The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10.05.98 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR October 5,1998 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Proclamation Declaring Cities Week October 5-11, 1998 b) Proclamation - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes 9/21/98 (Regular) 9/16/98 (Special) b) Adopt Resolution - Appointing Election Judges for General Election c) Adopt Resolution - Private Development Project Closeouts d) Adopt Resolution - Accepting Donation - Park & Recreation Department e) Adopt Resolution - Landscape Agreement MnDOT f) Adopt Resolutions - Nelsen Hills and Riverside Development Contract Addendums g) Adopt Resolution - Approve Grant Application for the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council h) Adopt Resolution - Appoint Year 2000 Coordinator i) Policy Recommendation - Park & Recreation Department j) Capital Outlay - Park & Recreation Department k) Approve Storm Sewer Maintenance Projects I) Accept Resignation - Heritage Preservation Committee Member m) Amend Ordinance - Charitable Gambling n) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve Conditional Use Permit - Autumn Glen 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTSAND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - East Farmington PUD Amendment (continued 9/21/98) b) Union Pacific Railroad Communication c) Castle Rock Township Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Supplemental) 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Action Taken 12. NEW BUSINESS 3. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - CONSIDER PROPERTY CONDEMNATION 15. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Streetf Farmingtonf MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: John. F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: October 5, 1998 It is requested that the October 5, 1998 agenda be amended as follows: PUBLIC HEARINGS Remove 8 (a) Approve Conditional Use Permit - Autumn Glen Recent correspondence from Arcon Development requests this item be pulled from the agenda. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Add 10 (c) Castle Rock Township Comprehensive Plan Amendment A meeting was held to discuss the Castle Rock Township Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would redesignate land use within the township from rural residential to commercial/industrial development. Respectfully submitted, f!:!!- City Administrator OCT-02-98 FRI 10:24 ARCON DEVELOPMENT INC FAX NO. 8350069 ARCON P. 02 ~a.. 7625 METRO BLVD. · SUITE 350 · EDINA, MINNESOTA 55439 · PHONE 612/835-4981 · FAX 612/835-0069 October 2, 1998 Mr. Michael Schultz, Planning Division City ofFannington . 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Conditional Use Permit, Autumn Glen Dear Mike, Arcon Development, Inc, is hereby requesting you to 'pull' AIcon Development, Inc.'s application for Conditional Use Pemrit to allow grading to occur in Autumn Glen prior to Final Plat approval from the City Council agenda on Monday the 5th of October. Arcon Development, Inc. is concerned about development costs associated with Autumn Glen, and feel it prudent to pull this item until these concerns are addressed. The Conditional Use Permit can be reviewed at the same time the Preliminary Plat is reviewed again at the Plarming Commission. Thank: you for your atten~on to this matter. Sincerely, 4#~ Larry D. Frank Project Manager WE DO MORE nIAN DEVELOP lAND.... ~ CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS DEVELOPERS. PLANNERS. CONTRACTORS City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us JOe TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Castle Rock Comprehensive Plan Amendment DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION A meeting was held with Metropolitan Council staff to further discuss the Castle Rock Township Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would redesignate land use within the township from rural residential to commercial/industrial development. City staff, township representatives Alyn Angus and Gordon Wichteman, and Metropolitan Council staff met on September 30, 1998 at the request of the City to address a number of outstanding issues and concerns associated with this proposed development. DISCUSSION This recent meeting continued to focus on several key City issues that are identified in the attached City Position Paper. Metropolitan Council staff reviewed these issues at the meeting with township representatives. Notwithstanding City concerns, the outcome of this review suggests that Metropolitan Council staff will recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to the full Community Development Committee on Tuesday, October 6, 1998. While Metropolitan Council (MC) staff recognized the validity of the City staff concerns, MC staff did not perceive City issues as having a regional effect on MC facilities. Township representatives indicated that the developer had, under existing township permitting requirements, satisfied all requirements. It was pointed out at this meeting by Metropolitan Council staff that the township is proceeding at its own risk in advance of Metropolitan Council approval. As of the writing of this memorandum, it is the City's understanding that the developer under the authorization of the Castle Rock Township Board has initiated grading work at the subject site. Key points of information discussed at this meeting included: · Vermillion River Watershed Management Organization (VRWMO) officials have indicated continuing concerns with the site as it relates to surface water management and the Mayor and Council Members Castle Rock Township Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 2 of2 implication that private septic systems on the site adjacent to the ponding facilities would create additional complications and requirements. · The VRWMO also strongly recommended that the Township meet with the City to resolve the surface water management issues in the area noting that the storm water calculations "do not address the much larger tributary area flowing to this site which is the outlet for a sizable subwatershed." The City indicated that the township had neglected to comply with this VRWMO recommendation, and that this project was proceeding without having had a meeting to specifically study regional site drainage implications. · In the opinion of the Metropolitan Council technical staff person, Mr. Jim Larsen, is that the installation of new private septic systems, and existing systems, could seriously complicate the future construction of the third phase of the waterway. There is a strong likelihood that private septic systems in this area would need to be abandoned in order to construct the third phase of the waterway and consequently require City utility services. · It was also indicated that the Township should inform the developer that in the event of construction of the third phase of the waterway, that there is the potential that any facilities constructed on the site immediately south of TH 50 would need to be acquired and demolished to allow for construction of the storm water pond outlet structure. Ostensibly, there is an enormous cost implication of having to acquire commercial facilities that would add further financial complications to the project. · As stated previously, staff again emphasized that this type of commercial development is premature in light of City efforts to address long-term storm water drainage issues in the area. In addition, the location of the industrial site negatively impacts the proposed outlet location of the waterway to the extent that it may suggest that the construction of the third phase pond would require significant re-engineering, and additional expense. · Finally, the City Engineer pointed out that the pond constructed by the township does not take into account the drainage from the golf course to the east. As the drainage from the golf course already impacts the City's waterway, the City can expect additional capacity issues resulting from site development. In essence, the Township will realize 100% subsidized storm water drainage benefits resulting from trunk channel facilities (Phase I & II) wholly constructed and entirely financed by the City. ACTION REOUESTED City staff is planning attendance at the Tuesday, October 6, 1998 Metropolitan Council Community Development Committee meeting to address any questions or issues from the full committee. In light of the recommended approval by the MC staff, City staff presence at thissmeeting is intended to be informational only, and will not necessarily include further attempts to argue the City's position on this matter. ~es ec~mitted, Lq. / 000 F. Erar City of Farmington Position Paper Castle Rock Township Comprehensive Plan Amendment The City has reviewed Castle Rock Township's proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and desires to communicate the following concerns. 1) The City questions the appropriateness of allowing a towp.ship to develop a site for commerciaVindustrial purposes that most likely will lead to continued urbanization. There already exist numerous locations within municipal jurisdictions of close proximity for this type of development. 2) The City seriously questions this development given the absence of any type of enforceable convenants controlling the site by the township relative to building standards, site design, landscaping requirements, architectural controls and public improvements. Within the context of regional metropolitan development policies, is it desirable or appropriate to allow industrial/commercial parks to be constructed within rural areas that essentially serve as a mechanism for certain private enterprises to circumvent and/or avoid more rigorous municipal standards and regulations? 3) The proposed township industrial site resides in an area that has been specifically proposed for storm sewer drainage and ponding. The site, if developed, will negatively impact the City's storm sewer system and potentially prevent the construction of a third and fmal phase of the Prairie Waterway. This last phase of the waterway is integral to resolving long- standing storm water drainage issues in the surrounding area that includes predominantly existing commercial and residential township properties. The site in question is already a confirmed source of non-municipal storm water that drains into the City's storm water system and will significantly increase storm water generation should additional development occur within this particular area. 4) The City has not received any correspondence from either the Township or other regulatory agencies confirming that outstanding storm water drainage concerns have been resolved. The Vermillion River Watershed Management Organization (VRWMO) has indicated that significant errors have been made in the calculations for the proposed on-site ponding. The City is not aware of any corrections relative to this stated issue. 5) Allowing commercial/industrial development of property that is also critical to the storm water management of the area, and prior to the adoption of the Township's surface water management plan would at the very least be premature, and could very well exacerbate long- term drainage problems in an area that also impacts the City of Farmington. As the City and Township are jointly deciding whether to pursue the construction of this storm water trunk facility, any action approving the proposed industrial site could effectively prevent this trunk facility from being constructed in accordance with the City's surface water management plan. The City would urge that any action be delayed until both entities have resolved this important and consequential issue. 6) Allowing the township to develop this proposed site utilizing private septic systems is of significant concern to the City. As the Metropolitan Council is aware, township properties abutting the south side of Highway 50 and Ash Street have failing septic systems. While the township has indicated that these properties have been ordered to upgrade their ISTS, the City would urge that no new development with ISTS be allowed to occur until actions have been taken to bring these other properties into compliance with state law. 7) Pursuant to state statute and the recent Metropolitan Council decision affecting the city and township of Forest Lake, it has been the City's understanding that urban-styled development, such as an industrial park, is most desirable within a municipal environment. The proposed township industrial park is being developed without the benefit of modern utility services, has highly questionable storm water drainage, and does not even provide for the most basic street improvements. In light of these clearly deficient design standards, should the Metropolitan Council, by way of approving this comprehensive plan amendment, facilitate this type of commercial development? The City appreciates the opportunity to be heard with respect to these significant concerns. , . ,-'- '~'-"_.'-"'::" --~-_. I; - VR - A 1.11 :,' ~,;:.1~ ~ -,--; iL='~ -=.--. :-; :- "~~ ; , . ,~ w;t~ ',.--- - ---.. " " ,- ft[;.",; ,j-~-)~ ~~._-:.},--------Y' " .....,>i-----!l,:~J '-o-';':::::"~-=-~-:=:1 ~ P;Al14 "."" :.~ I ,-"'::::- _' :." ____ .... ' . ..:J J. /J~.~~--':';; ~_.- ~ ~'-=. '- r _ I-~--' - ~--.- -- IS/ " ". -----1 -. ____.--._..--...... _~~~_.~.~~,-__ -- i I,~~ ci:'-: =.-c ;-'-~~-T--'-'-- , .;;z""-=~- ~I,L:: ~- '-:_,i ,,':;':~ :~.. .~-~---- ---- -. --- p~A-i-i-2 ~~~~ :~-~~~~./(j~:: ~:-=, - W';;;13~ -~:;"~e . !.-:- -::--.. r':::;: ~:= -~~12 -; ,--""';1 r=.:=; El.l=al:.l I C!J'~t..-~. ~>+-~~ ::- ---~~\r~=Tj;~e rwa :; ~~~~.'~. ~==~ - :::'::.J~-; ~~.- -~ l r -I ct : "!--- I'-~---= = 1-+ '-'- ~~-- ~U1;.~..t :~ _-4~~r:~~ ~~:t~:i~~ '_~ =~--Jrt~:~ _ c~ _ _ _ ".~~ d:::~ ~~~.-~f;g:-=:-=:~::-J:::.= l=----=-. _ __ '/' -..,-=_.--~ . ~t- _.-...t.~~~=~=:=~ ;;=".-'PW-A:.ll '/.::E:~ '::':~::-~~ :-:-':'~I' ~F. -=-= r-..- ..__uu -:I ' ,'--.-' ~'--.; '-~;'--"- ".-__0":- ,_._~, .___~ ::"::~:./ ~~.---= ::::-'-..-.-$;I ;- '-'.~~~ rrn I: pW;';A:"~'l-:-6.-=-jl . ,...- ----. ---'.-' :F~~_,....",~~... ~..._~.:.=_. _._..: 'u._ " .....--...----. -..- _ c, f t if -:.: _:~=: '---, -==_ , . ,__ .___ .- ._, f .-::-- --- :-:"- --~'. ~ -. .~... " "',':"~. 'f.~~. I! . - ":H~~~~ '" .,. . ~t!;:~2~!~:: :pW,.pf. _ 'JIM.'O', ci8e'A I '~_' l--?:~~~f?[~: :\~~~~ -...-.-...,-,:.;";,. ;',,,;,.:,,.,, P'N-P1: T- 910.0 lKJlOT'----:-:-----.---. ;;. \ .~ I I I 1 1 I I h 1 Propo.:;ej ~ -' ~, .)/2 " ;-=-==~-:.- "(=F=:_:"=~:~===:~'" r:-w.)/...I So - j I -t -. :::.:::.:::-..::-..-:_._ _ ~...J ~. c -~ -.-. - ~ I ip~"-.~..:~2 _.._...J.-______ _ .. t, -. ..,.- \ \ .~--- -----------.-- ....... ". PW-.':":.6 \ ~ p~'-~. 7 . t .. .. \ .J!.. _ ~' _._ ~ - - -.r- "C....~ ::;'-~. - i . ." """0.. - -, ==::'''-~' -,; .....- . ...... . ...'-----.; 902.0 .."-----.--:-.--.=. =-,=':.:J>W.;;AL5 -_ -~ ~ . / -'----.--.-..-6---- ...._J ..u Castl'e Rock--Tewnship .. s ;. ..."" '- ----.-.---.-----.--.----- _u.,__,.__.___ -----,,-~....1 r-:--.____ .. ":'"~.. '- , 1.' .~'~----::.::::..~<---.:.::::: '. "="'<"~<O'_"_'~"__'~""'__'<''-'~__~''I;,;;.. ""\~i'l ''o;~~ "';"'~i;:,'.:.. "-& "1'~~~~. ~........... ~.----I.".~.' i I I. 91= j. ! : --_0_____- ._________ .______ ____ --._____._. __.4.__..____. .__._ ___,_ /UL.. . .; 14 '98 132; 28Pr1 MOt~TGor'1ERY h!;:lTSON 612 593 '3975 P.l/2 July 14, 1998 Mr. Alyn Angus Castle Rock Township PO Bo); 6 Farmington, MN 55024 SUBJECT: P:ltier Property, NW ~, Section 5, Castle Rock Township Dear Mr. Angus: This letter is a follow-up to our previous correspondence of June 18 regarding the proposed commerciaJ/industrial development on the Peltier property. I have bad the opportunity to rc:view the calculations and design assumptjous widl the developer's engine~r aod am forwarding additional comments. Thf. Vr,nnil1i.on Rlvtr W:1tOrched MllM~em.cnt OJ'~GUlli.dtm t"~"'lVlU) connnues to provide these comments on an advisoI)' basis. A pennit wi_~~E2!....~. .!~u.i;:e...9Jrom the VRWMO. 1. We are hopeful that Fannington and Castle Rock Township can discuss the potential for shared stormwater facilities which will provide. more economical stormwater management for the flows UIlder Highway 50. 2. From my discussions with the developer's engineer, it is my understanding that the pending facilities were not intended to provide rate control of stormwater 'nIooff. The ponds were sized for permanent detention/infiltration of a<lditional runoff volume generated during a 10-year storm event. 