HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.22.02 Council Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
A Proud Past - A Promising Future
Committed to Providing High Quality,
Timely and Responsive Service to All
Of Our Customers
AGENDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 22, 2002
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVEAGENDA
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Openfor Audience Comments)
7. CONSENT AGENDA
a) Approve Council Minutes (1/7/02 Regular) (1112/02 Special)
b) Approve Appointments Boards and Commissions - Administration
c) Approve Quit Claim Deed Presbyterian Cemetery - Administration
d) Annual Report - Boards and Commissions - Administration
e) Capital Outlay - Public Works
f) Consider Resolution - Approve CDBG Application - Community
Development
g) Consider Resolution - Private Development Project Closeout - Engineering
h) School and Conference - Police
i) School and Conference - Fire Department
j) Approve Bills
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. AWARDOFCONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Customer Service Response Report - Administration
b) Consider Ordinance - Approve Rezoning Landscape Depot Property -
Community Development
c) Hometown Sign Appeal - Community Development
d) Building Permit Report - Community Development
e) Cable Commission Press Release - Administration
Action Taken
Approved
Approved
Approved
Information Received
Information Received
R02-02
R03-02
Information Received
I,,{ormation Received
Approved
Acknowledged
Ord 002-468
P. C. Denial Overturned
Information Received
Information Received
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Authorize Use of Eminent Domain - Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain Extension Project - Engineering
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Labor Negotiations
15. ADJOURN
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington,~55024
A Proud Past - A Promising Future
Committed to Providing High Quality,
Timely and Responsive Service to All
Of Our Customers
AGENDA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 22, 2002
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVEAGENDA
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENDATIONS
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments)
7. CONSENT AGENDA
a) Approve Council Minutes (1/7/02 Regular) (1/12/02 Special)
b) Approve Appointments Boards and Commissions - Administration
c) Approve Quit Claim Deed Presbyterian Cemetery - Administration
d) Annual Report - Boards and Commissio~s - Administration
e) Capital Outlay - Public Works
f) Consider Resolution - Approve CDBG Application - Community
Development
g) Consider Resolution - Private Development Project Closeout - Engineering
h) School and Conference - Police
i) School and Conference - Fire Department
j) Approve Bills
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTSAND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Customer Service Response Report - Administration
b) Consider Ordinance - Approve Rezoning Landscape Depot Property -
Community Development
c) Hometown Sign Appeal - Community Development
d) Building Permit Report - Community Development
e) Cable Commission Press Release - Administration
Action Taken
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Authorize Use of Eminent Domain - Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain Extension Project - Engineering
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
14. ADJOURN
:6-
COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR
January 7, 2002
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Also Present:
Audience:
Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch
None
Andrea Poehler, Acting City Attorney; Ed Shukle, City
Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll,
Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief;
Jim Bell, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, City Engineer;
Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager; Brenda
Wendlandt, Human Resources Manager; Cynthia Muller,
Executive Assistant
Brian and Karen Donnelly, Elayne Donnelly, Michelle Leonard,
Pat and Darlene Donnelly, Tom Poseley, Bob Donnelly, Anne
Raymond, Terry Donnelly
4. APPROPEAGENDA
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Introduce New Employee - Community Development
Kevin Carroll was introduced as the new Community Development Director,
effective December 21, 2001.
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
a) Approved Council Minutes (12/17/01 Regular)
b) Approved Non-Bargaining COLA - Administration
c) Received Information Capital Outlay - Fire Department
d) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation
e) Received Information Capital Outlay - Police
f) Approved Street Lighting Installation - Engineering
g) Approved Bills
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
9'1
Council Minutes (Regular)
January 7, 2002
Page 2
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTSAND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Annual Organizational Matters - Administration
State Law requires the City Council address annual organizational matters at the
first meeting of each year.
10a(I). MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan that Councilmember Verch be
designated as Acting Mayor from January 7, 2002 through December 31, 2002. APIF,
Motion Carried.
10a(2). MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch that the Farmington Independent be
designated as the official publication from January 7, 2002 through December 31,2002.
APIF, Motion Carried.
10a(3). MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch appointing the firm of Campbell
Knutson, Joel Jamnik as City Attorney from January 7, 2002 through December 31, 2002.
APIF, Motion Carried.
10a(4). MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch appointing the firm of Bonestroo,
Rosene and Anderlik as the City's Consulting Engineer for the year of 2002. APIF,
Motion Carried.
10a(S). MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg that the Anchor Bank of
Farmington, League of Minnesota Cities 4M Fund, Dain Rauscher, Juran and Moody,
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Wells Fargo Investments and Salomon Smith Barney be
designated as the Official Depositories from January 7, 2002 through December 31,
2002. APIF, Motion Carried.
10a(6). MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch that the City Council By-Laws be
approved as presented. APIF, Motion Carried.
10a(7). MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch that all sworn personnel in the
Farmington Police Department be designated as process servers for the calendar year
2002. APIF, Motion Carried. .
10a(8). MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg that the following bonds now on
file in the office of the City Clerk be approved:
United Fire and Casualty Public Employees Blanket Bond
January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002
$250,000.00
APIF, Motion Carried.
9.5
Council Minutes (Regular)
January 7, 2002
Page 3
10a(9). RESOLUTION NO. R llO-OI Establishing Fees and Charges for licenses and
permits for 2002 was adopted December 17, 2001.
10a(10). Appointments to Boards and Commissions - Candidates will be interviewed
January 12, 2002 and appointments will be made at the January 22, 2002 Council
meeting. It was decided to interview new applicants only. Incumbents will be
reappointed.
10a(ll). MOTION by Ristow, second by Cordes, to appoint Councilmember Strachan
as the primary and Councilmember Soderberg as the alternate representative to the ALF
Ambulance Board. APIF, Motion Carried.
10a(12). MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to appoint Councilmember Verch
as the City's representative to the CEEF Committee. APIF, Motion Carried.
10a(13). MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch acknowledging the designation of
Councilmember Soderberg, Staff member Kevin Carroll, and Planning Commission
Member Todd Larson, on the Joint Farmington/Empire Planning Board. APIF, Motion
Carried.
10a(14). MOTION by Verch, second by Strachan acknowledging the designation of
Councilmember Cordes, and Councilmember Soderberg, and Staff member Ed Shukle,
on the Multi-Jurisdictional Committee, Ash Street/Prairie Waterway Phase III APIF,
Motion Carried.
10a(15). MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg to appoint Councilmember Strachan
as Council's representative to the Chamber of Commerce and Councilmember Cordes as
an alternate. APIF, Motion Carried.
b) Communication from Charter Communications -Administration
Due to an increase in business costs, effective February 1, 2002 service for
Broadcast Basic will increase to $13.59/month. Expanded basic will increase to
$29.36/month.
c) Communication from Metropolitan Council- Administration
The Metropolitan Council is working on a Master Wastewater Service Plan.
Recommendations include expanding the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant
and to discontinue discharge of wastewater to the Vermillion River. A public
hearing is scheduled for January 29, 2002.
d) League of Minnesota Cities Leadership Conference - Administration
The League of Minnesota Cities Leadership Conference for Experienced Officials
will be held February 15-16,2002.
9~
Council Minutes (Regular)
January 7, 2002
Page 4
e)
97
Proposed Traffic Signal - 3rd Street and CSAH 50 (Elm Street) - Engineering
Dakota County has recommended the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of3rd Street and Elm Street. In the summer of 2003, the State will be
closing TH3 at the bridge immediately north of Hwy 66. A detour route will be
established on CSAH 50. This prompted a study of the area to review the
possible impacts. As a result of this study and on the current and predicted traffic
conditions at this intersection, Dakota County is recommending the installation of
a traffic signal on the corner of 3rd Street and CSAH 50. Several changes to the
geometry and layout of the intersection are needed as follows:
1. Widening is needed for the northwest and northeast corners of the
intersection to provide a greater turning radius that can better
accommodate trucks turning to and from the north approach of 3rd Street.
Centerline striping is needed along 3rd Street to define the lanes and allow
queuing for the signal in the proper locations.
A minimum of four parking stalls will need to be removed on the east side
of 3rd Street, south of CSAH 50 to allow for queuing of the right turn
movement at the proposed signal.
Parking on the east side of 3rd Street, north of CSAH 50 will need to be
restricted within 50' of the corner and will have to be changed from
diagonal to parallel parking in order to minimize conflicts between parked
traffic and traffic turning north onto 3rd Street.
2.
3.
4.
Funding for this project will be shared by Dakota County, MnDOT, and the City
of Farmington. Total costs for the proposed signal are estimated at $135,000.
The cost allocation per County policy is 50% County / 50% City after the
MnDOT contribution is deducted. Therefore, allocations would be MnDOT
$40,000, Dakota County $47,500, and the City $47,500. Construction will begin
in 2002.
Councilmember Strachan was concerned with the loss of 4 parking spaces
downtown. City Engineer Mann stated the County Traffic Engineer wanted to
allow for stacking distance for right turns. Also at an intersection with signals,
they need to clear the intersection to minimize distractions and for sight distances.
Councilmember Strachan stated this is a huge benefit for allowing time to enter
and exit City Center.
Councilmember Cordes was concerned about the parallel parking on the east side
of Third Street, north of Elm Street. City Engineer Mann stated there is a distance
of 50 - 75 feet the County suggested for parallel parking rather than diagonal
parking so cars would not be backing out into the intersection.
Councilmember Soderberg stated he would prefer to have the striping for the turn
lanes only and not have striping all the way to Oak Street.
