .D ...... 00 t\S (I) ~ ~ 00 ~ o u ~~ ~ ~ s " ...... "'0 ~ a ~....... $:1 cU o ..... .~ ~ ,-... u 00 (I) 2 ~ u -+-'oaS' 00 u $:1 ..... S t)...... s u .~ ~ 1:: "'0 0 $:1 ro c:: a./:: 0.. Clj (I) (I) bJ) "'0 (I) 0 .... (I) $:1 ..... --=: ...... (I) ./::...:::::: 01) g (I) (I) c:: Clj (I) ;..., ~ .... $:1 ....... "-" ..... .~ ---e .,..... bJ) < $:1 ~ $:1"-"ro,,-,, ~ 00 E: 00 -+-' $:1 t) 00....... 0 ~, 0 ro ...... '" U . ..... -+-' '(y U t\S ;""t)a~ ~(I)$:1o.. ~ .(y~ S :>;...,-+-'- ;;> ~ u....... (I)....... (I) ro ...... t\S.~ U >-+-'000 (I) 0 ;...,...... ~E---4~~ ~~~~ ,......; C'l M '2' ;..., c.S (I) ~ o bJ) $:1 ...... ~ 00 ]~ ...... .s~ ;::$....... -+-' ....... OOc.S .0(1) ;':::-.d ...... +:l .D (I) '@ ~ t\S ...... (I) .t:: ~ $:1 bJ) ...... $:1:9 '.p ;::$ 0..0 8 ~ u~ < $:1 '" 0 "'$:1 :~ o > ....... ....... "So .......bJ) ~ $:1 (I) ...... ~ ~ < g ...... " bJ) €c:: .86 00... '+-> >'u . t:: (I) ~.S .D ;..., '@ ~ t\S (I) (I),...c:: ~-+-' 00 t::: 0..0 (I) bJ) u c:: u ...... ro a :-;::::: (I) g::c: ;::$ .~ 0....... u.g ~~ . on ~ ...... I-< "'C:l ro on S ~~ ~ U ~ U ...... cu cu...... a r/1 8::0 cu ;9 ~ ;:j ::r: . ..... Cij ~ U ~ 0.. cu ~ ~Q~ ~ 0.. ~ ,P ro 0........ ~ ~'j ~ c.9 cu.p "" ..8 ~ .~ 4-l r/1 cu .S ......~ ~ ~d- ro 0.-60 "'C:l r/1-<~ o ~ '-' +-' ..... .9. ~ ~ ~ gf ~ "" u...... ~ ;9 :":::a~ r/1 ..g cu cu ~ 0....0 ~ - 0 ~-< sa ~ c.9 >,. ~ E--t cu ~ . ~ ..D~ ~ "'C:l r/1...... <I.' cu ~ 8 "'C:l ..0 ro...... 'Vi .~ "'C:l Q) cu - cu I-< ~ ..gcu~ "'C:l 0.. 1= ro cu r/1 +-' 0.. t ~...... ~..9 ~ S.~;9 ~ '? ~ . Vi +-' r/1 cu cu o '> Z r/1 "'C:l 8 +-';:\ ~-S~ "'C:l~tl1)o~Cij ~ tl1).~ ~ 0 0.. 'a ~ g ~...... )< d.t:: ~, 0 ~ ~ ~ cu ""...... N r/1 cu ::r: ~ . t:: 8 cu ~ U U 0 ~ U .:::'"...... ...... ..... ro ...... .......- -........ ~ '0 ~..g..g 'S ...... z6~ o..-<~ ~ ..... ~ M ~ C'l ~ cu ~ ~ cu ~ U 4-l o ~ :;E I - ...... I-< < I ..0 U a :;E I ~ 2 .D cu ~ ."'C:l "'C:l r/1 ~ ~ gf I-<~ "'C:l ~'.;j cu cu cu~~t '> 8 ~ ~ cu o~ I-< cu ~ ro o~t:cu +-'..ocu..o cu~ E--t 0.. +-' ~ 8.S . t:: ~ 0.. r/1 o..~~~ 8 ~ '+J cu 0..008 ~ ~ ~ ~ +-' r/1 0 ~ I-< cu I-< cu cu ..... '" ..0 0.. Q) 8' ~ 8 a...... r/1~ 0.. ~ U bD "'C Cd ~ ~ cu .D '.;j t gf ;:j cu ~...... 0.. cu ~ I-< +-' 8ro.DU t..o-S.s cu.t::: ~ ~ ',= ~.:::::: 0 O+-,rou I-< cu U 0.. cu ~ 0 "'C:l d...... +-' o ~ U r/1 o "'C:l cu +-' .s~fE-S' o r/1 "'C:l cu ~ ~ ~ ~ tl1) . 9 tl1) r/1 -a; ti -c;i ~ ~ cu cu .c "'C:l ;:j "'C:l ...... _ 0'" -+-> U o I-< ro cu ::~8;9 :-=:=ooc.9"'C :> ~ ~ ;;> ro 1-<...... ~ ~ cu ..0 ro r/1 ~ cu +-,CUr/1.D r/1...... ~ ~ "'C:l ro ~ +-' B...... r/1 ...... r:/'J. v 0 u~~e- I .t::: ~ ;:j tl1):-;:::::: 0 0.. ~ .D'.;j cu '.;j ...... r/1..o cu r/1 cu +-' cu ro ;:j 4-l :;E ~ 0'" 0 +-,.ro ~ "'C:lUI-<O o cu cu...... o '0''''C:l ~ .s I-< ~ cu o ~ CU..o :@~ gf~ tl1)CUCUo.. ...... r/1 - 8 ~ cu~:-;::::::ocu Zo..~ua ~ ~ ~ - E--t M ro 4-l o tl1) ~ ...... "'C:l - o ..0 cu ;9 o +-' I-< o ...... I-< 0.. -S .D ~ - ...... U ~ ;:j o U o +-' .s B r:/'J. ~ +-' ...... - ...... .D ...... r/1 ro cu ~ cu ;9 4-l o ~ o ...... ~ ~ cu r/1 ~ 0.. cu ;9 tl1)d ~ U ...... ~ ~ ;:j o 0 ::::::u o ~ ~.D ~.g a cu ~::r: ~~ - ;:j E--t~ cu U ~ ~ ...... ~ '-' r/1 ~ o ...... ~ U ...... ~ - tl1) ~ ...... U ~ ~ ...... ~ "'tj ~ r/1 cu r/1 o e- ;:j 0.. tl1) ~ ...... ~ o - - c.9 I-< c.9 tl1) ~ ...... a cu ::r: U ...... - ..g ~ ro r/1 "'C:l - o ..0 ~ cu 8 cu :> o r/1 I-< cu 0.. - 8 ~ .;:; ...... ~ - ~ cu .D S 8 5- . Vi r/1 cu . ..... r/1 ..0 . ::: ~ 't:: :-' Q r/1 ...... tl1) -< g. ~aJ ~ca -'"8 .t:: ...... ~ 0 cu U cu ::: cu cu "'C:l ~ 0.. ......-S ...... r:/'J. r/1 gf C ~ aJ ~ro ......;9 '-'~ vcu +-' ...... E ~ U 8 U;;> cu ...... cu . 0' Q) tt3 r/1 I-< I-< ~ cu ~~ ........~ ~ 4-l a .~ o 0 cu c: ~~?..oCU oo~o~ '.;j'.;j cu +-' "'C:l roro8-- ~ ~ t: 'u 'u cu cu ro ~ ~ r/1 r/1 0.. ;:j ;:j ~ ~ cu 0 0 ~~QUU ~~ ro.D ~~ u"'C:l - ...... U ~ ;:j o U -.::t "- 1::3 :.... o ~ I:U tr:l o - "'C:l ~ ~ ,- r/1 ~ ~ '~ _ I:U ~...s::: 4-l ,~ o - ~ ~ o l::l., ...... I:U "E-.:: ro :.... o..~ ~ ~ ~h gf~ 'N ~ ...... ~ I-< ::::.: ]0 -S~ -<~ "'C:l...... ~ ~ +-'N U .~~ 8 Q ~C3 ;9 s tl1) t: ~- .t:: '~ ~ ~ p8 ~ "'C:l ~ cu 0 q:::: . ..... ro "E ..e~ r/1 ...... ...... ~ ...... ~ 8 0"'C:l .'@ -< - '-' o ~ r/1 ~ r/1 ~ S -...... ...... ~ U U s~ o ...... U ~ -<~ . :;.: c ..... '- ;:$ - c C'J ~ ~ - 't) :;.: ;:$ (3 I '- :;.: ~ ~ ~ "'- 'S ~ ~ ~ C> .8 .2 ~ ~ '-=- ~ ~ ~ 'i:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... - ...t:l s,~ ~ c ~ ;::. '-- ,,&'t) C'J :;.: ~ ;:$ ~(3 c ~~ 'O"'t' :;.: :;.: ..... c -;5"\::$ ..... ~ ;s ;::. O()~ .5 ~ ~ ~ ~~ - '- 't) ~ ~ ~ c C",I '- ~ ~ ~'6' ~ ~ ;:$ ....... g-~ C'J ..... ...t:l "'- ;:$~ C'J "'- ~ c ......... Cd ~ l+=l (1) .;3 (1) ~ .~ (1) ~ '"0 ;>. ......... ......... Cd .- U ~ ~ o o +-' ~ (1) ~ +-' (1) ..0 '"0 ......... ::s o ...s:: rJ:l (1) +-' o ;> ......... .- u S o U Cd -o~ (1) . '='l 8 0.. (1) .;3 +-' U (1) 'Q)' I-< B.+-> rJ:l U (1) (1) '"O.~ .- I-< ~ 0.. '"0 (1) :-;::.;3 U~ ~ 0 ::s rJ:l 8~ ~ +-' i--04 rJ:l . a (1) ;>. 1:: (1) b ::s U ~ o (1) S ...... I ~ ::E I ......... .- I-< <" ~ ~ ~ i--04 E-- ,,-..., ~ o .- rJ:l .- ;> .- Q OJ) ~ .- I-< (1) (1) ~ .- OJ) ~ '-" ......... Cd ;> o I-< 0.. ~ I-< tS ......... .- U S o u o +-' '"0 (1) 1:: (1) rJ:l ~ 0.. (1) a rJ:l ~ o .- ~ U l+=l .- U (1) 0.. CZl '"0 fa rJ:l fa ......... ~ lI") --d (1) rJ:l rJ:l (1) U o I-< 0.. rJ:l .- ,,-..., ~ o .- ~ .b rJ:l 'S .- ~ < '-" '"0 .- co o +-' ~ o .- ~ +-' .- ;> ~ .- '"0"-"" ~ gp Cd .- '"0 t (1) (1) o..~ o .- .........OJ) (1) ~ ~6 rJ:l'"O ~ (1) d 01-<0 '.;3 Cd'- Cd rJ:l ~ ~:9~ 'u co .g 8. ~ 0.. CZl . _ I-< '"Oco~ ~ +-' Cd Cd ~ rJ:l rJ:l ''='l ~ fa 8 (1) .........~(1) ~I-<~ -otSM (1) ~ . '='l 1:: Cd 8~.;3 ~ ~ rJ:l on (1) rJ:l ~.~ ~ .- t: ;> (1) 0 8 ;> ~ 0.. '"0 . ~ ..9' < (1) ""(1)~ '"0.;3'"0 fa on on on.S .S ~ N ~ ._.- (1) +-' I-< 0.. 0..00 ~.;3 U ::s:9 <<co OJ) ~ .- ~ o ......... ......... tS (1) .;3 OJ) ~ .- N '1:: o ~ '"0 (1) <t:: ~ rJ:l .- ~ o .- +-' ::s ......... o rJ:l ~ ......... .