3. Stormwatet calculations address only th~ property area which is proposed for devc:lopment. They 00 not address the much larger tributary area flowing to this site which is the outlet for a siuble subwatershed. For this reason, we strongly recommend that the township work with the city of Fannington to outline how stormwater manag-cment facilities will be provided for this large tributary area to protect this proposed development and clearly outline how higher properties are to direct their water to the culvert under Highway 50. JUL 14 '98 ez: Z:lPf1 ~10f'lTGOt1ERY I.JATSON 612 593 9975 P.Z/2 Mr. Alyn AnguS .2-- July 14, 1998 4. We recommend the pond be analyzed for lOO-year,.24..;hour duration rainfall event whicb is the recommended storm event within the VRWMO. The VRWMO has not set specific rate contrOl standards on a site-by.site basis, but instead chose to defer rate control issues to the local governmental unit (cities and townships). If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact me dir~y at 59SwS27S. Sincerely, MONTGOMERY WATSON Steven C. Woods, P. E. En~n~toilieVR~O :bt cc: Dayid Olson, Community Development Director, City of Farmington Grant Jacobson (via fax: 469-4624) 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 Administratorjl( FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Minnesota Cities Week DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION The week of October 5-11, 1998 has been declared Cities Week 1998 - Celebrating Caring Communities - by Governor Arne Carlson. DISCUSSION Staff will be joining the Community Expo at the Farmington High School on October 10, 1998 in celebration of Cities Week. Numerous documents will be displayed inviting the public to learn more about their home town and to celebrate the growth and changes over the last year. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached proclamation declaring October 5-11, 1998 as Cities Week in the City of Farmington. Respectfully submitted, J)Cuu-1-~ 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 Sb - TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator;11L FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Proclamation - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION A request to issue a proclamation recognizing Minnesota's Breast Cancer Awareness Campaign and Mammography Day was forwarded to Mayors in the State of Minnesota. DISCUSSION In response to this request, Mayor Ristow has placed the attached proclamation on the agenda for Council consideration and approval. ACTION ReQUIRED Proclaim October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month and October 16th as Mammography Day in the City of Farmington Respectfully submitted, ,~ ~~U- Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager /a- COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR September 21, 1998 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, Fitch, Gamer, Strachan None City Administrator Erar, Attorney Joel Jamnik, City Management Team 4. APPROVE A GENDA MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Proclaim Minnesota Manufacturer's Week October 12-16, 1998 b) Proclaim Pollution Prevention Week September 21-27, 1998 MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to approve Proclamations. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Gamer, second by Fitch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes 9/8/98 (Regular) b) Approved City participation in County Auction c) Approved school and conference request - Police Department d) Approved appointment recommendation - Public Works Department e) Authorized 1998 audit engagement f) Approved capital outlay purchase - Fire Department g) Authorized facility improvements - Park & Recreation Department h) Authorized tower removal - Park & Recreation Department i) Adopted RESOLUTION R88-98 approving participation in Livable Communities Act - 1999 j) Approved change order - pool bath houselRambling River Park restroom k) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS d) St. Michael's City Fee Waiver Requests This item was moved forward in the agenda to accommodate the audience. St. Michael's Catholic Church requested the storm water management fees and park land dedication fees be waived or reduced for the new church being developed at the intersection of Ash Street and Denmark A venue. The recommendation of the Park Council Minutes (Regular) September 21, 1998 Page 2 Board was that the park dedication fees for this project be based on the CommerciallIndustrial rate rather than the Residential rate. Staff is reluctant to recommend approval of waiving this fee entirely as other non-profit organizations may pursue the same type of fee waiver request. Pastor Eugene Pouliot, St. Michael's Church, stated he is grateful for the hard work of City staff and Council and asked Council to consider waiving the fees. Mr. Bill Beckfeld, Building Committee Co-chair for St. Michael's Church, stated he appreciated recommendation for the park fees. It is his understanding that Outlot A needs to be dedicated to the City. He also stated, staff is recommending Outlot B not be permitted to be platted as an outlot since improvements will be constructed on this lot, and will serve as a portion of the front yard. Regarding storm water management fees, Mr. Beckfeld felt a precedent had been set by Bible Baptist Church. He requested waiving of storm water management fees entirely. Ann Nichols, Church of the Advent, stated they support St. Michael's Church. Staff said the City had to consider the amount of water coming from the large parking area. The Commercial rate with the credit is less than the residential rate. The fees go into the storm water fund which provides storm water facilities for the entire city. The City will grant an estimated $80,300 credit towards fees. The Mayor stated a precedent was also set with Congregate Care and that we need to look to the future. Pastor Pouliot asked if there wasn't a difference between Congregate Care and churches? Edwin Holmes, 612 Main Street, stated St. Michael's is a big asset to the community. The pond will be adding water 365 days. There is a big difference in non-profit organizations. Ron Thelen, 1021 6th Street, asked why not put the credit towards the Residential rate instead of the Commercial rate? Staff replied if credit was applied to the Residential rate, the City would owe St. Michael's. Mr. Beckfeld stated the ponds would be different because of the storm water management. Staff replied a credit can be issued because the church is building the ponds on their site. Mr. Beckfeld said the pond is not a nice amenity. It has become a very large pond system and the church would prefer to send the water someplace else. The church does not want the pond. Councilmember Fitch asked if the pond could be moved somewhere else and the church would have to pay the storm water fees. Staff replied this location is the best solution for developing the site and that the church would have to pay the entire amount of the fees if they do not construct the pond on their property. Mr. Beckfeld said the church has a good relationship with the City and thanked Staff for their efforts. Councilmember Cordes asked if there was a different definition for non-profit. Attorney Jamnik stated an infinite variety in billing systems could be created, however, as system definitions become more complicated, the system becomes more subjective and prone to challenge. Current City code does not have a distinction for storm water systems. Council Minutes (Regular) September 21, 1998 Page 3 Councilmember Cordes asked if the fees are waived for St. Michael's, could the Eagle's, for example, come back with the same request? Attorney Jamnik replied, yes. Any non-profit organization could say we want the same deal. We contribute to the community. The Mayor stated Council would have to evaluate each contract at that time. Staff stated other organizations are paying taxes. The church does not. Councilmember Cordes asked if the Council was allowed to waive the fees. Attorney Jamnik replied, yes, as long as it is not based on religion. Staff inquired if waiving the fees could be characterized as a gift? Attorney Jamnik replied yes. However, if it is not a direct appropriation, it is not a gift. Charlie Sieber, 1995 Enchanted Way, stated policies are not being enforced. Council needs to look at each entity and at what the church stands for. This would outweigh anything St. Michael's is charged. How many non-profit organizations have over 100 years of history? Council needs to go back to the merits of St. Michael's. Charlie Sieber stated the City isn't billed for volunteer work. The church volunteers because it is the right thing to do. Councilmember Fitch stated when the next organization comes, how does Council tell them no? How does Council determine who has merit? Council is trying to develop consistency. Councilmember Strachan stated the City has good policies. It is a matter of enforcing them. The fees have been reduced by 75%. MOTION by Strachan, second by Fitch to reduce the Park Dedication Fee by applying the commercial rate, and apply the Commercial rate for storm water management. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve Conditional Use Permit - Nelsen Hills 7th Addition Grading Permit Heritage Development has applied for a conditional use/grading permit for grading work to occur within the 7th Addition of the Nelson Hills Farm development. Staff recommended approval of the permit contingent on the following: 1) The developer grades the 7th Addition at his own risk. 2) Approval of the grading plan by the City Engineering division. 3) The required surety is posted and the Developer pays the appropriate fees. 4) All information required should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. 5) The Developer does everything within reason to have grading completed this year. MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to approve the conditional use/grading permit for Heritage Development based on the contingencies established by the Planning Commission. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT Council Minutes (Regular) September 21, 1998 Page 4 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Submittal of 1999-2003 CIP The City Council was presented with a draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying proposed projects to be completed over the next five fiscal years. MOTION by Gamer, second by Fitch to schedule a Council Workshop to review the 1999-2003 CIP for Wednesday, October 21, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Accept U.S. Justice Department COPS Grant The Farmington Police Department applied for and received COPS Fast Grant from the United States Justice Department. This Grant is in the amount of $75,000 over a three-year period, and is the second such grant received by the Farmington Police. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R89-98 accepting the U.S. Justice Grant in the amount of $75,000. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Set 1998 Sealcoat Assessment Hearing Date The total project cost for the 1998 Sealcoat project is $54,678.24. The total amount to be assessed to benefiting properties is $18,700. The City's portion ofthe project cost is $35,978.24. MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to adopt RESOLUTION R90-98 declaring the costs to be assessed and setting the assessment hearing for October 19, 1998. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Prairie Creek 3rd Addition Citizen Petition The City Council held a workshop to consider staffs initial findings regarding drainage issues in the Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th Additions. The Council authorized the following outcomes: 1) The Senior project team is to meet with the Developer of Prairie Creek to discuss the issues and determine a plan to resolve the issues identified at the Council workshop. 2) A project that would resolve the issues identified is to be added to the draft of the CIP. 3) The Senior project team is to review possible funding mechanisms for the project. 4) Identify an appropriate loss control strategy relative to City project funding costs. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes authorizing project actions as presented. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Ash Street Project Committee Update City committee representatives met with Township representatives on September 9, 1998 to continue discussions relative to the provision of municipal services to township properties with failing septic systems. The Township committee decided to pursue private septic system upgrades. A discussion was held regarding having an independent engineering firm conduct a feasibility study on storm water drainage. However, the Mayor was comfortable with the study presented by the City Engineer and preferred having the City and township engineers work together. On the issue of whether Ash Street should be reconstructed or overlay ed, Council is in favor of reconstruction, not overlay. Staffwill send a letter to the Castle Rock Town Board supporting the reconstruction of Ash Street. Council Minutes (Regular) September 21, 1998 Page 5 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Sanitary Sewer Rate Analysis The City currently charges its residential sewer customers a flat rate of $65.30 per quarter for sewer service. Staff recommended that Council adopt the proposed residential sanitary sewer base rate of $28 for the first 10,000 gallons of water used and $2.20 per 1000 gallons of water over the 10,000 gallon minimum usage. Winter quarter will be used as the base quarter to affix the maximum quarterly charge for the year. MOTION by Strachan, second by Gamer to adopt the proposed residential sanitary sewer base rate. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fitch: Pilot Knob looks good. Congratulations to Bill Weierke on his promotion. City Administrator Erar: Suggested deferring the Towing Contract Workshop to October 21, 1998 with the CIP Workshop. MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to move the Towing Contract Workshop to October 21, 1998. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Administrator Erar also stated the railroad will not comply with the train whistle ordinance. Staff should receive a letter from them this week. Councilmember Cordes stated the City of Rosemount is also looking at a train whistle ordinance. Community Development Director Olson: Advised Council the Planning Commission approved the contract for the Hosmer Brown building. Parks & Rec Director Bell: The arena team rooms will be done soon. Mayor Ristow: It is hard for the audience to hear Staff. Requested a microphone be added for Staffs use. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES City Hall Council Chambers September 16, 1998 The Council Workshop was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Ristow. Council members in attendance were Lacelle Cordes, Bill Fitch, Don Gamer and Steve Strachan. Staff in attendance were John Erar, City Administrator, Lee Mann, City Engineer, and David Olson, Director of Community Development. The Council approved the meeting agenda with no changes. Council considered the Proposed Orderly Annexation Agreement. Staff presented issues relative to the proposed orderly annexation agreement and discussed key aspects of the agreement. Council discussed the anticipated benefits and disadvantages related to the proposal advanced by Empire Township. It was discussed that the City would have to waive any opposition to Empire Township's future efforts to expand the residential area of the township's rural center, and agree to restrict any efforts by a certain property owner to voluntarily annex into the City. Council heard comments by the affected property owner's representative regarding their respective concerns, and their intention to develop the property at the appropriate time within the City. After duly considering the issues, it was the consensus of Council that while they appreciated the effort by Empire Township to address land use issues, the Council was not in favor of the proposed agreement. Council directed staff to draft a letter to that effect. Council next considered staff findings related to a Citizen's Petition regarding storm water drainage problem in the Third Phase of the Prairie Creek subdivision. Staff outlined the issues related to design deficiencies of the current storm water conveyance system in the third and fourth phases of Prairie Creek. Contained within the staff report, the City Engineer identified costs to reconstruct the system to City standards and presented proposed changes to the system that would alleviate resident concerns. It was discussed that City design standards for storm water drainage are for a five year event, however, this does not guarantee that flooding would not occur should rainfall exceed this design standard. Relative to the current design in these two subdivision phases, it was noted that the City's five year design standard was not met by the developer as required by the City's surface water management plan and related City ordinances. Accordingly, the current system will need to be significantly upgraded to meet required City standards. Council heard comments from affected citizens in the third phase of Prairie Creek and discussed staff findings as it related to next step issues. Council requested that the proposed reconstruction project be added to the proposed 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Plan, directed staff to meet with the developer, and identify process issues relative to loss control strategies. It was the consensus of Council that this project should go forward and be brought up to City design standards for storm water drainage. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respec~tted, 14. ErM City Administrator 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 Administrator ~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Service Manager SUBJECT: Appointment of Election Judges - General Election DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION The General Election is November 3, 1998. DISCUSSION The attached resolution appoints judges and designates polling places of Precincts 1, 2, and 3 for the general election. BUDGET IMP ACT Election costs are included in the 1998 budget. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, I / A-, ~ :-R- (t/'fuv.-.. d'~u- Karen Finstuen Administrative Service Manager RESOLUTION NO. R APPROVING LIST OF ELECTION JUDGES AND DESIGNATING POLLING PLACE FOR GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 3, 1998 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City the 5th day of October, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following list of election judges be approved for the General Election to be held November 3, 1998. Precinct 1 Eileen Sauber Norma Lord Florence Mohn Arlene Gramentz Dolores Johnson Dennis Sullivan Precinct 2 Gretchen Bergman Karen Pietsch Barbara Pellicci Jeanne Stanek Mary Swanson Lauretta Schneider Marcianne Rotty Precinct 3 Betty Raveling Shirley Sauber Lois Lotze Joan Shea C.J. Simones Nancy Maxwell Patrick Hansen Barbara Reynolds Information Pat White BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the address of the polling place for Precincts 1,2 and 3 shall be as follows: Precinct 1 - Senior Citizen Center - 431 Third Street Precinct 2 - Senior Citizen Center - 431 Third Street Precinct 3 - Akin Road Elementary School - 5231 195th Street West This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor Attested to the _day of , 1998. SEAL Clerk! Administrator 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 Administrator~ FROM: David R. Sanocki, Engineering Division ~ SUBJECT: Adopt Resolutions - Private Development Project Closeouts DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION The improvements outlined in the Development Contracts for Akin Park 2nd through 4th Additions and Nelson Hills 3rd Addition have been completed. DISCUSSION The Akin Park 2nd Addition Development Contract was signed on May 17th, 1993 between the City and R.C.S. Associates. The completion date for this project was June 1, 1994. The project was completed when minor punchlist items were addressed during September of this year. The Akin Park 3rd Addition Development Contract was signed on April 11, 1994 between the City and Shamrock Development, Inc. The completion date for this project was November 1, 1994. The project was completed when several minor punchlist items were addressed during September of this year. The Akin Park 4th Addition Development Contract was signed on August 4, 1994 between the City and Shamrock Development, Inc. The completion date for this project was November 1, 1994. The project was completed when several minor punchlist items were addressed during September of this year. The Nelson Hills 3rd Addition Development Contract was signed on September 28, 1994 between the City and Heritage Development. The completion date for this project was May 31, 1995. The project was completed when several minor punch list items were addressed during September of this year. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolutions accepting the street and utility improvements for Akin Park 2nd through 4th Additions and Nelson Hills 3rd Addition. Respectfully submitted, ~/;)LR. SMeL S4\ David R. Sanocki Engineering Division cc: file Jim Stanton, Shamrock Development John Dobbs, Heritage Development RESOLUTION NO. R -98 ACCEPTING AKIN PARK 2ND ADDITION STREET & UTILITY IMPROVMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 92-5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of October, 1998 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 a written contract signed with the City of May 17, 1993, R.C.S. Associates, Inc. of Edina, Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the requirements of the developers agreement for Akin Park 2nd Addition. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota that the work completed under said agreement is hereby accepted by the City. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of October, 1998 SEAL City Administrator/Clerk RESOLUTION NO. R -98 ACCEPTING AKIN PARK 3rd ADDITION STREET & UTILITY IMPROVMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 94-2 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of October, 1998 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 a written contract signed with the City of April 11, 1994, Shamrock Development, of Coon Rapids, Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the requirements of the developers agreement for Akin Park 3rd Addition. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota that the work completed under said agreement is hereby accepted by the City. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of October, 1998 SEAL City Administrator/Clerk RESOLUTION NO. R -98 ACCEPTING AKIN PARK 4th ADDITION STREET & UTILITY IMPROVMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 94-14 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of October, 1998 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 a written contract signed with the City of August 4, 1994, Shamrock Development, of Coon Rapids, Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the requirements of the developers agreement for Akin Park 4th Addition. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota that the work completed under said agreement is hereby accepted by the City. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of October, 1998 SEAL City Administrator/Clerk RESOLUTION NO. R -98 ACCEPTING NELSON HILLS 3RD ADDITION STREET & UTILITY IMPROVMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 94-17 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of October, 1998 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 a written contract signed with the City of September 28, 1994, Heritage Development, of Little Canada, Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the requirements of the developers agreement for Nelson Hills 3rd Addition. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota that the work completed under said agreement is hereby accepted by the City. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor day of October, 1998 Attested to the SEAL City Administrator/Clerk City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7c! TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donation - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION A donation has been received at the Ice Arena. DISCUSSION The Farmington Tiger Fan Club has donated $3,000 to the Ice Arena to be used for public address system upgrades. Staff will communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the Council to the organization for their generous donation. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the donation of $3,000 from the Farmington Tiger Fan Club. Respectfully submitted, ~. ~~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director 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 5th day of October, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member ------ introduced and Member ----- seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Farmington Tiger Fan Club has donated $3,000 to be used for the public address system 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$3,000 from the Farmington Tiger Fan Club to be used as stated above. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor Attested to the 5 th day of October, 1998. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7e TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Landscape Agreement - MNDOT DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION Council approval to sign an agreement requesting reimbursement of the materials cost on the TH 3 landscape project. DISCUSSION On January 20, 1998 the Council authorized staff to apply for a grant and to enter into an agreement with MnDOT to landscape the north and south corridors of TH 3 as it enters the city. The project is scheduled to be completed on Saturday, October 3, 1998. The Minnesota Department of Transportation requires that cities participating in the" Community Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program" sign an agreement to request reimbursement of funds. The Council must also adopt the attached resolution. BUDGET IMPACT This agreement provides for 100 percent reimbursement of City landscaping costs. ACTION REQUESTED Council approval of a Resolution authorizing the completion of the agreement to request reimbursement of funds. Respectfully submitted, ~c-- 6JJ( James Bell Parks and Recreation Director RESOLUTION NO. R97-98 ACCEPTING LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT MnDOT 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 5th day of October 1998 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Ristow, Cordes, Gamer, Strachan Fitch Member Gamer introduced and Member Cordes seconded the following: IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Farmington enter into MnlDOT Agreement No. 77938 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for payment by the State to the City for the acquisition costs of the landscape materials to be placed along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No.3 from the north City limits to the south City limits under State Project No. 1920-969. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Administrator are authorized to execute the Agreement. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Dakota I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Farmington at an authorized meeting held on the 5th day of October, 1998, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Signature Gerald Ristow Type or Print Name Mavor Title Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ,1998. Notary Public My Commission Expires City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7f TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: David R. Sanocki, Engineering Division ~ SUBJECT: Nelson Hills and Riverside Development Contract Addendum - Landscaping DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION The street and utility improvements outlined in the Development Contracts for Nelson Hills 4th, Nelson Hills 5th and Riverside Estates have been completed except for project landscaping and minor punchlist items. . DISCUSSION A number of developers have expressed interest in establishing a landscaping letter of credit, covering the placement of project trees and boulevard sod, so that the project streets and utilities can be closed out. BUDGET IMP ACT None ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolutions accepting the addendum to the development contracts for landscaping for Nelson Hills 4th , Nelson Hills 5th and Riverside Estates. Respectfully submitted, ffJ f L/ David R. Sanocki Engineering Division cc: file Jack Benedict, Riverside Development John Dobbs, Heritage Development RESOLUTION NO. R ACCEPTING ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS Nelson Hills 4th and 5th Additions 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 5th day of October, 1998 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 Resolution Nos. R84-95, R61-96, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plats of Nelson Hills 4th and 5th Additions contingent upon the execution of a development agreement; and, WHEREAS, an addendum is now before the Council for its consideration setting forth, among other things, a surety in the amount of $50,000 for the completion of the landscaping for Nelson Hills 4th and 5th Additions. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 1. The aforementioned addendum to the development contract, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office, is hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such conduct. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of October, 1998 City Administrator/Clerk RESOLUTION NO. R ACCEPTING ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS RIVERSIDE ESTATES 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 5th day of October, 1998 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 Resolution Nos. R77-93, the City Council approved the preliminary and final plats of Riverside Estates contingent upon the execution of a development agreement; and, WHEREAS, an addendum is now before the Council for its consideration setting forth, among other things, a surety in the amount of $19,000 for the completion of the landscaping for Riverside Estates. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 3. The aforementioned addendum to the development contract, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office, is hereby approved. 4. The Mayor and Administrator are hereby authorized and directed to sign such conduct. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of October, 1998 City Administrator/Clerk Addendum to the Development Agreement for Landscaping AGREEMENT dated this day of , 19 _, by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (City) and Heritage Development, (The Developer). WHEREAS, the City has approved the Developer's plans and specifications for a landscaping improvement as part of the final plat and developer agreement for Nelsen Hills 4th Addition, Nelsen Hills Farm 5th Addition, and; WHEREAS, all other public improvements, payments, dedications, and other obligations of the Developer have been met except for the landscaping improvements, and; WHEREAS the Developer and the City wish to finalize the plat with the exception of all warranty periods and landscaping improvements. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree as follows: The Developer agrees to construct such required improvements according to the provisions of the plans and specifications attached as Exhibit "A" (approved Landscaping Plans) and incorporated herein by reference. The Developer, further agrees to comply with all such additional conditions as may have been established by the City in Exhibit "B", which is attached and incorporated herein. To guarantee completion and compliance with the terms of this Agreement the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit from a bank for $50,000.00. This Agreement and surety is provided to guarantee completion and compliance with the terms set out in this Agreement within the time period specified in Exhibit "B". Both the bank and the form of letter of credit shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The security shall be for a period ending September 2,2000, at which time all remaining landscaping shall be complete. If the required improvements are not completed, or the terms of the Agreement are not fully satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City in its' sole discretion may draw down the security, without any prior notice. The City may review annually the adequacy of the surety or letter of credit. The City reserves the right to at anytime direct the letter of credit to be increased to reflect inflation, changed conditions, or compliance with this Agreement. "The Developer" The City of Farmington By: Jerry G. Ristow It's Mayor By: By: John F. Erar It's Administrator NELSEN HILLS 4th ADDITION EXHIBIT B LANDSCAPING STATUS REPORT INSPECTED 8-28-98 STREET BLOCK LOT # DEAD # MISSING Esquire A venue 3 3 0 2 Exodus A venue 5 5 0 2 8 0 2 TOTALS 0 6 NOTE: All remaining landscaping trees will be required to be placed before September 2,2000. The following items will need to be completed prior to the release of this letter of credit: 1. The ditch is holding water behind 18604 Esquire and will need to be filled in, graded and established. 