Mayor Ristow asked if there would be left turn lanes available. City Engineer
Mann stated on Third Street there would be a combined through / left going north
Council Minutes (Regular)
January 7, 2002
Page 5
with a right turn lane. Southbound would be similar. On Elm Street there is a
dedicated left turn lane, so there would be a combined through / right turn on Elm
Street. City Engineer Mann will have to discuss with the Traffic Engineer
whether there would be left turn arrows on the signal.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes approving entering into an agreement
with Dakota County for the installation of a traffic signal with the associated
geometric alterations at the 3rd Street and CSAH 50 (Elm Street) intersection.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
t) Vermillion River - Memorandum of Understanding - Engineering
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services is in the process of implementing a
project that would accomplish the expansion of the Empire Wastewater Treatment
Plant. Based on the surrounding communities' current comprehensive plans, the
treatment plant will be at capacity sometime around 2005-2006. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency who has the authority to grant the permit to expand the
plant, has indicated that the issue of storm water runoff into the Vermillion River
needs to be addressed before a permit will be issued. The Cities that utilize the
Empire plant will need to have storm water ordinances and regulations in effect
that meet the criteria of the MPCA's model storm water ordinance, before the
MPCA will issue the permit for the plant expansion. The main component that is
absent from the City's ordinances is a shoreland ordinance. Met Council staff has
suggested that the cities involved enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
regarding Storm Water Management for the Vermillion River. The MOU would
indicate a commitment on the part of the cities involved to adopt and implement a
storm water management program that is consistent with the draft Vermillion
River Watershed Plan. Council agreed that a final draft of this type of
Memorandum of Understanding would be acceptable for future Council review
and potential approval. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes authorizing
staff to initiate the drafting of a shoreland ordinance. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
g) Vermillion River - Proposed Trout Stream Designation - Engineering
The DNR is proposing to extend the trout stream designation of the Vermillion
River from its current terminus in downtown Farmington, to Highway 52. The
changes in designation may have significant legal, regulatory and economic
impacts on the City's plans and systems, developers and residents within the
Vermillion River Watershed. Changes to surface Water Management Plans and
permit requirements should be clearly spelled out before the designation takes
effect so that the cities, developers, residents and others can comment. It is
strongly recommended the DNR work with local governments to identify the
legal, regulatory and economic impacts of the designation and assist in developing
solutions before the designation takes place. MOTION by Soderberg, second by
Strachan authorizing staff to draft a request to the Department of Natural
Resources that the decision to designate further reaches of the Vermillion River
7<:6
Council Minutes (Regular)
January 7, 2002
Page 6
be deferred until the implications of the designation are clearly identified and
solutions to related concerns are developed. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
h) Authorize Use of Eminent Domain - Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer
and Water Main Extension Project - Engineering
At the November 5, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council accepted the
feasibility report, ordered plans and specifications and authorized the
advertisement for bids for the Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water
Main Extension Project. The sewer and water main project will require that the
City acquire easements from two adjacent properties owned by the Donnelly's. In
order to insure that the easements can be acquired to commence construction of
this project in the time frame necessary to serve the new elementary school, it is
recommended that the Council authorize staff to initiate eminent domain
proceedings. It is staff's goal to negotiate the right-of-way acquisition with the
property owner, thus making the use of the City's power of eminent domain
unnecessary. However, if negotiations become protected and the City has not
initiated eminent domain proceedings, it will be too late to acquire the right-of-
way to allow the improvements to be constructed this year in time for the opening
of the new school.
Mayor Ristow asked if the school board is looking at the same property and are
there two negotiations going on? City Engineer Mann replied the proposed
improvements are to serve the new elementary school. As far as the properties
the City is looking to acquire to construct the utilities, the school district is not
looking to acquire those same properties. The bids are tentatively set to be taken
January 24, 2002. There would be some winter construction. A portion of the
project does not need easements, so it is possible construction could start in
February. Negotiations have been going on with the property owners for the last
1 1/2 months. A settlement has not been reached.
Councilmember Cordes stated she is not a big fan of eminent domain, but
understands it is necessary in some projects. She would like assurance the City
will continue to negotiate before they enact eminent domain.
Councilmember Strachan asked if the decision for eminent domain is made, can
staff provide the actual dollars that are being negotiated up to that point?
Attorney Poehler replied yes. Mayor Ristow stated eminent domain would only
be exercised if the project fails to start. City Engineer Mann replied the intent of
eminent domain is only to allow the project to start on time. Negotiations on the
easements will still continue and are open for settlement.
Mr. Bob Donnelly, 20080 Flagstaff Avenue, stated they found out about the
eminent domain coming before Council Friday afternoon. This was not enough
time to contact their attorney and discuss arguments for and against it.
Negotiations with the City started October 15,2001. Mr. Donnelly asked if there
is legal notification? Attorney Poehler stated there is a legal process and the City
q9
Council Minutes (Regular)
January 7, 2002
Page 7
is doing exactly that. This is a formality for the Council to authorize quick take
proceedings if it becomes necessary. There will be other opportunities to
challenge the quick take through the legal process and the Donnelly's would be
notified.
Mr. Donnelly then asked why are we discussing sewer and water for a project that
is 20% done? Isn't sewer and water done before construction starts? City
Engineer Mann stated it is typical during a project process that trunk facilities are
built during development or shortly before development occurs. Trunk facilities
have to be installed before Certificates of Occupancy are issued. It is difficult to
design sewer and water plans until the grading plans are finalized. Once the
grading plans were finalized, the City was able to finalize their plans. This is
consistent with policy and other developments.
Mr. Donnelly asked what happened to the original plans where the water would
come through Charleswood instead of the Donnelly property? City Engineer
Mann replied there was a point in the development of the school project where it
was discussed whether there needed to be street access between Charleswood and
the new school. At one time Charleswood would provide one lot to be used as
street right-of-way. When the school determined they would not be developing
the southerly area for some time, the school decided they did not need to retain an
access through Charleswood. When the access was being planned, it was
discussed having a water main loop through that area. Once the access went
away, that option was no longer looked at. The City then looked at making the
connection to the two trunk water mains, one to the south in Charleswood and one
in the southwesterly corner of the Troy Hills development, on the north end of the
school project.
Mr. Donnelly stated he remembers what went on with the water and sewer plans
differently. There were prolonged discussions with the school over the past year
and the Donnelly's told the school they did not want water and sewer access to
their land. That is why the Nordseth property would not work for them. Why did
the access change? Why not go with the original plan? Why weren't the
Donnelly's notified when the plans were changed so they could have been more
involved? City Engineer Mann stated he was aware there were discussions as to
whether there could be street access from the south, extending 200th Street
through the Donnelly's property. Regardless of whether or not there had been an
access for water through Charleswood, the City would still have to connect
northerly through the Donnelly property to the water main at the southwest corner
of the Troy Hills development. The easement is on the easterly portion of the
Donnelly property, westerly of Charleswood, just south of the school district
property.
Mayor Ristow asked how much land is involved? City Engineer Mann replied the
easement to the south is approximately 3,000 sq. ft. The amount to the north is
slightly more than 1/2 acre. Mr. Donnelly stated he thought the easement to the
1cx:J
Council Minutes (Regular)
January 7,2002
Page 8
north was 77,000 sq. ft. City Engineer Mann replied when staff first contacted
Mr. Donnelly, the 195th Street project and the utility project were looked at as one
as they are in the same area. As part of the 195th Street project the City is looking
at acquiring the right-of-way all along the north side of the 195th Street project to
the ultimate right-of-way width which is 60 feet. When the City talked with Mr.
Donnelly originally, they were talking about the entire roadway right-of-way
which would have included the water main easement. At this time, since the
roadway is a County Road, if there is any acquiring of right-of-way the County
will have to do that. The only right-of-way the City is looking at from the
standpoint of eminent domain is just the easement necessary to construct the
water main.
Mayor Ristow asked when the last discussions were held with Mr. Donnelly?
City Engineer Mann replied at the beginning of December he indicated to Mr.
Donnelly he would need a decision by December 31. City Engineer Mann stated
he did not feel there was any confusion as to what easements were needed.
Mr. Donnelly stated Mr. Ohl promised the school had the water. Why are we
discussing condemnation now instead of getting all the benefiting properties
involved to sit down and talk? The Donnelly's have asked the school several
times to talk with them and the school has refused. The Donnelly's want to work
this out with the school. Then if they cannot agree, bring it to the Council.
Mayor Ristow stated if it is a trunk facility provided by the City for public
hookup, for the school, the school would not have anything to negotiate. The
property is owned by the City. City Engineer Mann stated the school district
came to the Council and requested the improvements be installed. The Council
agreed to install the improvements within a timeframe that would allow the school
to open. The reason for this request is to ensure staff can provide these services.
Mr. Donnelly stated anyone who wants to develop north of them has always asked
if they could run water and sewer. If it weren't for the school, there would be no
trunk line there. This could be solved easily if Council would suggest a meeting
between the Donnelly's, the school, and the City and table this item until the next
Council Meeting. Mr. Donnelly then mentioned the land is in ag preserve.
According to the Met Council there are problems getting it out of ag preserve. He
received information from the Met Council stating construction projects for public
sanitary sewer systems and public water systems benefiting land and buildings in
ag preserve shall be prohibited. Attorney Poehler stated there are exemptions that
will allow for portions of less than 10 acres to be removed from ag preserve. Mr.