- U !3 o u < ,,-..., ,,-..., CdoD . a (1) ;>. ...s:: U Cd (1) ~ o (1) S ...... I ;>. Cd ::E ~ ~ ~ i--04 E-- rJ:l (1) s o U "5 o on ~ .- ~ o ......... ......... tS (1) .;3 (1) N .- I-< o .;3 ~ '"0 ......... ::s o ~ rJ:l +-' U Cd ~ o U ~ o gp ~ a ~ < '"0 fa rJ:l '"0 .- co +-' U (1) .~ I-< ~ ~ o (1) U g +-' 0.. (1) U U < ......... .- U ~ ::s o U ~ ,,-..., ~ o .- ~ .b rJ:l 'S 's '"0 < '-" ......... Cd .- U (1) 0.. CZl (1) .;3 on ~ 'il (1) CZl ~ ~ ,,-..., ~ ~ o .8 .- +-' "5 Cd ..........b o rJ:l rJ:l .- (1) ~ ~ .- ......... s .- '"0 u< ~'-" ::s o U < ~ ~rJ:l +-' U Cd ~ o U OJ) ~ .- '"0 a ~ < '"0 g rJ:l '"0 .- co 1) (1) . '='l 8 ~ OJ) ~ .- +-' 0.. (1) U U ~ '"0 (1) <t:: Cd I-< '"0 rJ:l .- bh ~ .- +-' (1) +-'~ (1) U S (1) (1) '2: s ~ ~ (1) rJ:l ...s:: .- +-'...s:: ~ +-' o ~ 5'"0 ._ (1) t:+-' o 0.. 0..-8 Cd Cd OJ).~ ~ ~ .- ~ U=lt: ~ g l+=l'~ (1) I-< a~ I-< rJ:ltS 1:: (1) on S .8 ~ a (1) (1) ~~ <1:: ca (1) .- s U rJ:l (1) rJ:l 0..(1) CZl ~ ;:::< ~ o .- "5 ......... o rJ:l ~ ......... .- U !3 o u < . . ,,-..., OJ) ~ .- I-< (1) (1) ~ .- on ~ ~ '-" ~ o ~ '"0 g ~ o .- +-' U 5 rJ:l ~ o U ~ (1) ;>. 1:: (1) ~ U ~ o ;>. ......... ::s ...... I (1) .g I ~ ::E I ......... .- I-< <" +-' U (1) .~ I-< ~ ~ o ~ o .- ~ .- +-' .- ~ i--04 ~ ~ ~ i--04 E-- . 1:: (I) S rJ:l rJ:l (I) rJ:l rJ:l < ......... Cd .- U (I) 0.. CZl Cd rJ:l ""c:I ......... ~ ......... .- u ~ ::s o U rJ:l~ +-' rJ:l o U rJ:l +-' U (I) .~ 8 0.. (I) .;3 ~ o ~ o .- t: o 0.. Cd (I) u ~ ro ~ l+=lon ~ '"0 .- ......... ~ ::s 0 0......... ~;:s 1:: (I) (1).;3 ~ ~ rJ:l (I) ~ .~ rJ:l (I) < I-< ......... 0 Cd +-' 'u gp (I) ._ 0.. a CZl (I) ;:::~ ~ ,,-..., 1:: (I) I-< ......... S 0 .~ ~ gp (I) 0.. .- 0.. (I) a CZl Q (I) g (I)...s:: ~ u 0 ~ fa ~ .~ ~.8 - .- I-< rJ:l e 0.. ~ .........'"0 (I) on ......... (I) ~ '8 ~ ta o Cd +-,rJ:l :> (I) 5ca .e ~ sl:: ~ ca rJ:l ~ Cd ._ rJ:l (I) .;3 ~ ~o rJ:l 0.. rJ:l '"0 ~ CZl < (I) ......... +-' C; B ~~ ~ I-< ._::S '"0 .8 ~ CT' (I) I-< ~ ,3 l+=l ,,-..., 0.. "'" ~ '.;3 gp rJ:l ;> '"0 o .- ~ 8 fa ~ t ~ 0.. ;>. (I) ~ ..9' ~ =:: ~ ........ "" Cd'- 0 ......... (I) ._ on ~ ._ 0.. ~~+-' go.. ~$:l~ ::s< oo~ 01:: (I) ._ +-' U (I) ..c~rJ:l '"Os '"O.brJ:l ~rJ:l "3rJ:l~ CdrJ:l o'S 0,,-...,......... ~ ~'s ~ gp"8 rJ:l rJ:l ..... '"0 '1:: ..... < I-<.....(I)(I).....~ (I)<...s::(I)~O t:: '-".~ ~ 0 ..... ~ . ~ .,....,j i-4 o gp.g gp g..8 €'m ~~ ~ ~ 8. ~ '~.8 rJ:l:9 o u+-,(I)rJ:l I-< 1::'- Cd a ~ ~(I)O~o..o 13 S Z'S ~ ~ +-' rJ:l u'- 0.. u u~:.=S~~ ~rJ:l..c'"O~::S <<~$~8 ,,-..., Cd ,,-..., ..c ,,-..., ,,-..., u'"O rJ:l 1:: (I) S (I) I-< .- S. (I) I-< Q O' "5 ~ +-' rJ:l 0'1 N ..q- I-< (I) . +-' gp~ .- ...s:: au (I) ...s::CZl .s~ onrJ:l ~ ~ .- (I) 1-<'0:::" .g~ rJ:l .- '"0 g ,...::. ~ o .- E rJ:l .- ~ ~ < ~ ......... ......... ~ 1:: (I) S rJ:l rJ:l (I) rJ:l rJ:l < ......... Cd .- U (I) 0.. CZl ,,-..., (I) ......... Cd ~ ~ on ~ .- +-' 0.. o '"0 ~ '"0 (I) <t:: Cd I-< '"0 .~ bh ~ .8 o +-' .- (I) +-' (I) ~ S rJ:l rJ:l ~~ :-;::~ u ~'"O ::s (I) o +-' Ug. <~ . ~ (I) ;>. 1:: (I) ~ u ~ o I-< (I) ..0 o +-' U o I I-< (I) S (I) +-' 0.. (I) CZl I +-' rJ:l ::s on ~ ~ ~ ~ i--04 E-- ~ o .- +-' (I) ......... S- o U +-' U (I) .~ I-< ~ +-' U (I) .~ I-< ~ ~ o -0 ~ (I) (I) .~.~ I-< (I) ~~ ~'"O ~ g g ~ Cd 0 +-' .- o..~ ~ 1:: u (I) < ~ ......... I-< 'u ~ ~......... ::s Cd o .S U~ ,,-..., ,,-..., Cd..c 00 1:! (I) ~ 0.. (I) Q (I) u fa ~ .- ~ ;>. ..0 +-' (I) on '"0 ::s co +-' U (I) .~ 8 ~ rJ:l ::s rJ:l I-< (I) ;> rJ:l +-' rJ:l o U .+-> u (I) .~ I-< 0.. ~ o ~ o .- ~ ......... 0.. S o u ~ o 8" ~ ~ ~ i--04 E-- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us )Ib TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administratop" FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Set CSAH 31 Assessment Hearing Date DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City Council authorized the award of contracts by Dakota County for the improvement of CSAH 31 on March 16th, 1998. At this time, the improvements for the CSAH 31 project are substantially complete and the project costs are being finalized by Dakota County, DISCUSSION The assessment hearing for the project needs to be scheduled per Minnesota Statute 429. 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. BUDGET IMP ACT The financial analysis for the project will be forwarded to Council at a meeting prior to the hearing, subsequent to the County's submittal of the final project costs to the City. Council's action to adopt the final project assessment roll will occur at the assessment hearing on October 18, 1999. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution setting the CSAH 31 project assessment hearing for October 18, 1999. Respectfully submitted, ~h1~ Lee M, Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R - 99 CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING CITY PROJECT #95-12 CSAH 31 REALIGNMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS 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 of the 16th day of August, 1999 at 7:00 p,m, The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution, WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the following improvement: Project 95-12 Description CSAH 31 Realignment and Improvements Location The reconstruction and widening of CSAH 31 from the northerly border of Farmington to 190th Street, and the construction of a new realigned segment of CSAH 31 from 190th Street to CSAH 50, including all new appurtenances, utilities, utility construction, relocation and signal installation in the City as described in and in accordance with the plans and specifications as prepared by Dakota County. ; and, WHEREAS, the improvements for the project are substantially complete; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 26-98 of the Council adopted on the 16th day of March, 1998, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the costs of said improvements; and, WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assessment will be completed and filed in the clerk's office for public inspection prior to the assessment hearing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1, A hearing shall be held at the Farmington High School on the 18th day of October, 1999 at 7:00 p,m, to act upon such proposed assessment at such time and place and all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2, The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and the clerk shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Notice shall be provided in accordance with the requirements provided under M,S, section 429.061 subdivision 1. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 16th day of August, 1999. Attested to the 16th day of August, 1999, Mayor City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us I/~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance - Water Use Restrictions DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the June 21, 1999 City Council meeting, the Water Board forwarded a proposed Water Use Restriction ordinance to the Council for review and discussion (see 6/21 memo attached), Attached is the revised proposed Water Use Restriction ordinance forwarded to the City Council for adoption. DISCUSSION 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. Other water uses such as washing vehicles or filling swimming pools are not restricted, There is also a clause addressing emergency situations, Upon adoption of the ordinance, the water use restrictions become effective January 1,2000. A water use restriction ordinance will benefit the City in two ways. Water use restrictions have the effect of reducing the peak water demand during the summer season when water usage is at its highest. Reducing the peak demand reduces the future capital costs of the water system. It can also result in water conservation, which is a requirement of the City's Water Appropriation Permit that is granted by the DNR, It is anticipated that water conservation will become more of a factor in the future as the DNR reviews and grants further water appropriations to the City, It is likely that water use restrictions could become mandatory in the future. Once the ordinance is adopted, the City newsletter will highlight the new water use restrictions so that the necessary information on the procedures and enforcement is readily available to the public. Enforcement of the policy would be through penalties included as a surcharge on the water bill, BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Ordinance concerning Water Use Restrictions. Respectfully submitted, ~f11~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 3 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE CONCERNING WATER USE RESTRICTIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 8-3-21 of the Farmington City Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 8-3-21: WATER USE RESTRICTIONS: (A) Odd-Even Restriction. Use of the city water supply system for lawn or garden sprinkling or other irrigation shall be limited to an odd-even schedule corresponding to property address effective year round, This odd-even water use restriction shall not apply to the watering of new seed or sod for a period of three weeks from the date of seeding or sodding. (B) Emergency Restrictions. Whenever the Water Board or City Council determines it in the public interest, the Water Board or City Council may, by resolution, further limit the use, times and hours during which water may be used from the City water supply system, following public notice by publication or posting. SECTION 2. Effective Date, This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2000, following its passage and publication, ADOPTED this City of Farmington, day of , 1999, by the City Council of the CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor 72394 ATTEST: Approved as to form the day of ,1999, City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the day of , 1999. 72394 2 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us JOI, TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administratorf'!- FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Water Board Communication - Proposed Water Use Restrictions DATE: June 21,1999 INTRODUCTION The Water Board is considering adopting water use restrictions. DISCUSSION The purpose for adopting water use restrictions is two-fold. First, water use restrictions have the effect of reducing the peak water demand during the summer season when water usage is at its highest. By reducing the peak, the need for additional water supply wells and water reservoirs is reduced, which in turn reduces the capital costs for building those facilities. Second, water use restrictions can result in water conservation. Water conservation is a requirement of the City's Water Appropriation Permit that is granted by the DNR. As the City grows and needs to pump more water, the DNR has the authority to regulate the additional amount of water pumped from the aquifer. As part of the approval process, the City must have a water conservation plan in place. As the City grows and needs to appropriate more water, a watering ban would be looked on favorably by the DNR and help the City to obtain approval for increased water appropriations. Future studies of the Jordan aquifer (the aquifer from which Farmington's future wells will appropriate water) may indicate the need for mandatory water use restrictions in the Cities that draw water from this aquifer. There are two possible means with which to enact water use restrictions. The first would entail the Water Board adopting water use restrictions as a policy. Enforcement of the policy would be through penalties included as a surcharge on the water bill. The Water Board has the statutory authority to enact this type of policy. As the Water Board does not have the statutory authority to pass ordinances, no criminal penalties would be possible under this approach. Alternatively or in addition, the City Council could adopt water use restrictions as an ordinance, which could be ultimately enforced by criminal citation. Attached is a preliminary draft ordinance for discussion purposes. The. draft ordinance outlines odd- even water use restrictions, corresponding to property address, effective year round. There is also a clause addressing emergency situations. Nearby neighboring communities that currently have water use restrictions include Eagan, Rosemount and Hastings. It would be the Water Board's intent tha~ if water use restrictions are to be implemented, they become effective January 1,2000. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REOUESTED 1. Council discussion regarding the issue of water use restrictions; 2. Provide recommendations regarding water use restrictions to the Water Board. Respectfully submitted, ~h1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file J' ~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 . www.c:i.farminlton.mn.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: John. F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: August 16, 1999 . It is requested that the August 16, 1999 agenda be amended as follows: UNFINISHED BUSINESS lld Authorize Submittal of Comments - Empire Township Comprehensive Plan Staff comments regarding Empire Township's Comprehensive Plan is attached for Council approval. Re.s.~42~' ,/Jd yary- John F. Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us lid TO: Mayor and Counci~~~b~s City Administratorr~ David L. Olson Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: Authorize Submittal of Comments - Empire Township Comprehensive Plan DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City Council previously received a copy of the proposed Comprehensive Plan update for Empire Township, Mayor Ristow and councilmember Strachan also met with representatives of Empire Township on Wednesday, August 11, 1999 to discuss a range of concerns associated with continued township urbanization and population growth, DISCUSSION There were five major issues that were discussed with Empire Township on August 11, 1999, The following is a list of City issues and a corresponding summary of the Township's response to these stated concerns. Al!reement Rel!ardinl! Discontinuance of Previous Annexation Efforts City representatives expressed concerns to Empire Township representatives that it had been the ~nderstanding 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. Empire Township representatives indicated that conditions have changed as a result of the Orderly Annexation Agreement that was recently entered into for the Seed/Genstar property, It was the stated position of the Township that it appears as though development will be taking place near the area they have identified as future Rural Residential. The Township's position is that if this area just east of TH 3 is going to develop, they feel it should be developed as part of Empire Township. Township representatives indicated several times that there is a strong desire by Township officials and residents to maintain Empire Township's separate identity. Based on staff's review of records and transcripts, it would appear that Empire Township has changed its previous position regarding the level of residential development projected to occur within their Township, In retrospect, it would appear that if the current proposed level of urbanization in Empire had been proposed in 1995 during the annexation proceedings, the Council's decision in 1996 to formally abandon City annexation actions may have been different. In review of annexation transcripts, township officials strongly indicated that it was their stated desire to preserve the rural-agricultural character of the township. Unquestionably, this position has been dramatically altered given the growth plans currently being proposed by Empire Township, MUSA - Wastewater Flows to Empire Treatment Plant It was pointed out to Empire Township officials that the proposed level of residential development contained in their 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, Consequently, 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 of Lakeville and Farmington, While these projected preferred flows do not represent an "allocation" to the Township (or the cities that send wastewater to the Empire Plant), the inclusion of this increased and previously non- forecasted development, will impact the plans for expanded or new facilities that will need to be in place by the year 2006, Implication of Increased Township Development on Municipal Services and Infrastructure Considerable discussion took place at the August 11th meeting regarding the impact that township growth would have on City services and infrastructure as a result of an additional 1000 households and 2500 persons being located at the City's border, While Empire Township currently contracts for many of the services it provides to its residents, a proposed population of 4,285 will certainly require dramatic changes in how public services will be provided by the township. It is the City's position that this growth will continue to place increased demand on municipal services from new township residents, Services that would experience increased demand include: . City contracted fire protection services requiring increased transportation access, . City parks, shelter rentals and playground use . increased public safety calls generated through mutual aid, . the need for expanded recreational programs . and competing use of a variety of City facilities by non-municipal residents In addition, the level of vehicular traffic generated by this additional development will place additional demands and 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, The proposed expansion of the Rural Residential area will increase the