2. Lot 5 of Block 5 is holding water and will need to filed in, graded and established. NELSEN HILLS 5TH ADDITION EXHIBIT B LANDSCAPING STATUS REPORT INSPECTED 8-28-98 STREET BLOCK LOT # DEAD # MISSING Englewood Way 1 1 0 7 2 0 2 4 0 2 5 0 4 6 0 2 6 7 0 3 8 0 2 9 0 2 7 6 0 2 Everest Path 1 7 0 2 8 0 2 9 0 2 10 0 2 11 0 5 2 1 0 4 2 0 2 3 0 2 4 0 2 5 0 2 6 0 2 7 0 2 8 0 2 4 1 0 5 4 0 3 5 0 3 8 0 2 5 14 0 3 TOTALS 0 73 Page 1 STREET BLOCK LOT # DEAD # MISSING EXHIBIT B (CONT.) Explorer Way 3 7 0 3 4 9 0 5 10 0 3 11 0 1 12 0 2 13 0 2 14 0 2 16 0 2 21 0 5 22 0 4 5 1 0 2 3 0 2 4 0 2 5 0 2 6 0 2 7 0 2 10 0 2 11 0 5 Explorer Ct 4 18 0 1 19 0 1 Excalibur Trail 6 1 0 2 2 0 2 3 0 2 7 0 3 8 0 2 9 0 2 7 7 0 5 TOTALS 0 68 GRAND TOTALS 0 141 NOTE: All remaining landscaping trees will be required to be placed before September 2,2000. Page 2 EXHIBIT B (CONT.) The following items will need to be completed prior to the release of this letter of credit: 1. The ponds on outlot B & C will need to be graded according to the approved grading plan. Upon completion of the pond grading the side slopes should be established with seed, mulch and blanket. Siltfence shall be placed around ponds after the pond grading is completed. 2. Place the emergency overflow, with rip rap, out of the pond on outlot B as shown on the approved grading plan. 3. The surge basin swale out of the pond on outlot B shall be graded according to the approved grading plan. 4. The rip rap placed on the inlet to the pond on outlot B will have to be re-Iaid upon completion of the swale regrading. 5. Lot 1 of Block 1, will need to be graded and established with seed and mulch. 6. Submit the project as-builts (mylars and disk copy). The as-builts for the Nelsen Hills Townhomes will also have to be submitted. Page 3 Addendum to the Development Agreement for Landscaping AGREEMENT dated this day of , 19 _, by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (City) and John A. Bendict and Associates, (The Developer). WHEREAS, the City has approved the Developer's plans and specifications for a landscaping improvement as part of the final plat and developer agreement for Riverside Addition, and; WHEREAS, all other public improvements, payments, dedications, and other obligations of the Developer have been met except for the landscaping improvements, and; WHEREAS the Developer and the City wish to finalize the plat with the exception of all warranty periods and landscaping improvements. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereby agree as follows: The Developer agrees to construct such required improvements according to the provisions of the plans and specifications attached as Exhibit "A" (approved Landscaping Plans) and incorporated herein by reference. The Developer, further agrees to comply with all such additional conditions as may have been established by the City in Exhibit "B", which is attached and incorporated herein. To guarantee completion and compliance with the terms of this Agreement the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit from a bank for $19,000. This Agreement and surety is provided to guarantee completion and compliance with the terms set out in this Agreement within the time period specified in Exhibit "B". Both the bank and the form of letter of credit shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The security shall be for a period ending September 2, 2000, at which time all remaining landscaping shall be complete. If the required improvements are not completed, or the terms of the Agreement are not fully satisfied, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of a letter of credit, the City in its' sole discretion may draw down the security, without any prior notice. The City may review annually the adequacy of the surety or letter of credit. The City reserves the right to at anytime direct the letter of credit to be increased to reflect inflation, changed conditions, or compliance with this Agreement. "The Developer" The City of Farmington By: Jerry G. Ristow It's Mayor By: By: John F. Erar It's Administrator RIVERSIDE ESTATES EXHIBIT B LANDSCAPING STATUS REPORT INSPECTED 8-28-98 STREET BLOCK LOT # DEAD # MISSING 206th St 2 11 0 2 12 0 2 13 0 2 14 0 2 15 0 3 16 0 2 17 0 2 6 2 0 5 207th St 2 1 0 5 5 0 3 6 0 2 8 0 2 3 2 0 2 3 0 2 4 0 2 6 0 2 7 0 2 8 0 2 9 0 2 6 1 0 5 7 1 0 5 Dallas Ave 2 9 0 5 10 0 5 TOTALS 0 66 NOTE: All remaining landscaping trees will be required to be placed before September 2,2000. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us !3 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator ~ Joy Lillejord, Recreation Program Supervisor FROM: SUBJECT: Approve Grant Application for the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION Farmington Recreation along with Lakeville Recreation would like to apply for a small grant in the amount of $2,000 - 3,000. This grant has been made available from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council. The Metropolitan Regional Arts Council serves a diversity of organizations, arts projects and arts audiences in the seven-county metropolitan area through programs and services that provide all interested people, in their own and other communities in the region, with opportunities to engage in the process of creating art as well as opportunities to enjoy the artistic accomplishments of others. The grant money will go to fund an art series in Farmington and Lakeville during the summer of1999. Farmington and Lakeville's Parks and Recreation Commissions will be asked to provide input for this grant. BUDGET IMP ACT Metropolitan Regional Arts Council funds must be matched dollar for dollar. At least 50 percent of the match must be in cash. Cash sources may include general operating funds, past surpluses, other grants, and earned income orrevenue we plan to raise specifically for the project. The remaining match may include 1) cash from earned revenue and other grants and/or 2) in-kind goods and services. ACTIONREOUlRED Adopt a resolution authorizing application for the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council grant. Respectfully submitted, dIr f\A U Ilej ad Joiir.. Lillejord \ Recreation Program Supervisor RESOLUTION NO. R -98 APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ARTS COUNCIL 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 5th day of October 1998 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, Farmington Recreation along with Lakeville Recreation would like to apply for a small grant in the amount of $2,000 - $3,000; and, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council serves a diversity of organizations, arts projects and arts audiences in the seven-county metropolitan area through programs and services that provide all interested people, in their own and other communities in the region, with opportunities to engage in the process of creating art as well as opportunities to enjoy the artistic accomplishments of others; and, WHEREAS, the grant money will go to fund an art series in Farmington and Lakeville during the summer of 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the grant application for the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October 1998. Mayor Attested to the 5th day of October 1998. SEAL City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Appoint Year 2000 Coordinator DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION As part of the on-going effort to identify and resolve any outstanding technological issues associated with Year 2000 compliance issues, the League of Minnesota Cities has requested that all cities appoint a designated staff person to coordinate the City's efforts in this area. DISCUSSION Relative to technological issues affecting the City, my office has been overseeing all information systems impacting City operations. Responsibilities associated with this effort include wide-area (WAN) and local area network (LAN) systems administration, operating system platforms, server administration, system back-ups, staff training, hardware and software upgrades, system configurations and troubleshooting, print system management, internet website administration and e-mail communications. The City currently has over 35 workstation users utilizing a wide variety of software programs and interfacing with a wide variety of peripheral devices that must be maintained on a routine basis. In order to ensure that these systems will not be negatively affected by Year 2000 compliance problems, it is recommended that the Council appoint a knowledgeable staff member to officially coordinate efforts in this area. BUDGE IMPACT The Proposed 1999 Budget includes expenditures for various system upgrades associated with anticipated Year 2000 concerns. My office will continue to directly oversee this aspect of City operations as appropriate. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution appointing a Year 2000 (Y2k) Coordinator. RESOLUTION NO. R -98 APPOINTING Y2k COORDINATOR 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 5th day of October 1998 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington recognizes that the Year 2000 problem involves more than just a computer issue; and, WHEREAS, the City recognizes that all of its departments and services may be impacted by the Year 2000 problem; and, WHEREAS, the City has recognized a policy establishing the Year 2000 problem as a top priority for all city operations; and, WHEREAS, the City sets forth its commitment to identify, address and resolve potential problems created by Year 2000 issues and to make its best effort to ensure continuity of essential city services; and, WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to create contingency and community preparedness plans to reduce the possible effects of computer and operational system failures throughout the community; and, WHEREAS, the City's efforts to minimize the potential impact of the Year 2000 problem will likely involve multiple City operations and outside organizations; and, WHEREAS, the City believes that coordination of all persons working on the Year 2000 problem on behalf of the City is essential to the efficiency and effectiveness of the City's overall Year 2000 effort; and, WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota cities has requested that cities designate a contact person to receive information on the Year 2000 problem. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby appoints John Erar, City Administrator to serve as the City's Year 2000 Project Coordinator. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October 1998. Attested to the 5th day of October 1998. Mayor SEAL City Administrator 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 AdministratortJIt- FROM: James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Policy Recommendation - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION The Parks and Recreation Commission ( P ARAC ) is recommending changes to the Park / Facility Naming and Donations Policy for Council consideration. DISCUSSION P ARAC is recommending changes to the Park / Facility Naming Policy. These changes reflect their desire to have the capability to name parks after individuals in special circumstances. The Commission is aware of the possible problems that may arise from such decisions and have placed safeguards into the proposed recommended changes. Attached is a copy of the current policy with highlighted recommended changes for Council consideration. ACTION REQUESTED Council approval of the P ARAC recommended changes to the Park / Facility Naming and Donation Policy. Respectfully submitted, ~c-- 6~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director P ARKlFACILITY NAMING AND DONATIONS POLICY P ARKIF ACILITY NAMING GUIDELINES 1. The neighborhood or subdivision in which the park is located. 2. The street name adjacent to, or closely identified with, the park. 3. The name of a local point of interest or local focal point near the park. 4. The name of a stream or creek adjacent to or near the park. 5. The name of some topographic feature associated with the park. 6. The name of a historical occurrence associated with the area indigenous to Farmington. a. The HPC should review historical recommendations. 7. A creative name based on some impression of the site, (i.e., vegetation, dominant feature, or the ecology of the area.) 8. We Parks should can be named after an individual or family. Items and/or facilities within a park may ~ be named after an individual or family. This should be done only after careful evaluation. The individual that the park, park item and/or facility is to be named after should be one or more ofthe following: a) A long time City employee, volunteer or supporter. b) A citizen and/or family of the community. c) An individual, family or organization that supported the project financially. ...2... !fnaming a park after an individual or family, a unanimous decision must be made by the PARAe. 10. Park and recreation facilities' names should be named carefully and with permanent intent. NAMING PROCESS 1. The Director and Park and Recreation Commission compiles a list of names. These can be from surveys, neighbors, members, contests and so on. 2. The Park and Recreation Commission narrows the list down to three choices. 3. The Park and Recreation Commission, at its next meeting, makes a final recommendation to the Council. DONATIONS GUIDELINES Items donated to the parks should meet one of the following criteria: 1. Appear on the 5 year Capital Improvement Plan. 2. Appear on the Parks Donation List, which is compiled by staff and the Park and Recreation Commission. 3. Appear on the individual park master map/plans. 4. Speeial.consideration will be given for other donations. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us l. V TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION The newly constructed Ice Arena Team Rooms will require rubber flooring and the Ice Arena Public Address (PA) system will as approved in the 1998 Budget, be upgraded to address recognized deficiencies. DISCUSSION Rubber Flooring When the plans and specifications were formulated for the construction of the team rooms, the rubber flooring was listed as an alternate bid. This alternate bid was rejected due to the limited funds available at the time. Staff has contacted Youth Hockey asking for a donation to the rubber flooring. They have indicated they are unable to contribute to the flooring purchase at this time. It is imperative that the team rooms have rubber flooring as they will not be able to be used without rubber flooring for skate protection. Staff was able to obtain two quotes for the flooring. Becker Arena Products was the low quote for materials at $3,961.80, and consists of Tuflex seconds which are half the cost of regular run rubber. The only difference in product quality is the slight color variation. In addition to the product, the cost of installation is an additional $1,265.00, for a total of $5,226.80. P A System The 1998 Budget set aside $2,130 for P A system replacement. The remaining dollars needed for the project will come from a $3,000 donation and a deferred arena capital outlay expenditure for gate replacement. As staff indicated to Council in a previous agenda item, additional P A system dollars have been donated by the Tiger Fan Club, Staff has obtained two quotations for the PA system. The low quote is for $7,795.00 Staff determined that additional funds were not available for the entire project and asked for a portion of the project to be quoted. The vendor indicated that although it was possible to do a portion of the project at this time it was not an ideal situation. The speakers in the current system cannot be used with the amplifier that the new system needs, therefore, the amplifier would need to be replaced when the speakers are replaced. The vendor indicated they would reduce the cost of the project $1,595.00 to $6,200.00 plus tax if the City would do the entire project at this time. BUDGET IMPACT The funding for the Ice Arena rubber flooring will be appropriated from the Parks Improvement Fund with staff continuing to seek outside sources to offset these costs. The P A system funding will be underwritten from donations received and approved capital outlay items not expended in the 1998 Ice Arena budget. ACTION REOUESTED Authorize staff to proceed with the purchase and installation of the rubber flooring for the Ice Arena team rooms at a total cost of $5,226.80, and acknowledge replacement of the entire Arena P A system for $6,489.90. Respectfully submitted, ~~~JSl James Bell Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7,.f TO: Mayor, Council Members, City AdministratorpL FROM: Gerald 1. Auge Jr., Engineering Division ~ SUBJECT: Project 98-01, Storm Sewer Maintenance Projects (Flagstaff & Walnut) DATE: October 5,1998 INTRODUCTION Three quotations for storm sewer maintenance projects on Flagstaff Avenue and Walnut Street were received on Tuesday, September 22, 1998 (see attachment). DISCUSSION South of the Donnelly farm on Flagstaff Avenue, on the west side is an existing concrete catch basin type structure in the ditch that is proposed to be modified. Currently, the ditch next to the road is very deep and presents a safety concern if a vehicle were to go off the road in this location. It is proposed to raise the catch basin structure and fill in the ditch to minimize the potential hazard if a vehicle were to run off the road. On Walnut Street, just west of the frontage road for TH 3, are two existing catch basins that are in a deteriorated state. The structures are falling apart and have exposed reinforcement bars which constitute a potential safety hazard. It is proposed to rebuild these structures. BUDGET IMPACT The total construction cost of the Flagstaff Avenue Project is $6,345.50 and the Walnut Street Project is $6,170.00. These projects will be funded through the Storm Water Fund. ACTION REQUESTED Accept the quotations from Latour Construction, Inc. for a combined total of $12,515.50 and award the contracts by motion. Gerald . A e, Jr. City of Farmington, Engineering Division 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 => 0 Eo; 0 0 0 1Il 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .,.. 