Donnelly stated he was aware of those provisions. In talking with the Met
Council he was told this has been tried before. Mr. Donnelly would like to meet
to settle the issue without eminent domain. If Council agrees to eminent domain
the school is free and clear. Mr. Donnelly wants protection for their farm.
Councilmember Soderberg asked if the design of the trunk facility the least
intrusive on the Donnelly property? City Engineer Mann stated it is the least
10/.
Council Minutes (Regular)
January 7, 2002
Page 9
intrusive they could make it. It is along the property line. There will be sanitary
sewer to the east of it. In the north it is in the area that in the future would be
County right-of-way and close to the southerly edge of the Donnelly property.
There are no manholes for water main and for the most part would not affect the
surface of the land. The project does affect the yield of the land and in the past
the City has compensated farmers on a prorated basis for crop loss.
Councilmember Soderberg asked if a delay in action would cause concern for
finishing the project on time? City Engineer Mann replied the project can be built
whether the easements are settled next week or if the City has to go through the
90 day process of quick take. If the project is prolonged, there are potential
additional costs to the project. If it takes too long, the project will not be done in
time to get the school open.
Councilmember Cordes asked if Council postponed the decision until January 22,
2002 would that work within the time frame? City Engineer Mann replied we
could handle two weeks. The deadline for the project is July 31, 2002. Mr.
Donnelly stated they would be happy with postponing the decision for two weeks
to meet with the school. If not able to reach an agreement, then proceed with
eminent domain. Councilmember Cordes stated Council cannot force the school
to meet with the Donnelly's. Mayor Ristow stated if there is no agreement,
Council will have to approve eminent domain. Staff will arrange a meeting
between the School, the Donnelly's, and the City. The decision was postponed to
January 22, 2002.
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Mayor Ristow welcomed Representative Ozment to the meeting. Representative Ozment
stated it was a pleasure to watch grass roots in action. He welcomed Community
Development Director Carroll to Farmington. Regarding the train whistles, Council has
worked hard to obtain some flexibility from the railroad. A new law was passed to allow
communities to establish quiet zones. They are close to establishing guidelines for this
new law. He will help in anyway he can to establish quiet zones and still maintain safety.
Mayor Ristow stated some engineers have shown some respect. Representative Ozment
stated some whistles are activated by computer, rather than by the engineer. The
legislative session will start January 29, 2002 and if there are any issues, the City or
Council should let him know. He will follow up with the trout stream designation.
Councilmember Strachan commented on the property tax changes. The legislature's goal
was to make City government finances more transparent with the removal of aid. The
City welcomed that and he likes the property tax formula change. The aid to local
government continued at a high rate for out-of-state cities, which can be perceived as
unfair. He asked that Representative Ozment continue to work on that.
/~
Council Minutes (Regular)
January 7, 2002
Page 10
14. ADJOURN
MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 8:44 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
~/r7~
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
/03
COUNCIL MINUTES
BOARDS AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
JANUARY 12,2002
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 8:15 a.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Verch.
3. INTERVIEWS
The City Council interviewed six new applicants for seats on various Boards and
Commissions. Incumbents were not interviewed. Recommendation for
appointment was made and will be ratified at the January 22, 2002 Council
meeting.
4. ADJOURN
Motion by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 10:44 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~#~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
/0'/
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/b
TO:
M C '1 b C' Adm" s: r.
ayor, OunCl mem ers, Ity lIDstrator
FROM:
Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT:
Appointments to Boards and Commissions
DATE:
January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION
The City Council, at a special meeting held January 12,2002, interviewed and proposed the
following appointments to Boards and Commissions:
Seat Applicable Term New Appointment
Heritage Preservation
1) 2/1/02-1/31/05 George Flynn
2) 2/1/02-1/31/05 Earl T eporten
Parks & Recreation
1) 2/1/02-1/31/04 Dawn Johnson
2) 2/1/02-1/31/04 Debra Ruth
3) 2/1/02-1/31/04 Randy Oswald
Planning Commission
1)
2)
3)
2/1/02-1/31/04
Ben Barker
2/1/02-1/31/04
Todd Larson
2/1/02-1/31/04
Bob Heman
105
Senior Center
1)
2)
2/1/02-1/31/05
Sarah Miller
2/1/02-1/31/05
Charles Weber
Water Board
1)
2/1/02-1/31/05
Tom Jensen
Upon approval of the City Council the applicants will be notified by letter and will receive an
Oath of Office and Certificate of Appointment.
ACTION REQUIRED
Approve the appointments to the various Boards and Commissions for the above stated terms.
Respectfully submitted,
~B~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
ICJc:'
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
76
TO:
M C '1 b C' Adm" <J"
ayor, OunCl mem ers, Ity lIDstrator
FROM:
Matt Brokl, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT:
First Presbyterian Church of Farmington - Cemetery Transfer
DATE:
January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
At a recent Council Meeting, the Council considered the acceptance of the "Presbyterian
Cemetery" from the First Presbyterian Church. The matter was tabled in order to allow the City
Attorney to investigate whether this cemetery was "abandoned" under State statutes such that the
County would rightly have jurisdiction and responsibility for the cemetery. My research reveals
that the cemetery is owned by the church and is therefore not "abandoned." The City is therefore
the proper entity to receive the cemetery.
With your approval I ordered a report disclosing the legal owner of the property. The report
disclosed the legal owner to be the First Presbyterian Church of Farmington.
ACTION REOUESTED
The Church has executed a Quit Claim Deed to the City that should be accepted by the City by
motion.
Respectfully submitted,
}?7=:-U b~
~
Matt Brokl
Assistant City Attorney
107
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
7e1
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator t!{. \
FROM:
Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT:
Annual Report - Boards and Commissions
DATE:
January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Section IX of Council By-laws calls for the submittal of a report stating the number of
meetings and the attendance records for various Board and Commission members.
DISCUSSION
The 2001 attendance record for all seats on City Boards and Commissions is as follows:
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Bev Marben - Present 2 out of 4 meetings (resigned 8/01)
Harbee Tharaldson - Present 4 out of 4 meetings
Cheryl Thelen - Present lout of 4 meetings (resigned 12/01)
Beverly Preece - Present 4 out of 4 meetings .
Glenn Leifheit - Present 0 out of 4 meetings (resigned 12/01)
Susan Strachan - Present 4 out of 4 meetings
George Flynn - Present 3 out of 4 meetings
Tim Rice - Present 2 out of 4 meetings (appointed 8/01)
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Kevan Soderberg - Present 7 out of 9 meetings
Yvonne Flaherty - Present 8 out of9 meetings
Sherry Lamb - Present 9 out of 9 meetings
Todd Arey - Present 9 out of 9 meetings
Nick Roberts - Present 9 out of 9 meetings
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
Paul Gerten - Present 9 out of 10 meetings
Dawn Johnson -.Present 9 out of 10 meetings
Randy Oswald - Present 9 out of 10 meetings
Brian Feldt - Present 8 out of 10 meetings (resigned 12/01)
Lew Wurdeman - Present 10 out of 10 meetings
10:6
PLANNING COMMISSION
Chaz Johnson - Present 14 out of 15 meetings
Dirk Rotty - Present 15 out of 15 meetings
Ben Barker - Present 14 out of 15 meetings
Todd Larson - Present 14 out of 15 meetings
Dan Privette - Present 10 out of 15 meetings (resigned 12/01)
WATER BOARD
Robert Shirley - Present 11 out of 12 meetings
Jeff Krueger - Present 11 out of 12 meetings
Tom Jensen - Present 12 out of 12 meetings
SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY COUNCIL
Amy Jensen - Present 6 out of 12 meetings
Chris Common - Present 8 out of 12 meetings
Frances Jones - Present 9 out of 12 meetings (resigned 12/01)
Oil Anderson - Present 8 out of 12 meetings
Grace Anderson - Present 10 out of 12 meetings (resigned 12/01)
Marilyn Weinhold - Present 5 out of 12 meetings (resigned 7/01)
Sarah Miller - Present 8 out of 12 meetings
Beverly Preece - Present 2 out of 12 meetings (appointed 9/01)
ACTION REOUESTED
This report requires no action, it is for information only.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
Cc: Board and Commission members
/CJ?
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:
Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT:
Public Works Capital Outlay
DATE:
January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The 2002 Budget provides for the acquisition of a 4WD pickup truck for the Public Works
Department.
DISCUSSION
The pickup truck has been acquired through the State bid process, which eliminates the requirement
to obtain several quotes. The cost of the pickup truck through the State bid from Grossman Chevrolet
is $25,307.56 including tax.
BUDGET IMPACT
The 2002 Budget allows $30,687.00 for the pickup truck. The actual cost is within the budgeted
amount.
ACTION REQUESTED
For information only.
Respectfully submitted,
~}V;~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
/10
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
IF
TO:
. ~(
Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator . -
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
2002 Community Development Block Grant Application
DATE:
January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The City has $54,126 in Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] funds available
for CDBG Program Year 2002 [July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003]. To secure the grant
money that is available, the City must prepare and submit an application that specifies
eligible activities or projects to which the City intends to apply the available funding.
The completed application must be submitted to the Dakota County Community
Development Agency [CDA] by January 31, 2002, or as soon thereafter as possible.
DISCUSSION
Background information regarding this matter can be found in the attached Memos from
the CDA dated October 26,2001 and December 5, 2001.
In order to obtain the available CDBG funds, the City must complete and submit an
application, as it has done in past years. The application must identify the project(s) for
which the CDBG funds will be used, and the specific project activities to which the funds
will be applied. CDBG funds can only be used for "eligible" projects or activities that
satisfy certain "National Objectives." Typically, such objectives include redeveloping
slums or blighted areas, creating or improving housing that benefits individuals who fall
within "low to moderate income" guidelines, or creating jobs that pay wages that fall
within certain ranges.