demand for these transportation corridors without unfortunately providing a mechanism to help fund these needed road and overpass improvements, Township officials did indicate a willingness to look at ways in which they could work with the City in an attempt to address these concerns, However, there was no con~ensus reached as to how this issue could or would be addressed, These issues represent the single largest concern the City has regarding the amount of development occurring near the City's borders in the opinion of staff, It is not only a planning issue, but a "fiscal fairness" issue in that non-municipal residents of this new growth area will enjoy the benefit of a number of City services without being required to contribute to their prOVISiOn, Township Development Standards and Infrastructure Compatibility Empire Township has developed its own water and sewer utility systems including the recently completed water tower, While it is certainly preferable to have residential development take place on centralized water and sewer system, 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 require installation of equipment to establish a new pressure zone or the abandonment of existing water service infrastructure, While Township representatives indicated at the August 11 th meeting that their development standards are likely to be comparable to those of the City, the City shlJuld seek assurances through verification of Township engineering standards, While standards may be comparable, there are still issues that remain regarding compatibility, In addition, there is a proximity issue, Any future connection to the City's water system would either require a water line to be installed under the river or as an extension abutting TH 3 from the north along property that possibly could not be assessed, Urbanization of Empire Township - Future Township Objectives As was indicated previously, Empire Township representatives placed considerable emphasis on retaining Empire Township's identity, Discussion of this issue at the August 11th 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, It was also pointed out that there are a number of other urbanized townships in the State with much larger populations than what is proposed in Empire Township, 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, It should be emphasized, however, that urbanized townships represent the exception rather than the rule. Minnesota Statute 414.01 Subdivision 1 states the following: The legislature finds that: (1) sound urban development and preservation of agricultural land and open spaces through land use planning is essential to the continued growth of this state; (2) municipal government most efficiently provides governmental services in areas intensively developed for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental purposes; and township government most efficiently provides governmental services in areas used or developed for agricultural, open space, and rural residential purposes; (3) the public interest requires that municipalities be formed when there exists or will likely exist the necessary resources to provide for their economical and efficient operation; (4) annexation to existing municipalities of unincorporated areas unable to supply municipal services should be facilitated; and, (5) the consolidation of municipalities should be encouraged The Metropolitan Council has previously taken the position that the creation of new cities in the contiguous seven county metropolitan area should be discouraged through jurisdictional consolidations or mergers, In the case of Forest Lake and Forest Lake Township, the Council took the position that the incorporation of Forest Lake Township was not consistent with regional policy and advised the Municipal Board that annexation of all or a portion of the Township would be consistent with Metropolitan Council policy, The Council took a similar position in the case of Spring Lake Township and their desire to incorporate as a city. Both State Statute and previous pos!tions 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 ~hat creation of new cities is not consistent with Regional Policy. BUDGET IMPACT Unknown at this point. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff comments to be submitted to Metropolitan Council regarding the Empire Township Comprehensive Plan, Respectfully SUb? ~_ aVl , Olson Community Development Director cc: Empire Township, Board of-Supervisors Robert Erickson, Lakeville City Administrator Tom Burt, Rosemount City Administrator Lynn Moratzke, Dakota County Planning Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us /06 TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrat~ David L. Olson, Community Development Director FROM: Lee Smick, AI CP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Executive Summary - Empire Township Comprehensive Plan DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Empire Township Comprehensive Plan was received by the City of Farmington on June 30, 1999, The Comprehensive Plan was also delivered to the Metropolitan Council on that same date along with deliveries to the City of Coates, City of Lakeville, City of Rosemount, Castle Rock Township, Vermillion Township, Dakota County, Independent School District 196 and 192, A complete copy of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update has been provided to Council under separate cover. DISCUSSION The Community Planning process for Empire's Comprehensive Plan consisted of public meetings with the Planning Commission and Town Board. A formal public hearing for the plan was held by the Empire Township Planning Commission on June 15, 1999 and was approved that evening, with the final approval of the plan by the Town Board on June 22, 1999. Population, Household and Employment Forecasts During the period between 2000 and 2020, Empire Township