0 0 ~ r.: 0 >< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f;I;l 0 0 .,.. .,.. 0 .,.. r-.: 0 0 0 ft) 0 "'" "'" "'" l"'l l"'l r-- 00 N 0 .,.. "'" N N - >C N ~ f;I;l f;I;l CJ U Z == 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ""! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eo; "'" 0 .,.. .,.. 0 .,.. l"'l 0 0 0 N .... N - "'" l"'l l"'l r-- N - .,.. N Z >;l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 => 0 Eo; ~ 0 => 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 r.: 0 rJJ >< .,.. N .,.. 0 .,.. 0 0 0 0 == r-- 0 ClO .,.. f;I;l 0\ - N .,.. N 0 0 0 00 0 => 0\ U N N "'" N l"'l l"'l N "'" - N t'- - ~ f;I;l ~ U 0 0 0 0 == ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ .,.. .,.. 0 .,.. 0 ~ 0 Eo; r-- l"'l N .,.. N 0 00 0 0 0 .,.. = 0\ .,.. "'" N l"'l l"'l 0 00 N 0\ .... N "'" - - Z >;l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 => 0 Eo; ~ 0 1Il ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 .,.. 0 0 0 .n >< .,.. 00 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 f;I;l 0 0\ .,.. .,.. 00 0 - .,.. 0 0 "'" 00 N - N N - r-- - N 0 N ft) l"'l ~ l"'l - >C N >;l f;I;l 0 ~ U 0 0 0 == 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ..;l ~ .,.. .,.. 0 0 0 0 .,.. 0 0 0 0 Eo; 0 0\ .,.. .,.. 00 0 ..f 0 0 0 00 N "'" N N - r-- .,.. 0 N l"'l .... l"'l N - N ~ u 01) tU ~ .... rJJ Eo; Eo; 01 "'" .,.. 0 Z Eo; N ~ rJJ f;I;l f;I;l rJJ ;> Eo; <: ~ .... ell ~ ell ell ell >- U ell ell ell ~ ....:l ....:l ~ ....:l ....:l ....:l ell <: ....:l ....:l ....:l .... ~ ~ f;I;l ~ ~ s:: CI) ~ 0 f;I;l ! ~ on Z rJJ ell CI) 0 ~~ s:: ~ CI) CIl .... N .... "'0 ~ ~ Eo; ~ 0 ::l o'fl ell I '0 a (,) (,) <: ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ..;l Eo; ~ f;I;l CI) ~ 0\ 2 ai as :c Eo; r-- >;lrJJZ CIl ~ ~ ~ - ] .... <<l CI) Eo; CIl ..s:: ) =r..O "'0 ~ ~ "'0 0 .5 (,) '0 ~ <:r..Eo; s:: <<l a "'0 eo "3 s:: s:: .9 .... u u Cl CI) CIl CI) E Eo;-<CJ eo ::l '0 0 e 0 .9 - ~ ~ Q.. - "'0 .~ f;I;lEo;Z :.a 0 ~ ~ eo ~ 2 ..s:: <<l "'0 0 ~ - - tii .... (,) ..;l (,) Eo;rJJ~ -g CI) N N ..s:: ..!S CIl (,) eo a ~ CI) CIl - (,) -< CIl oCJ CIl ~ <<l <<l ] Q.. - :.a ..s:: !E ~ .... oe ] 0 ] :.E Eo; ::9 >;lj ::l - .t: - CIl "'0 "'0 CIl CIl CIl 'S CI) 0 <<l 0 ~ 'S 0 0 s:: s:: ) s:: ) ) s:: ii: 0 CI) ~ ~ Or..r.. ~ - .... .... .... .... !.;::: ell ell Eo; ~ 00 Eo-; z ~ ~ o ~ ... ~ ~ r"'l 00 ~ zO o Eo-; ...oo~ Eo-; Eo-; -<r"'l ~~Z ~Eo-;O ~ooEo-; ~ ~ ~I Eo-;~ 8-< o~~ 0 0 <:> 0 0 0 0 0 lI'l ~ C! 0 C! 0 V) 0 C! 0 ..... ~ 0 0 ~ r-- 0 0 r-- r-il 0 0 C'l -.:::t 00 C'l 0 f"') 00 C'l ...... ...... C'l M V) "<t \0 \0 ..... ~ r-il r-il ~ U ~ ; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C! 0 C! ~ 0 0 C! 0 0 N V) 0 ~ 0 0 M C'l ~ 0 -.:::t ...... ...... ~ M M ...... V) ~ 0 0 0 <:> 0 0 0 0 <:> Eo-; 0 0 0 0 C! C! 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 \0 0 0 ..... r-il V) 0 \0 00 r-- 0 V) 00 0'\ 0 00 00 ...... r-- ...... ...... C'l -.:::t ...... ..... ; ..... u ~ r-il ~ U 0 0 ; 0 0 C! 0 0 0 C! 0 C! 0 ~ V) 0 0 C! 0 C! 0 ~ r-- 0 ~ V) C'l V) V) ~ V) ...... 00 ~ 0'\ M ...... ...... = ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = ~ C! 0 C! C! C! 0 C! = ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = r-il -.:::t 0 \0 00 M \0 0 r-- -.:::t 00 0 ..... C'l ...... ...... ...... C'l M ...... ~ ~ r-il 0 U Eo-; ; 0 0 0 0 -< 0 0 0 0 C! 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 C! 0 V) 0 ~ C'l 0 ~ V) 0 ~ 0 C'l ...... 0 ~ ...... 0'\ ...... ...... ~ N r.z.l Cj ~ ~ ~ ~ OC'l C'l 0 C'l r<') 0 ...... ~ -.:::t ...... C'l 00 00- r-il 00 ~ < <: ~ ~ ~ >- 00- ~ ~ ~ ....:l 00- ....:l ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Vl 00- ~ ct:: ~ C'l Vi ~ I .... 0 ~ 0 r-il 0'\ ..... r-- s::: 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Eo-< u on 0 "'l:) "'l:) 0 0 ~ la .... s::: ..... on 0 ~ ~ ~ ..... ::s on .~ s::: u CIS ..s::: ~ .2 Vi ~ ~ :> u ~ ...... ] 0.. ~ <: c; 0 .... Vl Vl 0.. :0 ~ <I) t:5 ..... ::s .1:! CIS ..... "'l:) 0 0 s::: ~~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ...... p.. o::l 00- Eo-< c I L1U c [ n ~ ~ Flagstaff Ave & Walnut St Storm Sewer Maintenance Projects L -&lull I "'" c- '~ (V\\ ~ , o ~~~ L_ 'UI\ I-J'-J J~~~ SJ I -----, f- ~l- ~- ~ I / / ~ ~~ ~\~ (r ~ 1/ ~[1ffiJ1 Il~ / H If ffiliIJllI~ hJ .. Ihr G" I ~. 'Jig liliip~~ c I -a ~ ~llii~~ Walnut & m~ ngg ~ Trunk !-tINy 3 SitelEi ~~r~r _ '" II gfM~ l6Jm~ 1] IU I OJ -:JIll 1 lTT T AI ~")I' L ~k ~I I]~ ~ I J Klmmrf5r imlr I c I/-J ~~ ,If~ 'rl~~ ~ r'-LW ~ tromIHJ~ ~~ ~?Y ,------:: ~taff Ave Site I I I / J ~ rr===r:r ~ I--J U 1111 r= 'l fJ L Scale N ~E S /\/ City Boundary 0.5 I o 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles I City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7/ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator pt- FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Resignation of HPC Member DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION Patricia Murphy, a resident who has demonstrated a commitment to the City of Farmington through unselfish contributions of personal time and talent, regretfully submits her resignation from the Heritage Preservation Commission. DISCUSSION The files indicate that there are currently no applications for this commission. Appointments are typically made in January, with advertisements for these positions beginning in November of each year. ACTION REQUIRED Accept the resignation of Patricia J. Murphy, with the intent of filling the vacated seat in January, 1999. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager TO: MAYOR RISTOW AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: PATRICIA J. MURPHY SUBJECT: RESIGNATION FROM HPC DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 This letter is my resignation from the Heritage Preservation Commission. I send it with regrets as I have been a member since its beginning and we are becoming more successful at preserving Farmington's historical background. I have had Multiple Sclerosis since 1967 and had hoped to finish my term on this Commission, but the past year has found me less able to get out and do the things I used to do, and with winter approaching bringing ice, cold and dark, I regret having to resign my position as of October 1, 1998. Sincerely, n -I - (\ "YJA _ _ . J ;~. ~~0V(.- t'\ 0- I If WfV"I Patricia J. Murphy City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /rn TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Amend Ordinance - Charitable Gambling DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the September 8, 1998 Council meeting, staff presented Council with an amended ordinance relative to charitable gambling regulations. The revised ordinance eliminated a number of local restrictions that were, in effect, either redundant or more restrictive than state law, and allowed for a nominal fee to be charged for background investigations as provided for under state law. In addition, in response to Council concerns relative to where gambling proceeds were being expended, the amended ordinance requires that 50 percent of net charitable gambling proceeds be spent within the designated trade area. The designated trade area includes all jurisdictions abutting the City's corporate boundaries. DISCUSSION As previously indicated, it was City staffs intent to meet with affected charitable gambling representatives to inform them of the proposed changes and to receive feedback on the revised ordinance. A meeting was held with representatives on September 21, 1998 in which the revised ordinance was explained in detail and minor changes were made to the ordinance in response to meeting discussions. It was staffs understanding at this meeting that the affected charitable gambling representatives were receptive to the proposed ordinance changes. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance as presented. ectfully Submitted, t/~ ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAFfER 19 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE CONCERNING REGULATION OF GAMBLING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 3, Chapter 19 of the Farmington City code is amended in its entirety to read: Section: 3-19- 1: 3-19- 2: 3-19- 3: 3-19- 4: 3-19- 5: 3-19- 6: 3-19- 7: 3-19- 8: 3-19- 9: 3-19-10: 3-19-11: 3-19-12: 3-19-1: Chapter 19 GAMBLING REGULATIONS Purpose Provisions of State Law Adopted Lawful Gambling Profits Investigation Fee City Permits Conduct of Gambling Compensation Records and Reporting Requirements Eligible Premises Distribution of Proceeds Penalties PURPOSE: The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate and control the conduct of gambling, to prevent its commercialization, to insure integrity of operations, and to provide for the use of net profits only for lawful purposes. 1 ISee Section 6-1-26 for Unlawful Gambling Provisions 64912.05 3-19-2: 3-19-3: 3-19-4: 3-19-5: 3-19-6: (A) (B) 3-19-7: 64912.05 PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW ADOPTED: The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and Laws of Minnesota, 1998, Chapter 322, relating to the definition of terms, licensing and restrictions of gambling are adopted and made a part of this Ordinance as if set out in full. LAWFUL GAMBLING: There shall be no gambling in the City except as authorized pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota ~~ 349.11 through 349.22, and in the rules adopted pursuant to the authority contained in the Statutes. PROFITS: Gross profits from lawful gambling may be expended only for lawful purposes or allowable expenses as provided under Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.15 and the definition of "lawful purposes" as defmed under Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.12. INVESTIGATION FEE: Upon being notified by the Board that an organization has applied for issuance or renewal of a license, the organization shall pay to the City an investigation fee in the amount of $50.00. Failure to promptly pay the required investigation fee shall be grounds for disapproval of a license. CITY PERMITS: No organization may conduct a gambling event which would otherwise be allowed pursuant to the exemptions set forth in Minnesota Statutes ~349.166, without first securing a permit from the City and paying a permit fee in an amount set from time to time by Council resolution. Lawful gambling may not be conducted at any premises without the owner of the premises first obtaining a permit from the City and paying a permit fee in an amount set from time to time by Council resolution. The Owner of the premises must comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.18 in renting or using the premises for lawful gambling. CONDUCT OF GAMBLING: (A) Gambling Manager. All lawful gambling conducted by a licensed organization must be under the supervision of a Gambling Manager. The Gambling Manager designated by an organization shall be responsible for gross receipts and profits and for its conduct in compliance with all laws 2 (B) (C) 3-19-8: 3-19-9: 3-19-10: 3-19-11: 3-19-12: 64912.05 and rules. The Gambling Manager shall be responsible for using profits for a lawful purpose. Bond. The licensed organization or Gambling Manager shall maintain a fidelity bond in favor of the organization and the State in an amount and form as required by state law, and a copy of said bond must be filed with the City Clerk. Qualifications of Gambling Manager. The Gambling Manager must possess a valid license by the Minnesota Gambling Board and must qualify as a Gambling Manager under Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.167. COMPENSATION: Compensation may be paid to persons in connection with the conduct of lawful gambling only as provided under Minnesota Statutes ~. 349. 168. RECORDS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: Each organization licensed to operate lawful gambling shall keep records and shall report as required by Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.18. In addition, each organization shall annually report to the City Clerk its lawful purpose expenditures in a manner and form acceptable to the City Clerk. ELIGIBLE PREMISES: An organization may conduct lawful gambling only on premises it owns or leases, except as authorized by Minnesota Statutes ~ 349.18. DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS: Each organization conducting lawful gambling within the City must expend at least fifty (50%) percent of its net profits derived from lawful gambling on lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area of the City, which shall include the corporate limits of the City or any municipality contiguous to the City. PENALTIES: (A) Criminal Penalty. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor. A person convicted of violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be subject to a fine of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700.00) or imprisonment for a term not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both, plus, in either case, the costs of prosecution. Additionally, a violation of this Chapter shall be reported to the Minnesota Charitable Gambling Board and a recommendation shall be 3 made for suspension, revocation or cancellation of an organization's license. (B) Suspension and Revocation. Any permit may be suspended or revoked for any violation of this Ordinance. A permit shall not be suspended or revoked until the procedural requirements of subsection (C) have been complied with, provided, that, in cases where probable cause exists as to an ordinance violation, the City may temporarily suspend upon service of notice of the hearing provided for in subsection (C). Such temporary suspension shall not extend for more than two (2) weeks. (C) Procedure. A permit shall not be revoked under subsection (B) until notice and an opportunity for a hearing have first been given to the permittee. The notice shall be personally served and shall state the ordinance provision reasonably believed to be violated. The notice shall also state that the permittee may demand a hearing on the matter, in which case the permit will not be suspended until after the hearing is held. If the permittee requests a hearing, one shall be held on the matter by the Council at least one week after the date on which the request is made. If, as a result of the hearing, the Council fmds that an ordinance violation exists, then the Council may suspend or terminate the permit. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage. ADOPTED this .