At the HRA meeting that was held on January 14th, the Board discussed a wide variety of
projects or activities that could potentially be included in the 2002 CDBG application. At
the conclusion of that discussion, the HRA members unanimously indicated a desire to
have the following projects/activities included in the application:
1.
"Downtown Imorovement Program": It is my understanding that
prior to his departure, Dave Olson had initiated discussions with the HRA
..
1/1
and with a local lender regarding the possibility of creating some type of
low-interest loan fund that could be used by local businesses to finance
certain types of improvements. The HRA members indicated that they
would like to further explore this possibility, in the belief that the
existence of such a fund might provide commercial property owners with
an additional incentive to improve the aesthetics and/or functionality of
their establishments. Any such improvements might improve the
appearance of the business district and (by increasing the value of the
improved properties) enhance the City's tax base.
My contacts at the CDA indicate that CDBG funds have been used for this
type of loan program in other Dakota County communities. Care must be
exercised in structuring the program in order to ensure that the CDBG
money invested in the program is used for eligible activities (as defined by
HUD and/or by the CDA). The most clearly eligible improvements would
include any that remedied existing Code violations and/or that addressed
safety issues. The potential eligibility of purely cosmetic changes would
have to be discussed with the CDA in more detail.
CDBG funds could be used in such a loan program in a variety of ways.
For example, CDBG money could be used to "buy down" the interest rate
on loans provided through a commercial lender, or it could be used as
"seed money" for the creation of a revolving loan fund administered by the
City. The final format of the program has yet to be decided, but
"earmarking" CDBG money for the program should expedite the
finalization of any unresolved administrative details.
2. Commercial Develooment/Redevelooment Plan: I have attached, for
reference, the first few pages of a 1990 document entitled "Farmington
MN Redevelopment Plan." To the best of my knowledge, this document
has never been "formally" reviewed or updated since it was adopted by the
City Council in 1990 or 1991. Many things in Farmington have changed
(physically and otherwise) during the last decade. During that period there
have also been numerous changes with respect to county, state and federal
guidelines/laws related to municipal development, redevelopment,
rehabilitation, tax increment fmancing, tax rates and tax capacity
calculations, and other relevant subject areas. At their meeting on January
14th, the HRA members agreed that the 1990 Redevelopment Plan should
be reviewed and updated.
Although City staff members could do some of the work that would be
needed to update the Redevelopment Plan, the City would probably need
to retain a consultant to handle other aspects of the project. The City and
Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. have successfully used this type of ''work-
sharing" arrangement in connection with the Zoning and Subdivision Code
lit??
Update. The City could continue that relationship by retaining the same
firm to handle the Redevelopment Plan Update. The City also could
promulgate a Request for Proposals and see what types of responses are
received from other local planning firms. Given the fact that the CDBG
funds will not become available until after July 1, 2002, the City has
plenty of time to explore its options and negotiate a contractual
arrangement with a planning consultant. At this point, I'm seeking
nothing more than the City Council's consent to allocate a specific amount
(see below) of CDBG funding to this endeavor, with the understanding
that the HRA and the Council will have opportunities to review and
approve the scope, cost and handling of the project at a later time.
3. "Middle Creek Historic Cemeterv": I have attached a copy of the latest
issue of the Farmington Historic Preservation Reporter, which provides
background information regarding the rural cemetery that is located
adjacent to the proposed Middle Creek Estates subdivision. The City and
the developer have agreed to share the cost of establishing the boundaries
of the cemetery and erecting a fence around it, given its actual or potential
historic significance. The HRA members have indicated a desire to devote
some CDBG funds to the City's share of the fencing cost(s). "Non-
residential historic preservation" projects are potentially eligible activities
under Dakota County CDA and HUD guidelines.
The HRA members indicated that City staff should make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding how the available 2002 CDBG funds in the total amount of $54,126
should be divided up and allocated to the three projects described above. My preliminary
recommendation in that regard is as follows:
Downtown Improvement Project:
Redevelopment Plan Update:
Middle Creek Estates Cemetery:
$35,000.00
15,000.00
4.126.00
Total: 554,126.00
I have attached a proposed Resolution that has been prepared in the format required by
the Dakota County CDA. The application form itself will be finalized and attached to the
Resolution as soon as the Council has indicated its acceptance (or decided upon a
modification) of the recommendations outlined above.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
1/3
ACTION REOUESTED
Motion to approve/adopt the attached Resolution approving the City's application for
fiscal ye 2002 Community Development Block Grant funding.
cc: Ed Shukle, City Administrator
//'-1-
RESOLUTION NO. R -02
APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING
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 22nd day of
January 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Farmington as follows:
1. The City Administrator is authorized to submit the attached application to Dakota County
for a Community Development Block Grant in Fiscal Year 2002.
2. The application is approved by the City Council, and the Mayor and City Administrator
are authorized to execute it on behalf of the City of Farmington.
3. That the Dakota County CDA be designated as the administrative entity to carry out the
program on behalf of the City.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
22nd day of January 2002.
Mayor
Attested to the _ day of
,2002.
City Administrator
SEAL
//5
CDlL\. Dakota County
. Community Development Agency
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MEMORANDUM
~"""~
r
~l~~
DATE:
October 26, 2001
RE:
Dave Olson
City of Farmington
I~
Lee Smith~:,l-f~
,;/~
2002 Dakota County CDBG Program Application
TO:
FROM:
cc:
Enclosed are application materials for the Dakota County Community
Development Block Grant Program for Program Year 2002. The Program Year for
these funds begins July 1,2002.
The application form can be provided to you in as a WORD document
electronically. To request an electronic transmission of the form, please contact me.
We will also be making it available on-line at our web site, www.dakotacda.org.
The funding amount for 2002 is not known. We suggest that you use the 2001
amouI:1t, which was $56,927 for Farmington, in preparing the application.
Call me at (651) 423-8113 if there are questions or comments.
2496 145th Street West · Rosemount, MN 55068
tel 651-423-4800 fax 651-423-1273 TOO 651-423-8182
/Ic,
CD~ Dakota County
Community Development Agency
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
MEMORANDUM
~~~j~J,...tj
f..-(
,A/
~
DATE:
December 5, 2001
RE:
Ed Shukle
City of Farmington
Lee Smith~'
FY 2002 CDBG Program
TO:
FROM:
cc:
Dan Rogness
We have been informed that the FY 2002 Community Development Block
Grant Program funding for Dakota County will be $2,058,000. The allocated amount
for District 4 will be $304,080, and Farmington's share of this will be $54,126.
Decreased funding nationally, more set-asides ofCDBG funding prior to allocation to
grantees, and increased costs of administering the program have combined to bring
about nearly a 5% reduction from the 2001 allocation amount.
At this time we also want to advise you of a new policy recently announced by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development relating to the requirement to
expend CDBG funds in a timely manner. As you may recall, CDBG grantees are
allowed to carryover no more than 1.5 times the prior year's grant amount from one
Program Year to the next. In the past HUD has not penalized grantees failing to meet
this standard only by requiring that they develop a plan and enter into an agreement as
to how to improve their spend-down rate. Effective in 2002, HUD will actually reduce
the next grant amount for any grantee failing to meet the timely spending requirement
when it is tested 60 days prior to the end of the grant year. For example, if Dakota
County failed to have expended enough CDBG funds so that the balance of unexpended
CDBG funds allocated to the County was less than the required level at the end of
April, 2002, HUD would reduce the 2002 County funding by 21 %.
We do not believe that Dakota County's program is in danger of being penalized
for the 2002 Program Year. However, the imposition of this immediate financial
consequence for failing to expend funds in a timely manner does pose a threat for future
funding, unless all Dakota County CDBG Program users make a diligent effort to select
projects that will be able to proceed in a timely manner, and promptly request funds
when expenses are incurred.
Please call me at (651) 423-8113 if there are questions or comments.
.
2496 145th Street West · Rosemount, MN 55068
teI651-423-4800 fax 651-423-1273 TOO 651-423-8182
//7
", ,_. _ .{~\\\,\J
-- /~~~.:;::\ ~~'~--_.
ar:=ARMINGTON, MN; I i
~edevelopment _ Jrf -1-,---
~Ian .......,.IIf,. >l
~ ,. _ - -, _ r---I
~
; ~
. .
f:' .i
- )ljl~I'; '11.!
, H '.""', t.: ~
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR
FARMINGTON HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 8, 1990
PREPARED BY: CHARLES TOOKER, CITY AND TOWN PLANNING
CANNON FALLS, MINNESOTA
APPROVALS:
ADOPTED - HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION - PLANNING COMMISSION
ADOPTED - CITY COUNCIL
1/9
I. INTRODUCTION
If
A fundamental aspiration of most central business districts is to achieve a
higher economic statuS, based upon a larger and stronger collection of business
facilities than currently exists. Downtown is the urban center. It is the
place where ingredients of contemporary communities reach the highest pitch and
concentration. As such, it becomes the appropriate location for facilities that
are intended to serve everyone. In addition, downtown is the symbol of a city
in the mind's eye of both city residents and outsiders. The community image
ebbs and flows according to the reputation of the downtown. If the core area
fails to project a favorable impression, the community also suffers. The only
direct way to satisfy these basic requirements of economic primacy, urban center
and community symbol is to increase the volume of people within the downtown
area. This can be accomplished if obsolete uses and buildings are replaced by
useful and attractive fully occupied structures in the area near the
intersection of Third and Oak Streets known as the downtown.