is forecasted to increase in population by 2,588 persons, increase in households by 1,026 and provide for an additional 110 jobs. While the Metropolitan Council's employment forecasts coincide with Empire Township's forecasts, population and household forecasts differ greatly between the two jurisdictions. The Metropolitan Council forecasts a population increase of 100 people and a household increase of 100 between the period of2000 and 2020. While Empire Township's population and number of households is proposed to increase greatly in the next twenty years, the average household size is proposed to decrease. The Township forecasts an average household size of 2,90 in 2000 and in 2020 the average household size is forecasted at 2.66, Land Use Designations Empire Township has a variety of land use designations including Long-Term Agriculture, University of Minnesota Property, Rural Residential, Future Development Areas, Commercial, Convenience Commercial (floating district), Future Commercial, Public/Institutional, Seed Trust/OAA, Conservancy and Mineral Extraction Overlay, While all of the land use designations are important, the following is a summary of the agricultural, residential, commercial and public/institutional land use designations, Long-Term Agriculture Empire Township states that its priority is to preserve agricultural land uses within the township, The township is mostly designated as long-term agriculture, A maximum of one residential unit per 40 acres will be allowed in this district, however, the township will review "special limited exceptions to this density standard" with densities less than one unit per acre in areas located between river or wetland and a highway, The most important point to consider in the long-term agriculture designation is that from 2000 to 2020, 342 acres of agricultural land will be lost to rural residential or the utility service area. Rural Residential The Rural Residential area is proposed to accommodate the forecasted growth anticipated by the township to the year 2020 and will be contiguous to their existing sewered area. The rural residential is proposed to extend to the north of Empire Glen along the east side of TH 3 and spread to the east from the Empire Glen neighborhood as shown on Figure 7, The land use proposes 70% single-family detached dwellings at densities of 2.0-2,5 units per acre and 30% single-family attached dwellings at densities of 4,0-6.0 units per acre allowing for an average residential density of 3.0 units per acre, The township is also considering higher densities that would be associated with Planned Unit Developments if infrastructure capacity is available and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The township "is committed to allowing increased densities in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)." Therefore it is apparent that the township proposes to increase its rural residential land area to accommodate the increase in the number of households, while also maximizing its density to provide various housing choices within the township, Future development areas shown south of the Vermillion River and along the west side of TH 3 will allow one unit per 40 acres and will not receive public utilities until after 2020, Commercial Commercial designations consist of commercial, convenience commercial and future commercial land uses, The commercial area includes three contiguous commercial properties located to the south of the Vermillion River. Convenience commercial is proposed to provide a small convenience commercial or neighborhood retail cluster on the east side of Trunk Highway 3, The commercial area may be allowed as a stand-alone operation or be included within a mixed use development within the MUSA, The final commercial designation is future commercial and is proposed on the west side of TH 3 near the water tower. The township anticipates that this area will be developed after 2020 and will remain as agriculture allowing one unit per 40 acres, Pub lic/Insti tuti onal This land use designation allows for religious, non-profit, government or other institutional facilities, Public Facilities and Services With the proposed increase in growth, Empire Township will need to provide increased services for sanitary sewer, water, administrative services, public works, parks and public safety, Empire Township has created a utility staging plan (Figure 8) that illustrates the location of new growth areas at five-year increments to the year 2020. Table 12 shows that between 2000-2005 an additional 76 acres of land is proposed for MUSA adding to the 226 acres of sewered area in Empire Township, Between 2006-2010 an additional 101 acres of MUSA is proposed, between 2011-2015 there are 95 acres of proposed MUSA and between 2016-2020 Empire Township proposes 70 additional acre of MUSA. From the period of 2000-2020, Empire Township proposes to add 342 acres of MUSA to its current sewered area of 226 acres. The township is currently completing a 300,000 gallon water tower to accommodate growth forecasts and they are planning to add a third well and booster pump near 2020, With the new water tower and proposal for additional facilities it is once again apparent that the township would like to develop at levels associated with smaller municipalities. The township also seeks to increase staffing within the Clerk/Treasurer's office and maintain contracts with public works services as well as provide additional parks and trails within the area. Finally, they would like to continue to contract with the County Sheriffs Department and possibly propose a fire hall in the community, Transportation Transportation will mostly include local streets within the expanded subdivisions while the major access route to the metropolitan area will be provided by TH 3, which is designated as a "A" minor arterial. Dakota County has recognized