____ day of the City of Farmington. , 1998, by the City Council of CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: John Erar, Citv Administrator 64912.05 4 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 WWW.d.farmington.mn.us ?S'~ TO: Mayor and Council Members City Administrator ~ FROM: Michael Schultz r;;, f} Associate Planner .vx. SUBJECT: Conditional Use/Grading Permit Application- Jon Malinski/ Arcon Development DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION Mr. Jon Malinski, owner of the property in question, and Arcon Development, the owner's representative, has applied for a conditional use/grading permit for grading work to begin within the 1 st Phase of the Autumn Glen development. DISCUSSION City Council approval is required for all conditional use permits involved with grading, excavation and mining. Jon Malinski and Arcon Development are seeking the permit to begin rough grading work within the 1 st Addition of the development. The amount of area to be graded would be approximately 44 acres. The property is located east of the Limerock Ridge and Akin Park Estates neighborhoods. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 22, 1998 for area residents to voice any concerns over the permit being considered. Most of the residents' questions were addressed during an earlier public hearing for the preliminary and final plat held the same night for the Autumn Glen development. Engineering staff has reviewed the grading plan for the development and have identified several issues, some of which have already been resolved, several others should be settled in upcoming meetings between the developer's engineers and City staff. The City Engineer, in a memo dated September 22, 1998, has recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit based on the following contingencies: 1. Approval for the permit is contingent on approval of the grading plan by the City Engineering Division. All grading review comments need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the engineering division before issuance of the grading permit and commencement of construction. Staff has performed the initial review of the grading plan and comments have been forwarded to the Developer. Issues have been identified that will require revisions to the grading plan. Further review of subsequent submittals may generate additional comments. Construction shall not commence until the grading plan is approved and signed by the City Engineer. 2. The Developer grades the site prior to approval of street and utility construction plans at the Developer's own risk. Issues may be identified during review of the street and utility construction plans which may require adjustments to the grading. The Developer will be responsible for any such changes that may be required. 3. The permit is not valid and grading cannot commence until the required surety is posted and the appropriate fees are paid by the Developer. 4. All of the information required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction Information Sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. Planning and Engineering staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit at the September 22, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. After the public hearing was closed a motion was made to approve the conditional use/grading permit with the contingencies outlined by City EngineerlPublic Works Director Mann. The Commission's vote was two in favor and two opposed to the motion resulting in a "no recommendation" from the Planning Commission. The main concerns of the two Commissioners opposed to the permit application was that the City was allowing grading work to commence before other engineering issues were resolved and before the preliminary and final plats have been approved along with the past lack of soil erosion controls on development sites. However, it should be pointed out that the developer is following a process that is currently allowed in the City Code. The City has granted conditional use permits under similar circumstances, and will be actively enforcing all required soil erosion control measures on the site. ACTION REOUESTED To approve the conditional use/grading permit for Jon Malinski/Arcon Development with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Engineering Divisions. Michael Schultz Associate Planner cc: Arcon Development CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Conditional Use Permit # Applicant Name: Jon Malinski! Arcon Development 1. PERMIT. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Farmington hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following: Conditional Use Permit for Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction (Chapter 3 Section 22 of City Code) 2. PROPERTY. The permit is for the following described property ("subject property") in the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota: The northeast quarter of Section 24, Township 114 N, Range 20 W. That portion of the first phase ofthe Autumn Glen Development of the land known as the Jon Malinski property. 3. CONDTIONS. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval for the permit is contingent on approval of the grading plan by the City Engineering Division. All grading review comments need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the engineering division before issuance of the grading permit and commencement of construction. Staff has performed the initial review of the grading plan and comments have been forwarded to the Developer. Issues have been identified that will require revisions to the grading plan. Further review of subsequent submittals may generate additional comments. Construction shall not commence until the grading plan is approved and sign by the City Engineer. 11. The Developer grades the site prior to approval of street and utility construction plans at the Developer's own risk. Issues may be identified during review of the street and utility construction plans which may require adjustments to the grading. The Developer will be responsible for any such changes that may be required. 111. The permit is not valid and grading cannot commence until the required surety is posted and the appropriate fees are paid by the Developer. IV. All of the information required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction Information Sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. 4. TERMINATION OF PERMIT. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for violation of the terms of this permit. 5. LAPSE. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the allowed use has not been completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse. 6. CRIMINAL PENALTY. Both the owner and any occupant of the subject property are responsible for compliance with this conditional use permit. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: ,19_ CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Gerald Ristow, Mayor (SEAL) AND: John F. Erar, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_ by Gerald Ristow, Mayor and by John F. Erar, City Administrator, of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority by the City Council. Notary Public Drafted by: Campbell Knutson Professional Association 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (612) 452-5000 2 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Plan nine: Division Review Applicant: Nature of Request: Referral Comments: Attachments: Location of Grading: Size of Grading Area: Area Bounded by: Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Current Land Use: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us Planning Commissioner Members Michael Schultz fY ( () Associate Planner tr Conditional Use Pennit- Grading & Excavation- Arcon Development September 22, 1998 Jon Malinski (wi Arcon Development) 8535 235th St. E. Lakeville, MN 55044 Allow early rough grading work of the proposed Autumn Glen Development I. Lee Mann, City Engineer/Public Works Director 1. Location Map 2. City Ordinance- Section 3-22: Excavation Grading and Mineral Extraction 3. Grading Infonnation Sheet 4. Grading Application East ofthe Akin Park Estates and Limerock Ridge neighborhoods (see attached map). Approximately 43.6 acres Residential to the west, farm field to the north and partially to the south, wetland and wooded City property to the east. R.I- Low Density Single Family Low Density- Residential Agriculture/Open Space i- t Additional Information Jon Malinski, in partnership with Arcon Development, are seeking a Conditional Use/Grading and Excavation Permit to begin early rough grading work on 43.6 acres within the first phase of the Autumn Glen Development. The property is located east of the Akin Park Estates and Limerock Ridge neighborhoods. The grading work would help establish at least two ponding areas and a rough grade of the road network for construction to begin sometime this spring. Time of grading operation would be Monday through Saturday, 7 A.M. to 6 P.M. and take approximately 4 to 5 weeks. The developer plans on erecting silt fence around the proposed grading area and crushed rock at the entrances. The last grading permit the City issued was in September of this year to Heritage Development for Nelsen Hills Farm 7th Addition and also in June to Genstar Land Company for grading work within the Charleswood. Though this process has not been typical in the past when platting new developments it has become somewhat of a common request in recent plats over the past 6 months. City staff feels that with properly established agreements and/or sureties, the City will be able to effectively protect the overall completion of the development. Action Requested Planning and Engineering staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve the grading permit and forward it to the City Council for their review based on the following conditions: 1. Approval for the permit is contingent on approval of the grading plan by the City Engineering Division. Issues have been identified that will require revisions to the grading plan. Further review of subsequent submittals may generate additional comments. Construction shall not commence until the grading plan is approved and sign by the City Engineer. 2. The Developer grades the site prior to approval of street and utility construction plans at the Developer's own risk. Issues may be identified during review of the street and utility construction plans which may require adjustments to the grading. The Developer will be responsible for any such changes that may be required. 3. The permit is not valid and grading cannot commence until the required surety is posted and the appropriate fees are paid by the Developer. 4. All of the information required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction Information Sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. Michael Schultz Associate Planner cc: Larry Frank, Arcon Development City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Lee Smick, h..u.ci,.o ~.:dinator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Autumn Glen - Grading Conditional Use Penn it review DATE: September 22, 1998 Engineering staff has reviewed the submitted grading plan for the first addition of Autumn Glen. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Pennit at the Planning Commission level with the following contingencies: 1. Approval for the pennit is contingent on approval of the grading plan by the City ,engineering division. AU grading review comments need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the engineering division before issuance of the grading permit and commencement of construction. Staff has perfonned the initial review of the grading plan and comments have been forwarded to the Developer. Issues have been identified that will require revisions to the grading plan. Further review of subsequent submittals may generate additional comments. Construction shall not commence until the grading plan is approved and signed by the City Engineer. 2. The Developer grades the site prior to approval of street and utility construction plans at the Developer's own risk. Issues may be identified during review of the street and utility ,construction plans which may require adjustments to the grading. The Developer will be responsible for any such changes that may be required. 3. The penn it is not valid and grading cannot commence until the required surety is posted and the appropriate fees are paid by the Developer. 4. All of the infonnation required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction Info Sheet shall be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. Respectfully Submitted, x~~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file David L. Olson, Community Development Director Autumn Glen Development Location Map ~7~ u ~~~.~iii5~~rf=~ ~ ~b- ~~ " rrr .~~ / ro )~~f~~" I~~~~~'" I ~< ~0- ~ r- ~i' "TT 11 tJID.>-'\ ~ ~ ,I ~ 1ff;'[j~[j;~ ~ T ~'O\. " '7 t:::J-. ~~Y-C> I- .>..L' '( >(0: -E 'J-:, 'if k ~~/~~~,~ T ~~~/ ~ ,\ $~ --~ VI ~'C" 0 ~ ""~\ v -;- Y ~ I, V ~ A I r \ f'-...U I '7'>.... ~~JJ-IW / ~ j- F-.J'U: I$.,.~ a.-l ." 1-1 ~ H :.::t1 ~ I~ 9 ~............ I-- J :x. l\-1y ~:/ :i':ffA. ~ ~ ~ p ~ kJt 1-11:.: l\ Y l"fi -I -., \"J-.1 I-- If I .JJ. I~ :(~(\ ,'Y ~ I ~1t1I ~ ~.~~ 'f 1\\' ~G 1; ~ ~ ~H [ill ~ /~~ o~ '\ Subject Pro e / =_1 w\ \ JJ o \~ J 81 ~ "Ii r-c\ \T' I "hm~\~ N W.E S City of Farmington Variance/Conditional Use Permit 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 612-~63-;1l1 FAX 612-463-2591 APPLICATION FOR: (please check) for office use NUMBER ZONING DISTRICT IZ.-j. PHONE~/- 2741 J11^" 'Ss.,4 Stale Zip Code Applicant's Signature Date - VQ. C ...._ GROjJNDS: b a. d PAl..h';'. ~ ArT CHED: (please check) EtProof of Ownership (!'Application Fee [}At5stract Torrens (Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title Required) Applicant's Signanu-_ ~ _ - ~ Date 6~ ..z- ~Boundary Survey ~opies of Site Plan for office use only REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COM.:~lISSION ON ACTION: OPublic Hearing set for: o Denied Reason: )NING ADMINISTRATOR: DATE: I % j I I ; ,I I ,~ I . FINAL ACTION: 0 Apprond o Denied Comments: Reason: signarure CITY OF FARMINGTON EXCAVATION, GRADING AND MINERAL EXTRACTION APPLICATION Date~ . z t/ ~ 8 Type 4?fl,~1 ~ 4 Name of Applicant /lye- c:>h a ve I", ""~~ .z,.Jc. Address 7hz-:J ~~ Alvd. I/S.J"tJ ecJ,~", I?w. ,,".JY~9 .I ~tw.",~ ~/cr- . ~/~. P'/A-~ .. C<<.s,L ~I- 1'IA.,n /L.l.E~ f- ~~".~ No. Phone ~~.r- ""'8 I Location of Opt' ration ~. ...~ ~ N!l1l1e and Address of Land Owner Jtv\ M.ot.l,;, t;h.,' I . ......, .IZ clr tJ1S3S' '2..S QtiJ 51< e. . '-<<.~VI' /k . . ,'-- .... . ".,,., . 5'CO ~.tf Dimensions of area in which work will take place . S~C- ?~d'7 d~ y .,M. t1t... Maximum depth of excavation N.t4 . Mp,ximumheightoffiU Change in site ~Ievations if~tim~"q~;=lty to'~ed; In . Date operatiQnwill start ":'/AJk..t WYo1l1t*l Date operation will end. Y ds Out Yds ,...... Nomra1"1fays'-of~peration . At.~ .. .~ .... ,,%1- D~ appliCant plan to: Hours'" ? ..";..",,....---._.6..~ Jt1, 1. Fence the openl<<on? ;./a 3. PO$twarnhlgsigas? N q 4. Arnlnge Cor proper dnlinage? .. ~~ s. 5. Arrange for noise suppressi()n? 'fEr 6. ObServe a buffer from boundary lines? ..' AI. If . 1. Repair streets damaged from operation? Y ~ s 8. Furnish beCore .nd aftertopos? 'I' rC~ 9. Furnish a bond to the City? Y'c:- J 10. Furnish a CertificateofInsurance? YC;..I Fee: Based on schedule of fees under Resolution R through : $ valid Crom f3 ... 2"/-P 8 Date . ~tf.~ Slgnatur of Applicant Application (approved, denied) by the City Council this 19_. day of Date City Clerk City of. Farmington 325 O. .ak Street .. '.. ,.. " . . . Farmington, MN 51&'24 (612)463..1600 Excavation, Grading and Minerai Extraction Info Sheet Permits for these types of activities are required in the City Code Section 3 Chapter 22. An application must be submitted to the City Engineer, for review. . A) An application for a mine Of excavation permit shall be processed in accordance witb the same procedures.and. requirements specified in the City Code relating to conditional use permits. However, the hearing shall be held by the City Council following a review and recommendation .. from tbcPl'PQitlgComnUssion. All applications dealing with land in flood plainssball $lsocomply with requi:rclnents. listed in Title 10, CbJptet 10, oftms code. (Ord. 096~375, 7-1-1996) B) An application for a mine or excavation permit shall contain: 1. The name and.address ofthe.operator andoWnet' of the 1aJ1d. 2. The correct leg4l1 description of the property where the activity is proposed to occur. 3. A certified abstract listiIlg the names of allland()Wtlers owning property within three hundred fIfty feet (350') of the bQUIidary ot'the property described above. 4. Specifications of.~ following, using. appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: .