Immediately to the north and northeast of downto,va is an area of residential and
industrial land which needs definition and restructuring to provide more
intensive housing opportunities and expansion potential for existing industry.
An area of approximately two hundred forty (240) acres west of downtown will be
used as a relocation resource for industries both in Farmington, and those that
decide to come to the community.
II. PURPOSE
The Redevelopment Plan, hereinafter the "Plan", a reV1.S1.on which updates of the
original Plan dated December, 1974, and prepared as the basic document for the
guidance of renewal and development within the Farmington Redevelopment Project
Area. The document is a guide for the City of Farmington, Minnesota, herein
known as the "City" and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the City of
Farmington, Minnesota, herein known as the IIAuthority" in the performance of
redevelopment and rejuvenation activities. Redevelopment and rejuvenation in
accordance with this Plan is considered essential for the correction and
improvement of seriously blighted portions of the central area of the City of
Farmington and for the prevention of blighting conditions and causes.
"1 i
I
\ ,:
! .i
I"
I
I
Outside the central area, blighting results from a combination of soil
contamination, underutilized buildings, abandoned railroad facilities, flooding
and a high water table. These areas have been included within the project area
because soil cleanup, removal of substandard facilities and dewatering while
installing utilities add significant development costs. Because of their
location, these areas are critical to both economic and industrial development
within the City.
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
A. Boundaries of the Redevelopment Area
The Renewal Area is shown on the plate which identifies both the original and
the expanded project boundaries, hereafter designated the IIproject mapll. All
reference to the project or project area refers to the lands within the boundary
/ d:?O
FARMINGTON
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
REPORTER
By Robert C. Vogel
Preservation Planning Consultant
No. 46 - November-December, 2001
HAPPY HOLIDAYS
Best wishes for a happy holiday season and a healthy & prosperous New Year!
PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO MEET DECEMBER 6
The Farmington Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) will discuss a proposal for a historic
buildings plaques program at its next meeting, scheduled for Thursday, December 6. The
Commission will convene at 7:00 p.m. in the Council chambers at City Hall. There will also be a
continuation of the brainstorming session on public education begun at the last meeting.
All HPC meetings are open to the public. For more a meeting agenda or information about the
city preservation program, call Karen Finstuen at 463-7111.
CEMETERY PRESERVATION
In its review of the Middle Creek Estates preliminary plat application, the HPC noted the
existence of an inactive rural cemetery adjacent to the development. Because cemeteries
represent a distinctive set of community heritage resources worthy of preservation, the
commission recommended determination of ownership, establishment of cemetery boundaries,
and fencing of the old graveyard; the city was also asked to provide public access to the historic
site, which borders a public open space area.
In addition to the obvious genealogical information found on tombstones, cemeteries offer many
other ways to view the past. Information about our forbears' attitudes toward death and religious
beliefs, technological developments, prevailing decorative tastes, and even public health can be
revealed not only in the grave markers but in the physical layout and design of the burial grounds
themselves. Finally, it is not unusual for cemeteries to be havens for wildlife and native plants.
The Farmington Historic Context Document, prepared in 1995, includes a chapter on churches
and cemeteries. This establishes the basic framework for treating abandoned cemeteries as
historic preservation sites.
PRESERVATION BRIEFS AVAILABLE ON-LINE
For over 25 years, the Technical Preservation Services division of the National Park Service has
published "Preservation Briefs" to help home owners, preservation organizations, and contractors
with preserving and restoring historic buildings. Until recently. the Briefs could only be obtained
by purchasing copies directly from the U.S. Government Printing Office. but last year the Park
1<:21
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
~
~ ,~\
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator
FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Nelsen Hills 7th Addition Project Closeout
DATE: January 22,2002
INTRODUCTION
The improvements outlined in the Development Contract for the Nelsen Hills 7th Addition have been
substantially completed.
DISCUSSION
The Nelsen Hills 7th Addition Development Contract was signed on June 21, 1999 between the City
and Heritage Development, Inc.. The completion date for this project was July 1, 2000. The project
was substantially completed when minor work order items were addressed during November of 2001.
The City has received a check in the amount of $3,000.00 to serve as surety until the remaining
project landscaping and bituminous patch is completed this year.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the attached resolution accepting the street and utility improvements for the Nelsen Hills 7th
Addition.
Respectfully Submitted,
oztrn~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
/c1~
RESOLUTION NO. R -02
ACCEPTING NELSEN HILLS 7TH ADDITION
STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 98-32
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 22nd day of
January, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Development Contract signed with the City of Farmington on June
21, 1999, Heritage Development, Inc. of Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the
requirements of the developers agreement for Nelsen Hills 7th 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
22nd day of January, 2002.
Mayor
Attested to the
day of January, 2002.
City Administrator
SEAL
1,23
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
l~
TO:
Mayor, Councilmembers and
City Administrator)' J.
FROM:
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
SUBJECT:
School and Conference Requests
DATE:
January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION
Police Administration has received several requests for Schools and Conferences from the Patrol and
Investigations Divisions.
One patrol officer will be attending a Basic Field Training Officer's course February 4-8 in Chaska. As the
Police Department continues to grow there is an increased need for Training Officers. This course will
teach the Patrol Officer to use skills learned on the job and in this program to prepare new candidates to
work independently and effectively in a Patrol position.
Two officers from the Patrol Division will be attending a training conference March 17-19 sponsored by
the Special Operations Training Association of the Upper Midwest (SOTA). Training will include such
topics as Tactical Leadership, Firearms and the prevention of training accidents and A review of Officer
Involved Shootings. The two officers selected to attend are a Department Firearms Instructor and member
of the Dakota County MAAG (Tactical) Team.
One patrol officer will be attending an investigative class called SCAN (Scientific Content Analysis). This
is a career enhancement course offered to one officer per year who has shown interest and aptitude in
investigative technique.
One Sergeant will be attending a Police Supervision Course April 9-11 at Hamline University.
BUDGET IMPACT
The cost of each of these courses is included in the 2002 budget.
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only.
Respectfully submitted,
~,/'
Daniel M. Siebenaler
Chief of Police
JdJr
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
~'
(J'
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator
FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: School and Conference - Fire Department
DATE: January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The Fire Department is planning attendance at the Juvenile Fire Setter Intervention Conference,
in St. Cloud, MN on February 9, 2002.
DISCUSSION
Two firefighters will be attending the conference. Topics covered include Interview/
Assessment, How's and Why's, and Prevention.
BUDGET IMPACT
Approved in the 2002 Budget.
ACTION REOUESTED
For information only.
Respectfully submitted,
I
i \..lv", KV'c/l u~ "'---..
Ken Kuchera
Fire Chief
IdS
I
/oQ.-
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator( C.
FROM:
Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT:
Customer Service Response Report
DATE:
January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to meet and understand our citizen's needs and concerns, the City has adopted a
customer service satisfaction program. This program is designed to ascertain and measure the
level of customer satisfaction during service-related interactions. All citizen contacts with the
City are documented in terms of complaint type, referring department, priority of service request
and service outcomes.
Responses are typically anonymous ensuring that citizens with negative experiences are just as
likely to respond as those with positive service experiences. Accordingly, itis the City's intent to
use this information as a customer service tool to improve and promote the importance of
excellence in customer service.
DISCUSSION
The table below reflects summary statistics generated by Customer Action Request forms over
the months of July, August and September, 2001. Summary response percentages are generated
through the analysis of monthly reports and include response data from all operating City
departments.
The percentages above reflect the number of actual surveys that indicated a response in any
given category. Consequently calculations are based on the actual numbers of responses
received which may differ from the number of surveys received as some respondents did not
indicate answers to specific survey questions.
lcil'
\
On average, ninety-two percent (92%) of citizen requests for service are handled and addressed
within a 1-3 day period. Typically, from that point it requires approximately 90 days or more to
receive, process, compile and analyze the survey response data into monthly reports.
In terms of how "promptly the City reacted to citizen requests," the degree of "how personally
satisfied citizens were with service outcomes," and was City staff "courteous and helpful" in
responding to citizen requests, response data suggests a very high level of customer satisfaction
in all three categories. In terms of core customer service skills, City staff have achieved an
impressive 100% rating in "courteous and helpful service" and 92% in "prompt service"
regardless of how personally satisfied a resident was with service outcomes. This underscores
the City's commitment to treat each resident contact as a highly valued customer service relations
opportunity .
In terms of how personally satisfied a resident is with a specific service outcome, staff responses
are, in most cases, controlled by state statutes, City ordinances, available staff resources and/or
service priorities. In some cases, responses are a function of a third party who must respond to a
given situation.
Overall, a summary rating of 88% over the three month period for how personally satisfied a
resident was with a City service response is a very respectable response ratio given the wide
range of resident concerns. In review of survey comments, residents commented both negatively
and positively on a variety of concerns such as tree and stump removal on boulevards to unkept
yards, trimming of boulevard trees, drainage areas, street "no outlet" signs, and garbage can
replacements along with staff's prompt and helpful responses.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ACTION REQUESTED
Acknowledge the Customer Service Satisfaction reports from July through September, 2001.
Staff will continue to present customer service satisfaction data to Council as it becomes
available. Monthly report data with department breakdowns are available for Council review
upon request.