that TH 3 is an under- utilized corridor at this time and additional traffic will not impede the traffic flow. Summary It is apparent that Empire Township is interested in urban style development similar to what is usually seen in incorporated cities. This is indicated primarily because of the proposed 342 additional MUSA acres that the township will request from the Metropolitan Council in the next twenty years. Staff will be discussing the proposed plan with other adjoining cities to determine what concerns these cities may have, Staff will complete its review of the proposed comprehensive plan within the next two weeks, ACTION REQUESTED The Council may wish to consider one or all of the following actions: 1. Schedule a Council Workshop to discuss the proposed Empire Township Comprehensive Plan Update to determine the consensus of the Council on various elements of the plan. 2, Request a Joint Meeting of the City Council and Town Board of Supervisors to discuss the proposed plan, 3. Request a presentation from the appropriate Metropolitan Council staff relative to their position on non-municipal urban-style growth occurring in township areas. In addition, it would be appropriate to meet with the City's new Metropolitan Council appointed representative to discuss Council concerns regarding township growth. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ cC42 / Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator David L. Olson, Community Development Director ----+ RESOLUTION NO. R130-95 JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND EMPIRE TOWNSHIP Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Empire Town Hall on Novembp.r 14, 1995 at 8:00 P.M.. Members Present: Members Absent: Kuchera, Galler, Ristow, Fitch, Gamer. None. ... - Member Ristow introduced and Member Gamer ~p.conded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington (Farmington) has appealed the decision of the Minnesota Municipal Board, dated December 5, 1994, as to land sought to be annexed from Empire Township (Empire); and WHEREAS, Farmington and Empire have met over the past 10 months to discuss issues of mutual concern; and WHEREAS, Farmington and Empire wish to terminate the pending appeal by adopting this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Farmington and the Township of Empire, in an effort to end differences on annexation and community growth interests, Empire and Farminqton agree to the following principles ~~ d . ~~ an po~nts of understanding: ....~;z I!t~ ~:;: 1. There is a need for joint planning to avoid premature extensions of public infrastructure, duplication of public infrastructure, leapfrog development and the premature conversion of productive farmland to non-farm use~. 2. There are common interests in long range planning to evaluate joint utility systems, interconnecting trail systems and mutually beneficial thoroughfare corridors. 3. There are existing jurisdictional interests and community investmerrts by Empire and Farmington in the west halves of Sections 29 and 32, lying south of County Road 66. 4. There is an immediate need for joint planning to evaluate logical, cost effective street and utility systems in Sections 29 and 32, lying south of County Road 66 and consider boundary adjustments that fit community interest and further community investment. 5. Neither Empire nor Farmington has existing or planned infrastructure north of 194th Street in Empire. 6. There is a need to jointly evaluate long range community interests, community benefit, cost effectiveness and community capability to provide public infrastructur~ to that area lying west of Trunk Highway 3. 7. Decisions to explore detailed cost feasibility studies to extend public infrastructure out~id~ of th~ "rural cent~r" boundary i~ Empire, lying west of Trunk Highway 3 will b~ muturtl and ba~~d upon substantial financial participation by initiating property owners or benefiting property owners. 10. 11. <\~ 8. In the event Ernpi~e is unwilling or incapable of extending public infrastructure to areas outside of the "rural center", west of Trunk Highway 3, which are contiguous to existing MUSA areas in both communities and consistent with mutually planned and cost effective utility districts, Empire will not interfere with or object to the simultaneous annexation and provision of sanitary sewer and municipal water services by Farmington. The joint evaluation of long term development potential west of Trunk Highway 3 will include the analysis of impacts of development on either community in terms of community identity, service delivery capability, long term agricultural preservation and natural resource protection. A joint planning board will be e~tablishp-d within one month of the termination of the annexation appeal. Representation will include one elected official, one staff representative and one resident from each community. The board will meet monthly, hosted alternately by each community. Farmington will not ~nitiate or endorse annexation petitions outside of the planning areas described as long as the joint planning board exists, unless prior review and consent is granted by Empire. In consideration of the undp.rtakings s~t forth hp-rein, Farmington shall immediately execute and file a Di~mis~al With Prp.judice of the Appeal of the Municipal Board Decision dated December 5, 1994, with the Dakota County District Court in Court File Number C5-95-6034, titlp.d "City of Farmington v. Empire Township, Castle Rock Township, and Dakota County Fair Board." 9. 12. ~...- .....1 ......J ...:-. '.~ b:;i." ...;.;- .... . ~ This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 14th day of November, 1995. . ~ "'" ~ _ L ~ It ,~~ /~ Ma~or Attested to the 16th day of November, 1995. SEAL ~tJh.