----a)-,-:..---Thc;physieal.relationsbipof ~'propoaed designatedsite-ttt-tlte1xmummity'and existin$.developnlCnt; .. . . b) Site topography and natural. features including location of watercourses and walte.r .........1.:.08. UU\II. . c) The description and quantity of material to be excavated; d) Th,e depth of water tables throughout the area. 5; Thepurpo_ of the operation. 6. The estin1ated time required to complete the operation. 7. The plan of operation,including processing, nature of the processing and equipment, location of .~. plan. source of water, disposal of water and r;euse of water. 8. Desired haul routes to and from the site. 9. The pl~ for drainage, water erosion control, sedimentation and dust control. 10. A rehabilibltion plan provided for the orderly and continuing rehabilitation of all disturbed land. Such plan shall illustrate, using photograph maps and surveys where appropriate, the following: . a) The contour of land prior to excavation, if available, after completion of excavation and after completion of rehabilitation; b) Those areas of the site to be used for storage of topsoil and overburden; c) A schedule setting forth the timetable for excavation of land lying within the extraction facility; ,., d) A timetable for the rehabilitation of land lying within the excavation facility shall be submitted to the City well in advance of the completion of excavation activities; 7131/97 d:\llarson\policics\forminfo.doc E e) The slope of all slopes after rehabilitation, based upon proposed land uses, and Qe~ription of the type and quantity of plantings where revesetation is to be ~ndUQted; and t) The. criteria and standards to be used to achieve final rehabilitation as well as intermittent stabilization. 11. A statement identifying the applicant's prosram to insure compliance with the permit " conditions, method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may. arlseua result of complaints. d: \llarson\policies\fonninfo.doc \. ) (i 7/31/97 '\ E City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOa- TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Lee Smick, AICP ^ 0 Planning Coordinator r SUBJECT: East Farmington PUD Amendment DATE: September 21, 1998 ((O.rr~ /WW: 'o/~/'11) fl- INTRODUCTION Sienna Corporation is seeking an amendment to the PUD for East Farmington to add two new block configurations to the original Schematic PUD. DISCUSSION The Developer is in the final phases of the single-family development with the proposed East Farmington 5thand 6th Additions. The Developer proposes to revise the typical block configuration to add one lot in Block F and two lots in Block E within the East Farmington 5th and 6th Additions and retain the 0.14 park area as shown in the 2nd Addition. Lots fronting Spruce Street and Twelfth Street In response to the Developer's request, staff has required that the Developer propose five lots to a block along Twelfth Street to comply with the original Schematic PUD. In discussions during the approval process of the original Schematic PUD, it was determined that Spruce Street and Twelfth Street would be designed with five lots on each block to present uniformity along the major boulevards leading into and through the development. Proposed Block E will meet these requirements by ensuring that only Side A front on Twelfth Street. Proposed Block F will also meet these requirements by ensuring the side of the block with five lots front along Twelfth Street. This will require the block located at the southeast comer of Twelfth and Walnut to be inverted from the detail shown. Lots fronting Walnut Street In response to the Developer's request, staff proposes that the Developer show four lots fronting Walnut Street for the blocks located on the south side of Walnut Street at the intersection of Twelfth and Walnut. Since the homes fronting Walnut Street in the 3rd Addition are mostly occupied, staff determined that those homeowners were under the assumption that the same number of lots would be located across Walnut Street to the south. Therefore, the Developer is required to show Side A fronting on Walnut Street in Block F. The two blocks affected by this requirement are the blocks south of Walnut Street at the intersection of Twelfth and Walnut. As previously discussed, the block at the southeast intersection of Twelfth and Walnut shall be inverted to meet the four-lot requirement fronting Walnut Street and the five-lot requirement fronting Twelfth Street. R-2 PUD Medium Density - Single-Family Residential Requirements In 1995, the Development Contract for the East Farmington PUD was signed by the Developer and the City. In the contract, it specified that the rezoning of East Farmington to R-2 Medium Density - Single-Family Residential was pursuant to the City's PUD Ordinance. Requirements for the R-2 zone include the following: Minimum Lot Size Area Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Maximum Lot Coverage Gross Dwelling Units per Acre 6,000 square feet 60 feet 20 feet 6 feet 6 feet 25% 7.0 (PUD) Developer's Meeting with Residents The Developer met with the residents of East Farmington on September 3, 1998 to discuss issues with the homeowner's association and the proposed PUD amendment to revise the blocks. The residents occupying homes along Eleventh Street expressed their displeasure at not having direct access to the park area behind their homes as was discussed with the homeowners at the time of purchasing their homes. Therefore, the Developer made modifications to the proposed blocks E and F to allow for a 20-foot access to the park, thereby expanding the park in both blocks and meeting the requests of the residents. The Developer presented the block modifications at the September 8th Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Decision The Planning Commission reviewed the PUD amendment on September 8, 1998 and recommended denial of the amendment on the basis of the following items: 1. The original Schematic PUD illustrated 15 to 16 lots per block on the plan rather than the increased number proposed for the PUD amendment. When the approval of the Schematic PUD was finalized, the Developer and the City made a commitment to the community to develop the plan as observed in the original Schematic PUD with the original number of lots and therefore, the Developer should uphold the original agreement. 2. The economic value to be gained by the Developer in increasing the number of lots in the final phases is not a part of the original commitment made by the Developer and the City to the community. 3. The City Attorney has indicated that the Development Contract language affecting the PUD allows the City to deny the Developer's request regardless of whether the technical changes fall within the City's zoning requirements. In essence, the City is free to decide the merits of this request based on subjective criteria by the policy makers. Staff Review and Conclusion The City Code states in Section 10-7-1 that a Planned Unit Development will encourage: (A) Flexibility in residential land development to benefit from new technology in building design and construction and land development. (B) Variety in the organization of site elements, building densities and housing types. (C) Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and experienced land planners, registered architects and landscape architects to prepare plans for all planned unit developments. (D) Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open space. (E) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities. In reviewing the above statements of the Code, it is apparent that the East Farmington PUD amendment is meeting all of the intentions of the PUD Ordinance. In reviewing the revised typical block configurations, Staff has determined that Block E and F have met all the technical requirements of the City's PUD Ordinance. The minimum lot size for all lots proposed in the blocks is 6,000 square feet and the lot widths meet the required minimum lot width of 60 feet. The Development Contract requires that the density of each phase of the project be in accordance with the PUD Ordinance and the Schematic PUD Plan. The 5th Addition proposes 161 lots on 29.47 acres generating a density of 5.4 units/acre, well below the 7.0 units/acre allowed in an R-2 PUD zoning district. Therefore, the proposed PUD amendment meets all of the current requirements of the City's R-2 PUD Ordinance. However, in this particular development, the City and Sienna Corporation entered into a Development Contract that included the original PUD Schematic Plan. This contract specifies that any amendments to this contract have to be by "mutual consent" of both parties. As a result of this contract, it is the opinion of the City Attorney that the City Council would be justified in its actions to either approve or deny this proposed amendment. ACTION REQUESTED Council may consider two actions relative to the Developer's request. 1) Adopt a resolution approving the East Farmington PUD to allow Block E and F as new block configurations in the Schematic PUD and authorize the signing of the resolution. 2) Adopt a resolution affirming the Planning Commission's decision of denial in the request by Sienna Corporation to add two new block configurations in the East Farmington PUD and prepare a findings of fact report supporting the City Council's decision at the next scheduled City Council meeting.. Res~~... ~t-o/lly subm...,....i.tted,.'.......,) ~...'.~~:'\.;:~ C)~ Lee Smick Planning Coordinator cc: Rod Hardy, Sienna Corporation Jim Sturm, James R. Hill RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE EAST FARMINGTON SCHEMATIC PUD Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fanning ton, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of October, 1998 at 7 :00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the 8th day of September, 1998 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners, and WHEREAS, staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment based on the compliance to the PUD ordinance requirements for the lot size and width, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the PUD Amendment based on the following fmdings off act: 1. The original Schematic PUD illustrated 15 to 16 lots per block on the plan then the increased number of 16 to 17 lots per block as proposed in the PUD amendment. When the approval of the Schematic PUD was fmalized, the Developer and the City made a commitment to the community to develop the plan as observed in the original Schematic PUD with the original number of lots and therefore, the Developer should uphold the original agreement. 2. The economic value to be gained by the Developer in increasing the number of lots in the fmal phases is not a part of the original commitment made by the Developer and the City to the community. 3. The Development Contract language affecting the PUD allows the parties to modify the Agreement only by mutual consent. The Developer has rejected other possible contemporaneous modifications to the Agreement and Schematic PUD suggested by the residents of the Development, neighbors and the City, and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the staff recommendations and considered all other evidence regarding this matter, it hereby makes the following fmdings of fact: 1. The proposed amendment conforms with the official controls of the City through the PUD Ordinance requirements of lot size and width. 2. The Development Contract authorizes amendments by the mutual consent of both parties. 3. The Development is consistent with the purposes and goals specified in the original PUD, and WHEREAS, the Developer has indicated a that they are willing at a later date to discuss other modifications to the Agreement and Schematic PUD suggested by the residents of the Development, neighbors and the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above PUD be amended with the following stipulations: 1. Side A on Block E is required to front along Twelfth Street as shown on the Revised PUD Exhibit B Schematic PUD Plan. 2. Side A on Block F is required to front along Walnut Street as shown on the Revised PUD Exhibit B Schematic PUD Plan. 3. Modified Blocks E and F be located as shown on the Revised PUD Exhibit B Schematic PUD Plan. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor Attested to the _ day of October, 1998. City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE EAST FARMINGTON SCHEMATIC PUD 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 5th day of October, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the 8th day of September, 1998 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners, and WHEREAS, staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment based on the compliance to the PUD ordinance requirements for the lot size and width, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the PUD Amendment based on the following fmdings of fact: I. The original Schematic PUD illustrated 15 to 16 lots per block on the plan than the increased number of 16 to 17 lots per block as proposed in the PUD amendment. When the approval of the Schematic PUD was fmalized, the Developer and the City made a commitment to the community to develop the plan as observed in the original Schematic PUD with the original number of lots and therefore, the Developer should uphold the original agreement. 2. The economic value to be gained by the Developer in increasing the number of lots in the fmal phases is not a part of the original commitment made by the Developer and the City to the community. 3. The Development Contract language affecting the PUD allows the parties to modify the Agreement only by mutual consent. The Developer has rejected other possible contemporaneous modifications to the Agreement and Schematic PUD suggested by the residents of the Development, neighbors and the City, and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the staff recommendations and considered all other evidence regarding this matter, it hereby makes the following findings offact: I. The proposed amendment conforms with the official controls of the City through the PUD Ordinance requirements of lot size and width. 2. The Development Contract authorizes amendments by the mutual consent of both parties. 3. The Development is consistent with the purposes and goals specified in the original PUD, and WHEREAS, the Developer has a willingness to discuss other possible contemporaneous modifications to the Agreement and Schematic PUD suggested by the residents of the Development, neighbors and the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above PUD be amended with the following stipulations: I. Side A on Block E is required to front along Twelfth Street as shown on the Revised PUD Exhibit B Schematic PUD Plan. 2. Side A on Block F is required to front along Walnut Street as shown on the Revised PUD Exhibit B Schematic PUD Plan. 3. Modified Blocks E and F be located as shown on the Revised PUD Exhibit B Schematic PUD Plan. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor Attested to the _ day of October, 1998. City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE EAST FARMINGTON SCHEMATIC PUD 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 5th day of October, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member _ introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the 8th day of September, 1998 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 Planning Commission recommended denial of the PUD Amendment based on the following fmdings of fact: 1. The original, approved Schematic PUD illustrated 15 to 16 lots per block on the plan rather than the increased number of 16 to 17 lots per block as proposed in the PUD amendment. When the approval of the Schematic PUD was fmalized, the Developer and the City made a commitment to the community to develop the plan as observed in the original Schematic PUD with the original number of lots and entered into a Development Agreement. The Developer should uphold the original agreement. 2. The economic value to be gained by the Developer in increasing the number of lots in the fmal phases is not a part of the original commitment made by the Developer and the City to the community. 3. The Development Contract language affecting the PUD allows the parties to modify the Agreement only by mutual consent. The Developer has rejected other possible contemporaneous modifications to the Agreement and Schematic PUD suggested by the residents of the Development, neighbors, and the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the request for amending the above referenced PUD be denied. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of October, 1998. Mayor Attested to the _ day of October, 1998. City Administrator OjQ'.U"II'I,QO\llIS '~I,O_I.41...,"n ...."""1 "'''''I',.,Jd p;u..1.,boU ~I"" 0 "'" 1~.~41^~dD""P"::~~'~: ^q~...._._l-'Odo, "'':'IO:~:~..'':O''l'fl "r,;~ NIl 'Jlw'.~I~ _:lIur.'WIIJ_ow" IWId and ::>LLYmIH:>S B J.IBIHX:!I and G:!lSIA:!IH ..Z9"'''J....~'''/~ .3~~f;~=~ ~/ ~ l~ :~~g :~ '" o i:~ ~ :l]~~ ~ ~ u.. .:c OJ w ~ I- z<ll u.. OJ <(~ .:c ..JO I 0...0 W X ..J W OCD <Il ::J..J ~ 0 0...<( 0 :::> 000 O-Z..J 0.... -o...<(CD 1->- 0 <(I- 0 W ~u.. !::! (f) IO !:: > 0 0 <IlZ 0 W 0 :2 0::: i= '--' 0 0 <( '--' IIGIIIIJlIYGIDL1~"&iIII YRNms ~ ~~ ~" .~ ~ " ~ 'oj ~al ~~~ ~ ill i" g~~~ ... 0 ...~ ~~~~ l!l ~ l!l~ i~~~ il' il' s ~ '" ~; iii . -'~ :;; '" ! e~ 01 00 III 0 ~ c' ,C ~~') , ''':') '0 [0<" -, ~O"! -I I i~ ~ ~~ f~ ~ ~~ ~ 25 - ~ <L () <L <[ 11'0" ~o",,] ,. ~~ ;~; " ~ IfiIIP~;'.' ~ L:~o 2) ~~ " o ,- " o < ~~ ~~ ~~ n I I I I I I I " I I I I ~ u ~~ t~ < ~~ ~8 ~~ n .tM1.~~ ~~. n"~~~~,".""'~.,,' ~ z . d ~ z .. ..:.. 133WS. >l'lO. ., "(2 L'~ o ,- " o / ! i : l . j I 'I I I { ;:I~.; i , "~~ N 0 \~~-} '0 l!; E ili . ! ~ '~<.' . < :lg g ~- i ~ ' .0 i . J1 :~i\ ~;~ a12;i i>. ~~~~ 8661 81 :8111 91 das pall HX3vI99\Vl99\SlJ3rm:ld\OVJOlnV\, LlLWJ lliW DETAIL PROPOSED MODIFIED BLOCK E SIDE A 80 65 70 65 80 0 0 0 0 <Xl '" ;! 0 '" '" 80 80 0 0 (1 b <D <D 120 120 100 100 l1 0 0 0 ~~ <D <D <D ~ 0 100 ~ 100 ~Q\? 0 0 0 0 <D '" '" '" 160 60 60 60 60 60 60 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 ;! ;! ;! ;! ;! ;! 60 60 60 60 60 60 DETAIL PROPOSED MODIFIED BLOCK F 80 65 70 65 80 0 0 0 0 '" '" ;! 0 <Xl '" 80 80 0 ~~. 0 '" 0> 100 J~IDE A tb DEA 0 100 '" ~>> 0 0 100 0> Ol 0 0 '" '" 100 160 100 60 60 60 60 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ;! ~ ~ ~ ~ 60 60 60 60 60 60 TYPICAL E 17 LOTS oTE: WHEN BLOCK F IS JACENT TO WALNUT STREET )E A SHALL FRONT ON THAT REET, TYPICAL F 16 LOTS NOTE: WHEN BLOCK E IS ADJACENT TO TWELFTH STREET. ONL Y SIDE A SHALL FRONT ON THAT STREET DETAIL PROPOSED BLOCK E SIDE A 80 65 70 65 80 ~ 0 ~ ~ '" ~ 0 80 80 0 SO 25 70 25 f.P 0 '" g g <D 120 120 0 0 0 0 '" <D '" <D 120 120 0 0 0 0 '" '" <D '" 60 60 60 60 60 60 0 0 0 0 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 60 60 60 60 60 60 DETAIL PROPOSED BLOCK F 80 65 70 65 80 0 &l :ll &l 10 ~ 0 80 80 SO 25 70 25 <)0 0 0 0 '" 0> '" 0 '" 120 0 0 120 '" '" 0 0 120 0> 0> 0 0 '" <D 120 60 60 60 60 60 60 ~ 8 8 0 8 ~ 0 ~ ~ 60 60 60 60 60 60 DETAILS: SCALE IN FEET o 100 200 ~r:~::j~ - - --- 1 inch = 100 feet >.... ~"~~ ~:'i '8 ~'on _&;: 0 >,-;j' lj"2 ~E~2' o iii' 0... 00:; "'.~~p:gj '- IS ~ ::J'i-6.2~ "0.1:: ~", 0:: -"!!~"o.Eo :5.. E ilolt ~ 0:; o IJ.. Cl ~ru iJl ~ E-t ~...... r:.::IE9 rn~ ~J%:l ~~ ::> 0-4 ORA WI MDC DAl 1/07, REVIS 4 01 8 07 . 8 26 9 04 ' CAD 6514E PROJEc 65' FILE SHEET City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: East Farmington PUD Amendment DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Sienna Corporation is seeking an amendment to the PUD for East Farmington to add two new block configurations to the original Schematic PUD. DISCUSSION The Developer is in the final phase of the single-family development with the proposed East Farmington 5th Addition. The Developer proposes to revise the typical block configuration to add one lot in Block F and two lots in Block E within the East Farmington 5th Addition. Staff has required that the Developer propose five lots to a block along Twelfth Street to comply with the original Schematic PUD. In discussions during the approval process of the original Schematic PUD, it was determined that Spruce Street and Twelfth Street would be designed with five lots on each block to present uniformity along the major avenues leading into the development. Proposed Block E will meet these recommendations by requiring that only Side A front on Twelfth Street. Proposed Block F will also meet these recommendations by requiring the side of the block with five lots front along Twelfth Street. This will require the block located at the southeast comer of Twelfth and Walnut to be inverted from the detail shown. A second recommendation by staff proposes that the Developer show four lots along Walnut Street for the blocks located on the south side of Walnut Street at the intersection of Twelfth and Walnut. Since the homes along Walnut Street in the 3rd Addition are almost all occupied, staff determined that those homeowners were under the assumption , .' that the same number of lots would be located across Walnut Street to the south. Therefore, the Developer is required to show Side A fronting on Walnut Street in Block F. The two blocks affected by this requirement are the blocks south of Walnut Street at the intersection of Twelfth and Walnut. As previously discussed, the block at the southeast intersection of Twelfth and Walnut shall be inverted to meet the four-lot requirement along Walnut Street and the five-lot requirement along Twelfth Street. In 1995, the Development Contract for the East Farmington PUD was signed by the Developer and the City. In the contract, it specified that the rezoning of East Farmington to R-2 Medium Density - Single-Family Residential was pursuant to the City's PUD Ordinance. Requirements for the R-2 zone include the following: Minimum Lot Size Area Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Setback Maximum Lot Coverage Gross Dwelling Units per Acre 6,000 square feet 60 feet 20 feet 6 feet 6 feet 25% 7.0 (PUD) In reviewing the revised typical block configurations, Staff has determined that Block E and F have met all the requirements of the City's PUD Ordinance. The minimum lot size for all lots proposed in the blocks is 6,000 square feet and the lot widths meet the required minimum lot width of 60 feet. The Development Contract requires that the density of each phase of the project be in accordance with the PUD Ordinance and the Schematic PUD Plan. The 5th Addition proposes 161 lots on 29.47 acres generating a density of 5.4 units/acre, well below the 7.0 units/acre allowed in an R-2 PUD zoning district. Since the proposed amendment of the block configurations meets the requirements of the City's PUD Ordinance, staff recommends the approval of Block E and F as typical blocks. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend approval of the amendment to the East Farmington PUD to allow Block E and F as new block configurations in the Schematic PUD and forward the recommendation to the City Council. cc: Rod Hardy, Sienna Corporation Jim Sturm, James R. Hill City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us J06 TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Train Whistle Blowing Ordinance - Communications DATE: October 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION As mentioned at the September 21, 1998 Council meeting, my office was verbally informed by representatives of Union Pacific Railroad Company of their intent to ignore the City ordinance recently adopted by the City Council. DISCUSSION The City has received written notification from Union Pacific Railroad confirming the company's intention to disregard the City ordinance citing the Swift Rail Act and Federal Railroad Administration Emergency Order 15 as the legal basis for their position. ACTION REQUESTED For Council information. Council may desire to have the City Attorney review Union Pacific's legal position in relation to the City ordinance. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ SEP 30 '98 09:13 FR UP GOVT AFFAIRS 312 853 8420 TO 916514632591 P.02 MICHAEL W, PAYETTE ASSISTANT VICE PRFSIOENT GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS-CENTRAL REGION UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY . 101 N, w~KER DRive SUITE 1910 CHICAGO. IlLINOIS 6060D 312-1l5a.8400 FAX 312.853-8-120 September 111 1998 Mr. John Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55021 Dear Mr. Erar; This is in response to your September 9, 1998 letter to me attaching Ordinance No. 098-416, which prohibits the sounding of locomotive whistles between 11;00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., except as a warning of imminent and immediate danger to life or property. As we discussed when we met with the Mayor on January 7, 1998, whistles are an essential safety tool, along with visual warnings consisting of lights, signs and gates. We also discussed the Florida East Coast situation where the accident rate increased 195% after nighttime whistle bans were observed. FRA Emergency Order No. 15 voided the Florida nighttime whistle bans. In view of the train whistle language in the Swift Rail Act, Union Pacific is complying with FRA Emergency Order 15, unless the final FRA rules give us another direction. We have held the status quo since the passage of the Swift Rail Actl which means we do not recognize any new municipal whistle bans enacted after the passage of the swift Rail Act. When operating on UP-owned track in St. Paul, we are whistling despite the recently enacted St. Paul Whistle Ban Ordinance. Additionally, as we discussed, UP does not believe that municipalities have the authority to enact valid whistle bans in Minnesota. SEP 30 '98 09:13 FR UP GOVT AFFAIRS 312 853 8420 TO 916514632591 P.03 Mr. John Erar September 29, 1998 Page Two For the above reasons, Union Pacific does not intend to comply with the Ordinance. If any fines are assess.ed, we reluctantly will have to litigate whether the ordinance is valid. We regret that this could not be worked out more amicably, but UP cannot compromise safety. Very truly yours, cc: Patti Smith, FRA Carine Hoeft Ron Cuchna Ollie Cromwell Bruce Branigan w (MWP91198.002) SEP 30 '98 09:13 FR UP GOVT AFFAIRS 312 853 8420 TO 916514632591 P.04 TBAI~ltISTl~ 1 . Whistles are blown for safety reasons only. 2. FRA performed a study of Florida East Coast Railroad that complied with local nighttime (10 p.m. - 6 a.m.) whistle bans: A. Florida communities with a Whistle ban - the accident rate increased 195%. B. FRA stepped in - voided Florida whistle bans with Emergency Order No. 15. C. The next two years accident levels after the bans were voided fell to pre-whistle ban levels. D. There are statistics from other states that conform to the Florida study. Accidents increase at crossings with whistle bans. Accident rate declined between 38% - 59% after whistle bans were dropped in other states. 3. Whistles are an essential safety tool, along with the visual warnings consisting of lights, signs and gates. 4. Crews many times observe that drivers only look after the whistle is blown. They are indifferent to the other warning signs. 5. FRA regulations require that the whistle be at 96 decibels. UP does not have the option of having "quieterR whistles. Presently, testing the decibels of our current whistles. 6. The law requires the railroad to begin whistling 1/4 mile from the crossing. The required whistle pattern is two longs, a short and a long. 7 . Local whistle bans are riot enforceable under the Swift Rail Act and under Illinois case law, in Union Pacific's opinion. 8. UP monitors our train crews. In safety meetings, we instruct crews to only comply with the whistle law and not whistle longer than the law requires. IMWP\whistles.wil ) ** TOTAL PAGE.04 ** Banning Train Whistles ue to increased train traffic, many city officials have received complaints from annoyed citizens concerning train whistles. Citizens often want the city to ban the train whistles that are disturbing their peace and quiet. However, there are several factors to take into account before passing an ordinance banning train whistles. Federal legislation. In 1994, Con- gress enacted legislation (the Swift Act) addressing the train whistle problem. At first glance, the act appears to require train engineers to sound their whistles at all highway crossings. However, this is not completely true. The act does not specifically state that train whistles should be sounded at all railway crossings, but rather states the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations requiring that train whistles shall be sounded. It is also within the Secretary of Transportation's discretion to determine which railway crossings do not need whistle warnings. The Swift Act has not yet been implemented due to a 1996 amend- ment, which states that the act will not become effective until 365 days after the regulations are published. As of August 1, 1998, the secretary had not yet published such regulations. Once publishe~, the regulations required by the Swift Act will preempt any local ordinance that attempts to ban train whistles. Federally approved exceptions. The 1996 amendment also requires the Federal Railway Administration (FRA), a division of the Department of Transportation, to take into account "local safety initiatives" when working with communities to define alternatives to whistle blowing. Given this, the FRA offers communities five options for exemption to the Swift Act require- ments. The options include p~rma- nently closing the highway-rail SEPTEMBER 1998 By Jason J Kuboushek crossing; closing the highway-rail crossing during nighttime hours only; modifying the crossing to a four- quadrant gate system; modifying the crossing with gates and median barriers; or, modifying two crossings for one- way pairing of adjacent streets. (The specific requirements of each option are available from the League's Re- search Department.) Funding options. Along with the peace and quiet provided by a whistle ban, the city must also find a way to cover the expense of administering an exemption to the Swift Act. Since road closure may not be an option and gates may be too expensive for cities to purchase on their own (ranging from $100,000 to $150,000), federal and state governments have made funds available for crossing modifications and the elimination of crossing hazards. Federal funds are available through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Under the ISTEA, 10 percent of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding for safety construction activities is to be used for railroad-highway grade crossing safety. This 10 percent amounts to approximately $4 million per year in federal funds. The money may be used for the installation of train-activated warning devices, signs and pavement markings, crossing closures, the building of bridges, and other modifications. Cities may access these funds through the Minnesota Department of Transportation's annual Area Transportation Improvement Program. The Minnesota Department of Transportation also distributes funds for the installation and improvement of ~ade crossing warning devices through Its State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Funds are distributed throu~ a site prioritization system. Poten~ grade ~rossings are prioritized by preVIOUS aCCIdents at the crossing, MINNESOTA CITIES train exposure, and whether or not the crossing is signalized. Cities often wonder why railroad companies do not pay for the installa- tion of warning devices. Railroad companies are reluctant to pay for the installation of warning devices because they usually pay the maintenance costs for such devices. These maintenance costs can be much more expensive than the initial installation costs of the warning devices. Railroad compa- nies also believe they should not be required to pay for signals since they are allowing vehicles to pass over their property . City liability. Most city officials and city attorneys worry about the liability associated with passing an ordinance banning train whistles. Obviously, there is no way to ensure a city will not be named as a party to a lawsuit as a result of a train whistle ban. However, if a city follows properly adopted procedures and acts within the scope of its authority, the potential liability decreases. Discretionary immunity would likely protect a city from liability for decisions made through the balancing of safety and economic considerations. Also, the potential for accidents, and the liability associated with them. greatly decreases when cities incorporate one of the railway crossing options suggested by the FRA. Conclusion. If a city is considering a train whistle ban, it would be in the city's best interest to study the five proposed exceptions in the Swift Act. By adopting one of these exceptions, the city's whistle ban would remain intact and the city's susceptibility to lawsuits would decrease. For further information on train whistle bans, contact the League's Research Depart- ment or the Minnesota Department of Transportation. I" Jason J. Kuboushek is research assistant with the League of Minnesota Cities. 43