Respectfully submitted,
/7)
;{Cd_~ L~~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
/ .;{ CO
106
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarrnington.mn.us
TO: Mayor and Council~embers,
City Administrator ?;. ),
FROM: Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Petition to Rezone Subject Property from R-2 (Medium Density) to B-3 (Heavy
Business) - Applicant: Colin Garvey
DATE: January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Colin Garvey, has petitioned the City to request a zone change on properties
located in Block 30, Town of Farmington from the existing zoning district of R-2 (Medium
Density) to B-3 (Heavy Business) following the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is seeking to rezone the parcels to allow for future expansion of the Landscape
Depot operation and for storage of sand and salt piles on the currently vacant lot that lies west of
the current business.
The Landscape Depot is located on the easterly parcel, which includes a renovated storage
building along with landscaping materials and plants. The applicant received conditional use
permit approval on the property in May of 1999. Prior to the current use, the property was
owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and used for vehicle storage and repair
and also included the storage of sand and salt supplies for winter plowing operations.
The westerly parcel is currently vacant except that the top 6 - 8 inches were removed and
replaced with class 5 crushed rock material. The property owner began preparing the site for a
pending Conditional Use Permit application (July 2000) to expand the Landscape Depot
business. The application was denied citing a lack of information and questions surrounding the
use of land lying within the rights-of-way of the Soo Line railroad spur line and the City's Pine
Street.
Currently the unimproved Pine Street right-of-way and the Marigold Foods factory bound the
property to the north, single-family residential is located to the east and south ofthe property and
a vacant lot owned by Marigold Foods is located adjacent to the property to the west.
/dl9
Under the proposed B-3 zoning district, heavy business type uses such as supply yards,
warehousing, commercial services and light manufacturing would be permitted. Other uses such
as outdoor sales, equipment and storage yards and retail business would be permissible with a
conditional use permit (see attached B-3 allowed uses).
Any future or expanded commercial use of the properties would require 100% screening of the
property along any residentially zoned property as per the City's Landscaping Ordinance. Also,
any proposed commercial use within the City's Pine Street right-of-way would not be permitted
as previously indicated as part of the Planning Commission's decision in the July 2000 CUP
application.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed rezoning at the January 8, 2002 meeting and
forwarded a recommendation to approve the rezoning from R-2 to B-3 to the City Council.
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider adoption of the attached ordinance to rezone the subject property as described on the
attached legal description from R-2 (Medium Density) to B-3 (Heavy Business) following the
designated land use indicated within the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
cc: Colin Garvey
130
ORDINANCE NO. 002-468
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE FARMINGTON
CITY CODE, THE FARMINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE,
REZONING THE GARVEY PROPERTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 1O-2-8(B) of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding a new
subsection rezoning the property legally described on the attached Exhibit A from R-2 (Medium
Density) to B-3 (Heavy Business).
SECTION 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Farmington, adopted under Section 10-2-1
of the Farmington City Code, shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the City
Planner shall appropriately mark the Zoning Map on file in the City Hall for the purposes of
indicating the rezoning provided for in this ordinance.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage.
ADOPTED this 2200 day of January. 2002, by the City Council of the City of Farmington.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Terry Verch, Acting Mayor
ATTEST:
Ed Shukle, City Administrator
Approved as to form the _ day of
, 2002.
Joel Jamnik, City Attorney
SEAL
Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of
2002.
66074
13/
Exhibit A
The property is legally described as the north 120 feet of Lots I, 2 & 3 and the north 170
feet of Lots 4 and 5 except for the west 'li of Lot 5 and that portion of the railroad right-
of-way; all within Block 30, Section 31, Township 114 N, Range 19 W, Town of
Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota.
66074
/3c:?
Q) C
c
o
N
Q)
0::
"0
Q)
en
o
0..
'+-
o
0..
CO
~
C
o
:.j:j
CO
U
o
.....J
\
j._I.
~
DII
\
\
\ ~
\ w
\ Z
\0-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\-------
\
\
\
~
-
Cf)
OJ
C
c::
<0-
o
C
o
+:>
...
\ 8-
\ ~
o
\ c. 5'-0
.~ cf..
\ :5 -0
\ <2-
\ 1
(I)
\ ,5
\ '6
If)
\
\
\
'\
\
\
\
\
u
Cl
.is H.iS
G>
~
'6
u-
.is HiP
D
(/)
Q)
i D
~D
Q)
:0
:J
CJ)
\
\U
\
\
~
L]c
---' Q)
'0
'(jj
Q)
0:::
[
Ll [~~1
[11 L?
I
i~
J-
~J
~I'."'!
~._-__._.,I
I
, c=J.~-~ i.
D LJ
[Jl~.
D
r.'.-
z.~
"
= 0-
ro ro
- C/) 0:::. e
Q} 0)"::: -
o c _ .~
"O'5~~
co == L.. ~
o :J roo
o:::coo...~
", <D f
5
. ",
1-1
CJ)
....~, Z
Ti ~
i i
~<.-
!r
133
c
eo
a.. c
Q) 0
> +-'
0)
en c
Q) .-
..c E
Q) L-
eo
L
C ~
0 0
() ~
+-'
0 ()
N
0
N
z+.
~
18 H1L
'"
Q) '"
4: ~
U) "0 <<:
-g ~ ~
12.Q a.
Q)~S2
3: Q) ~
~ 0 Q)
.~.~ -g
:E~~
'C ~ .~
73 ~~~
'C a.. Q.) Q)
1;) -04:<
o ~ ~ ~
0> LL:;:::;:;:::; -
"E ~ ~ .~ "@ a5
.ffici.~~~ ~,g
n. ro~2'.?-c ~ a:;.o
~ g ~~ ~ ~ ri: _ >- ~ ~ a; 9- ~-t:
"'0 ..c ._ >- Q) CD .~ .~ E Q) CD 0 .- ]:0 c: co
5 o:::.~ E E g? ~ro ~:5O :fi"O ~'~::la..
0.09- C C"iijQ)'cQ.lQ)E cna:::~(/)Q)C:~
~~~~.~.~a5~~O~:5 ~~~~O~~
:!::: Q)NE c c.c.o"'03:~Q)<('-.of/).o.c.>'iii
~ Z r" e UJ W ~uE3.3:;z&::;~~~Lij~
<DD~D 81IDDDDID~DD~D
""
18 H19
1.3'1
oo~
..f-'t
u
.S:::: Q)
..f-'Q..
00 0
.- So....
00...
O)~
C Q)
.C 2:
o CO
N(9
I
Q)
C
0)0
C N
E Q)
So....O::
CO"'C
l.L.Q)
,+-00
o 0
~c.
..f-'O
.- So....
Un..
"'
z.~
;l;
c
OJ <I)
'0 E
W ~ N
~~~~! I ~ ~ ~,
~.~.~~~~ ~U8~~~~~~ .~
c:- Q) <l.l ~ :J"Vi 0:;::0.- 0)_ ..... ::::>:-= Q) ~ '0 "S:
c:-~ :s 5 ro al :J of ro >..!: L.L ~ ~ ~ 0 c: 8 Q
~s ~~~~~~~~~~~2~~~
~SB'~'~~ii.~~~~~~~~i~)
S<~<<:::J~IZU~~~:::Jrn~~~I~
oo~---------- 0----
6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<~[I[]II.OJnrn[]
rn
c:
'E
c:
'"
0::,
~
.0
'0
.!!!.
'" '
<I)
u
I-
00
S
o
.....J
.....J
N
~
~
I
~
I
I-
CJ)
Z
<(
~!
/35
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farrnington.mn.us
TO: City Planning Commission
FROM:
Michael Schultz \Vf1v
Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Proposed Rezone from R-2 (Medium Density) to B-3 (Heavy Commercial)
DATE: January 8, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Colin Garvey, is seeking approval to rezone certain property from the existing R-2
(Medium Density) to B-3 (Heavy Commercial). The property is identified within the 2020
Comprehensive Plan as future business.
Plannine: Summary
Applicant:
Colin Garvey
22098 Canton Ct
Farmington, MN 55024
Attachments:
1. Rezone Application
2. LocationMap
3. 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map
4. Current Zoning Map
5. Section 10-3-2(1) B-3 (Heavy Business) Zoning
District
6. Section 10-1-4: Definitions
7. Section 10-2-3: Zoning Districts, Purpose
Property Location:
The property, legally described as the north 120 feet
of Lots I, 2 & 3 and the north 170 feet of Lots 4 and
5 except for the west ~ of Lot 5 and that portion of
the railroad right-of-way; all within Block 30 (see
attached map).
Parcel ID Numbers:
14-77000-030-30
14-77000-080-30
/.36
Total Land Area:
30,749 square feet
Surrounding Land Uses:
Unimproved roadway (Pine St) and abandoned
railway, residential to the south and east, vacant
property to the west.
Current Zoning:
R-2 (Medium Density)
2020 Comprehensive Plan:
Business
Proposed Zoning:
B-3 (Heavy Commercial)
DISCUSSION
The applicant, Colin Garvey, is seeking approval to rezone subject property from the existing R-
2 (Medium Density) to B-3 (Heavy Business) zoning district, following the City's 2020
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Under the proposed B-3 zoning district, heavy business type uses such as supply yards,
warehousing, commercial services and light manufacturing would be permitted. Other uses such
as outdoor sales, equipment and storage yards and retail business would be permissible with a
conditional use permit.
Currently the unimproved Pine Street right-of-way and the Marigold Foods factory bound the
property to the north, single-family residential is located to the east and south of the property and
a vacant lot owned by Marigold Foods is located adjacent to the property to the west.