~ Intp-rim City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lie TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Cable Joint Powers Agreement DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION As Council is aware, efforts to support the televising of government programming in the City have been in progress with the cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount. These efforts have specifically focused on the development of a cost-effective approach to jointly administer community television operations. DISCUSSION 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. In support of these objectives, 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 thrt::e-city cable and telecommunications system, By utilizing a joint powers agreement, the three cities would recognize significant cost savings by eliminating redundancies in facilities, consulting services, equipment, staffing and operational expenditures. Policy issues would be brought back to each governing body for review and approval, with the commission's responsibilities specifically addressing operational, management and franchise enforcement issues. The staffing component of the Joint Powers Agreement provides for the city of Apple Valley agreeing to hire a staff person, in the form of Cable Communications Coordinator, that would be funded by the three cities in direct proportion to Public-Education-Government (PEG) fees collected, and whom would report to the Commission, The Coordinator would be responsible for all three cities, and would have the overall responsibility of managing and staffing system operations; designing, acqumng and maintaining of audio/visual equipment for the three communities; and serving as a technical resource in resolving operational issues, responding to community needs and advocating improvements and enhancements to service functions. BUDGET IMP ACT The City's contribution to the Joint Powers Agreement would be in the form of PEG fees collected from cable subscribers that was authorized in the Cable Franchise Ordinance, and Cable Franchise fees to partially fund this joint and cooperative system effort. The City's annual funding contribution would be approximately 25 percent of the total budget for this effort, with Rosemount contributing 25 percent and Apple Valley contributing 50 percent. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolution approving a Joint and Cooperative Agreement establishing a Commission to serve as a Cable and Telecommunications Advisory Body, File Cc: Charles Grawe, Assistant to the City Administrator, Apple Valley Tom Burt, City Administrator, Rosemount Tom Creighton, Bemik and Lifson, P.A. RESOLUTION RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISIDNG A COMMISSION TO SERVE AS A CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY BODY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, THE COMMUNITY TELEVISION OPERATIONS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITIES AND ISSUES WHEREAS, the Cities of Apple Valley, Farmington, and Rosemount (hereinafter "Cities") have studied the possibility of jointly and cooperatively coordinating the administration of their individual cable communications franchises; WHEREAS, the Cities desire to enter into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement creating a Commission to serve as a cable and telecommunications advisory body for the administration ofthe cable communications system, the community television operations, and telecommunications activities and issues within the Cities; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington (hereinafter "City") has determined it to be in the best interest of the City to enter into such a joint and cooperative agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City council of the City of Farmington: 1. The City hereby adopts and enters into the attached Joint and Cooperative Agreement Establishing a Commission (hereinafter "Commission") to serve as a cable and telecommunications advisory body for the administration of the cable communications system, the community television operations, and telecommunications activities and issues; 2, FURTHER, the City appoints as its director to the Commission John F, Erar , City Adminstrator, 3. FURTHER, the City appoints as its alternate director to the Commission Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager. 4, FURTHER, authorizes all necessary signatures to be affixed to such Joint and Cooperative Agreement on behalf of the City. This Resolution is passed and adopted by the City this 16th day of August, 1999. CITY OF FARMINGTON By Its Mayor Attest: C:\DOCS\Cable\RES-AFR99JP A.doc 1 City of Farmington 325. Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 13~ FROM: Mayor and councilmembers City Administrato~ David L. Olson Community Development Director TO: SUBJECT: King Property at 300 1 st Street - Update DATE: August 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION 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, DISCUSSION Mr. King was contacted after the last Council meeting and has since been in to meet with staff, He has also obtained the necessary demolition permit and is scheduled to begin demolition on Saturday, August 14th, Mr. King has indicated he should be completed with the entire demolition by the end of August. While the City had previously established a deadline of June 30, 1999 for the house to be demolished, Mr, King did not obtain his required setback variance from the Planning Commission until July 13, 1999. The City could under its previously established deadline, begin the process to have the building classified as a hazardous building, . This legal process is both expensive and time consuming, Thus, while progress continues to be made by the owner to demolish the building, staff recommends allowing additional time, BUDGET IMPACT None up to this point. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfull subm' ... >- ~ ./ ~~ Id L. Olson Community Development Director