The Landscape Depot business is located on the easterly parcel, which includes a renovated
storage building along with landscaping materials and plants. The applicant received conditional
use permit on the property in May of 1999.
The other subject parcel is currently vacant except that the top 6 - 8 inches were removed and
replaced with class 5 crushed rock material. The property owner began preparing the site for a
pending Conditional Use Permit application (July 2000) to expand the Landscape Depot
business. The application was denied citing a lack of information from the applicant and
questions surrounding the use of the rights-of-way involving the Soo railroad spur line and the
City's Pine Street.
The applicant's intent is to use the vacant lot for the storage of sand and salt materials and to
eventually expand the Landscape Depot business. Any future commercial use of the property
would require 100% screening of the property along any residentially zoned property as per the
City's Landscaping Ordinance.
/37
Also, any proposed commercial use within the City's Pine Street right-of-way would not be
permitted as previously indicated as part of the Planning Commission's decision in the July 2000
CUP application.
ACTION REOUESTED
Staff recommends forwarding a recommendation of approval on to the City Council for the
proposed rezone of the subject properties from R-2 (Medium Density) to B-3 (Heavy Business).
R:_S~/
~l Schultz
Associate Planner
cc: Colin Garvey
/371'
PETITION FOR REZONING
I, the undersigned, am the fee O\\l1er of and hereby request that the following described land:
()\lYI T, 6:LnK~ N 120' f)f Lt,fs 1,2t3 J
_\./)+ L\ aJ'\& '%I-e.. ~s.f 1/2. of-lot 5 J. Block. 3~
R-Z excebt~r~ ~ot'"~OA.~~ ~~
be rezoned from:, \
to: 6-~
I understand that a public hearing is required, as well as a published notice of hearing, for which I hereby
attach payment of the fee in the amount of S , which I understand further will be
refunded if no meeting is scheduled.
l \ - ;l~ - 0 1
Signature
Date
The Planning Commission recommended on the
to (approve) (deny) the petition.
day of
,19_
City Planner
Action of the City Council:
1. On the
day of
. 19_ declined to set a Public Hearing.
2. At a Public Hearing held the
(approved) (denied) the petition.
day of
. 19_,
Date
City Administrator
In accordance with Title 10, Chapters 2 and 12 of the City Code.
cc: Planning Commission, Council, Attorney, Engineer, Water Board: P ARAC
/3<7
..- ~ ,'l/}. ~~v,-~ ~ ':- '1~( ~I
I ... WrLlOW t t 't..~
~ ~ lL .a? .~ 6- ~ r r ,~. ... ~
I '! .,. .".-- ....- ..,'. ....,..... . I
' .' , s' ~
F~- ~ :':-'" -~, :;..:
"., C/)t
.~ ~6 5 4 3' 2 I I ~
6 S 4 3 -_?-r--':~-~-' ;( ~ ......f: \ I
.; I ~ 312-- ~ _ _ _
I ~... ~ 31 "'-~~..."':'poo r--..... ----__ ~
:::..,. ~~ --r--~~.r--_!'--_ ':' ~"""c.
~,~ ',~ g- '_.., .r < ../ . ;
L! · rr) t: 4p!'l:E~ 'l~~~~~~>- ! 7 9 9 10 II ;~.~ · _ ___
:~"'..: · ..' ~l1dfv ~. ~ .. " : -.:._ -:5
L 0..;.,'. IIr . - ...,. ,. I: '" ~~ J I:...., I: l'C" . .. '" :.' '-~
, -----
t ,~~ J P-II~~.--l ~- _ _____
: ~ r F~.:!Z~ . -->-~"-~~~>s,,~ ~ ~
· ~C , ...; , ~- ...--1--- -~~ ~M l()t 0 c...
~ 6 ~ I~"""""" ~O~ ____~ ~x..~'1, y~~ "'" ~ N ~ ._
'DO ~ \2-~ ,--- ()t'l)( ,~~, · ~ f2
~ l ~ ~ ~.t ""'-...." e ~ )(. J p<'_ _ j(~~ ;
---- ~ ~. '\l'b _;:-.. _~/C~.~c) ~/O(/_If;~;~~~
----/ . '" ol rI' of
.. -- ";:' -; :~ '~ 29 t-= ~ cD N ,.;,. ~ 0 · ~ . 1_
/ ./ OS> ~ -- - ~ 13 '3,1 C/l, '" ,,". - - -~ r..o1 1./ 13 ofl1 t.{'J.I, : ~,,-:
" 7 a( b~ 10 ~ II 12 ~ ,. . 7 B 1 9 10 II 12 ~
/ .. 'j0 ~ ~ i i ~ ~ 0 ~ tJD:.... ~ ~
.~ ...~ -~ _" ~j~l~ :~f-7 ' .,.. !! :,! .' ~ ~! ik
-<-l- 4' ~ 1>
if
/
/
/
,
.
.-
" t) .'~',
) I
~ .:~
_l..L-_ ..
~ ,...-. '.
· t
r r:7!-, '--~
. ,~"
.. -1
,. ~--
l1d
'\
.c f ~\.
~~t.\C
I
I.
. _~ -,.. ()~'0(7l> ~ c~
,
~.- .
. ..~.
II... . .. . 1_....
~...~,
i~' 1" 1~;!.:. I -~rD 1:.oi! f;~!: ~; (l'b
~~ f f . I ~ ~ If\1,-. II l
2 , bOo . . 6- - ~ 4 3 _2 ~ ~ _ .I.. ~
: OV ~ I . ~ ,.;!,. : ~ ~?
:~:;. I' '2/~ ~ : ~ . ~.?- I
:!" ,I 9)~ !: ~I
(i7' B... 9' ho II 12:
";~Q3 3~' I ~ t:,.';ll' I
~tt1 f -i: Et~M ~ ~7
~ ~ J . 4- "
~,
.~! ~
; ~. ~~ ;~ ;, r;~
" CD
2 ? l~ __
, ~
; 1 e 9 JO ) I ~: -
'II") .Iff 4~ tfJ3 t ~~ ..,.,'
Lf"'~'f ~ ': t '1 :
, \" ~ I 'J,
... .... ,
.A ,. . .' #II r .. ..
....
, 4'
'.....
..-
~
. !... .-.., .. "'. ,
. - ~.. /
I << t - U
~~~ ';JI."~'.'I ~ ~ f
.4_ ';f" .... 12"
· "'-.J I I I ------' ~ ..
,..- ,
. !\
,.
~ I ! ~D
10'
I ,.
:' .
..* ~
I Ii
_L :_
~ ,
.. :~.'">'
~ '
- II
r, _. I
J
". I
~ I
6<f I~
, (
~ r
~I
~7r
.
rol (
.. .1 ""
, .
t..
1'''
1</0
10-2-3: ZONING DISTRICTS, PURPOSE:
A-I Agricultural District is intended to protect existing agricultural investments until such time as public
utilities may be extended and there is need for additional urban development land.
A-2 Agricultural Preserve District is proposed to identify lands intended for long-term agricultural use with a
residential density not to exceed one unit per quarter/quarter section.
R-l Low Density Residential District is established to provide extensive areas within the community for low
density development with full public utilities in a sequence which will prevent the occurrence of premature
scattered urban development.
R-2 Medium Density Residential District is intended as an area which incorporates older existing development
as well as undeveloped land that would be suitable for small lot single-family constructions as well as
duplexes, townhouses and quad homes.
R-3 High Density Residential District is designated to provide areas of the City which will allow multiple
dwellings in areas close to business and services, public facilities and good transportation. The location of
these areas generally follows the recommendations made in
the Comprehensive Plan.
R-4 Mixed Code Residential District is established to provide areas of the City where manufactured housing
may be located on either subdivided or unsubdivided developments in attractive neighborhoods in areas
designated as medium density in the Comprehensive Plan.
B-1 Limited Business District is intended to provide areas along major thoroughfares for unified commercial
centers oriented to serving automobile traffic.
B-2 General Business District is proposed to identify downtown Farmington allowing general commercial uses
including retail and wholesale sales, office space and service establishments as well as repair services.
These uses may be developed in combination with
high density residential dwellings.
B-3 Heavy Business District is a transitional classification designed to provide space for certain commercial
and industrial uses which are compatible together but do not fit well in either the Limited or General
Business Districts. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986)
B-4 Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a setting for low and medium density housing
combined with complementary and supporting business land uses that serve a neighborhood and are
developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics
of a neighborhood. (Ord. 099-423, 3-1-1999)
I-I Light Industrial District will provide areas in Farmington that may be developed by industrial uses which
are landscaped and otherwise compatible with adjoining residential districts.
C-l Conservation District is provided to recognize vital environmental resources of the community including
steep slopes, wetlands and unstable soil conditions and to allow development only after careful analysis.
F-l Floodway District identifies the flood hazard areas of Farmington and regulates the construction in a
manner which will protect the capacity of the flood plain to carry and discharge the regional flood.
F-2 Flood Fringe District designates lands outside the floodway but subject to inundation by the regional flood.
To minimize flood damage, structures are permitted on fill but with no first floor or basement below the
flood protection level.
F-3 General Flood Plain District identifies those areas inundated by the 100-year flood but determined by
approximate methods with no base flood elevations shown or flood hazard factors determined. It includes
both floodway and flood fringe areas of tributaries into the Vermillion River. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986)
/<//
10-3-2
*(1)
Permitted Uses
5. Public buildings
6. Auto sales, service and repair
7. Commercial schools
8. Commercial recreation
9. Animal clinics
10. Clubs - health clubs
11. Home and trailer sales and
display
12. Parking lots
13. Recreation and equipment
sales, service and repair
14. Clinics
15. Sexually oriented
businesses - accessory
10-3-2
Conditional Uses
5. Multiple-family dwellings
6. Wholesale business
7. Supply yards
8. Funeral homes
9. Elderly and handicapped
housing
10. Churches
11. Light manufacturing
12. Outdoor sales
13. Fast-food establishments
14. Farm implement sales,
service and repair
15. Equipment and storage
yards
16. Research and testing
laboratories
17. Mini-storage units
18. Motor fuel stations - minor
19. Hotels and motels
20. Recreational assembly
places
21. Residential care facilities
serving more than 6
persons
(Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-198, 2-1-1988; Ord.
091-246, 5-20-1991; Ord. 099-424, 3-1-1999; Ord. 000-457,
12-4-2000)
B-3 Heavy Business District
1. Mechanical sales, service
and repair
2. Commercial services
3. Animal clinics
4. Wholesale business
5. Supply yards
6. Warehousing
7. Light manufacturing
8. Research and testing labs
9. Parking lots
10. Public buildings
11. Auto sales, service, repair
April 2001
1. Public utility buildings
2. Offices
3. Water recreation and water
storage
4. Home and trailer sales
and displays
5. Manufacturing
6. Petroleum bulk storage
7. Mini-storage units
8. Equipment and storage
yards
9. Outdoor sales
City of Farmington
/ 'I c:I
10-3-2
_/
Permitted Uses
12. Motor fuel stations, major
13. Sexually oriented
businesses - accessory
10-3-2
Conditional Uses
10. Retail business
11. Restaurants
12. Fast-food establishments
13. Solar energy systems
(Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 000-457, 12-4-2000)
(J) B-4 Neighborhood Business District
1. Personal and professional
services (not exceeding
3,000 square feet of
gross floor area)
2. Personal health and beauty
services (not exceeding
3,000 square feet of
gross floor area)
3. Nonprofit/public buildings
4. Daycare facilities
5. Residential care facility
6. Neighborhood services
(not to exceed 3,000
square feet in gross
floor area)
Interim Uses
1. Automobile repair; minor
(eff. until 6-7-2002)
1. Personal and professional
services (exceeding 3,000
square feet in gross floor
area)
2. Neighborhood convenience
stores (no gasoline sales,
not exceeding 3,000 square
feet in gross floor area -
no automotive repair
facilities allowed)
3. Restaurants (no drive-
through services, limited to
3,000 square feet of gross
floor area, no alcohol
sales)
4. Funeral homes
5. Animal clinics (no kenneling
allowed)
6. Parking lots
7. Multi-family dwellings
8. Churches
9. Schools
10. Light manufacturing and
assembly (straight trucks
only, no jointed or semi-
tractor trailer trucks)
11. Clinics
(Ord. 099-423, 3-1-1999; amd. Ord. 099-432, 6-7-1999)
City of Farmington
April 2001
1~3
10-5-13
B-3
BEA VY BUSINESS DISTRICT
DRAFT
(A) Purpose. The B-3 Heavy Business District is a transitional district designed to provide space for
certain existing commercial and industrial uses which are compatible together but are more intense and
therefore incompatible with uses identified in the B-1, B-2 and B-D districts.
(B) Bulk and Density Standards.
1. Minimum Standards
Proposed Current
Lot Area 5,000 square feet 5,000 square feet
Lot Width 50 feet 50 feet
Front Yard Setback o feet o feet
Side Yard Setback 6 feet 6 feet
Rear Yard Setback 6 feet 6 feet
Minimum side and rear yard abutting any
residential District
Off-street parking and access drives 10 feet 10 feet
Public and semi-public buildings 35 feet 35 feet
Recreational, entertainment, commercial and 50 feet 50 feet
industrial uses
Height (max.) 45 feet 45 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage of all structures 35% 35%
* All standards are minimum requirements unless noted
(C) Uses
Proposed Uses
1. Permitted
a. Animal Clinics
b. Auto Repair, Minor
c. Auto Sales
d. Commercial Services
e. Convenience Store without gas
f. Mechanical Sales, Service and
Repair
g. Offices
h. Public Buildings
i. Restaurants, Class I, Traditional
j. Retail Facilities, greater than 3000 sf
k. Supply Yards
1. Truck Terminals
m. Wholesale Businesses
n. Sexually Oriented Businesses -
Accessory
2. Conditional
a. Auto Repair, Major
b. Car Washes
Current Uses
Permitted
Mechanical sales, service and repair
Commercial services
Animal clinics
Wholesale business
Supply yards
Warehousing
Light manufacturing
Research and testing labs
Parking lots
Public buildings
Auto sales, service, repair
Motor fuel stations, major
Sexually Oriented Businesses - Accessory
Conditional
Public utility buildings
Offices
City of Farmington Zoning Regulations
Working Draft - December 5, 2001
page 57
/t./'/
c. Convenience Store with gas
d. Group Day Care Center, Commercial
e. Home and Trailer Sales/Display
f. Manufacturing Facilities
g. Mini-storage Units
h. Outdoor Sales
i. Petroleum Bulk Storage
j. Public Utility Buildings
k. Solar Energy Systems
3. Accessory
a. Parking Lots
Water recreation and water storage
Home and trailer sales and displays
Manufacturing
Petroleum bulk storage
Mini-storage units
Equipment and storage yards
Outdoor sales
Retail business
Restaurants
Fast food establishments
Solar energy systems
DRAFT
City ofF armington Zoning Regulations
Working Draft - December 5, 2001
page 58
/'/5
DRAFT
10-5-14
B-4
LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT
(A) Purpose. The B-4 Limited Business District is intended to provide a setting for low to medium
density housing combined with complementary and supporting business land uses that serve a
neighborhood and are developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a .
neighborhood.
(B) Bulk and Density Standards.
1. Minimum Standards
ProDosed Current
Lot Area 5.000 SQuare feet B-4 currently does not
Lot Width 50 feet Have any bulk standards
Front Yard Setback 20 feet
Side Yard Setback 6 feet
Rear Yard Setback 6 feet
Minimum side and rear yard abutting any
residential District 10 feet
Off-street parking and access drives 35 feet
Public and semi-public buildings 50 feet
Recreational, entertainment, commercial
and industrial uses
Height (max.) 45 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage of all structures 35%
* All standards are minimum requirements unless noted
(C) Uses
Proposed Uses
1. Permitted
a. Neighborhood Services
b. Nonprofit Recreational,
Cultural and Entertainment Uses
c. Offices
d. Personal and Professional
Services, less than 3000 sf
e. Personal Health and Beauty
Services, less than 3000 sf
2. Conditional
a. Animal Clinics
b. Churches
c. Clinics
d. Child Day Care Facilities,
Commercial
e. Dwellings, Multi-Family
f. Funeral Homes
Current Uses
Permitted
Daycare facilities
Neighborhood services(not to exceed 3,000
square feet in gross floor area)
Nonprofit/public buildings
Personal and professional services (not
exceeding3,000 square feet of gross floor area)
Personal health and beauty services (not
exceeding3,OOO square feet of gross floor area)
Residential care facility
Conditional
Animal clinics (no kenneling allowed)
Churches
Clinics
Funeral homes
Light manufacturing and assembly (straight
trucks only, no jointed or semi- tractor trailer
trucks)
Multi-family dwellings
page 59
City of Farmington Zoning Regulations
Working Draft-December 5,2001
I ~r;,
g. Health Clubs
h. Light Manufacturing Facilities
i. Personal and Professional
Services, greater than 3000 sf
j. Personal Health and Beauty
Services, greater than 3000 sf
k. Public and Parochial Schools
1. Public Utility Buildings
3. Accessory
a. Parking Lots
DRAFT
Neighborhood convenience stores (no gasoline
sales, not exceeding 3,000 square feet in gross
floor area - no automotive repair facilities
allowed)
Parking lots
Personal and professional services (exceeding
3,000 square feet in gross floor area) .
Restaurants (no drive- thru services, limited
t03,000 square feet of gross floor area, no
alcohol sales)
Schools
Interim Uses
Automobile repair; minor( eff. until 6-7-2002)
City o/Farmington Zoning Regulations
Working Draft - December 5, 2001
page 60
I 'I?
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
IOe,
~~
TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator
FROM: Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of Zoning Decision - Sign Permit Application for Hometown, Inc.
DATE: January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The appellant, Kim Friedrich of Hometown, Inc., has filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision on January 8, 2002 in support of Planning staffs decision in the denial of
appellant's sign permit application for a proposed wall sign for the business located at 331 3 rd
Street.
DISCUSSION
City staff initially received the sign permit application in early November involving the proposed
sign. Attached is the denial letter dated November 14, 2001 informing the applicant that the
permit application was denied based on the following guidelines outlined in the City's Sign
Ordinance:
1. Under Section 4-3-1: Definitions, wall signage is defined as a sign affixed directly to
an exterior wall and may project from the wall no more than fifteen (15) inches from
all points of the sign (see attached definition).
2. Under Section 4-3-3 (B)la: Signs in the B and I Districts do not allow for more than
two (2) wall signs on one (1) building face;
The appellant then requested that the City's Development Committee review the sign permit
application for its interpretation of the Sign Ordinance. The Committee reviewed the application
at its November 27, 2001 meeting and concurred with Planning Staffs decision. Copies of the
sign plans were also forwarded to the City Attorney for review. The City Attorney agreed that
the Planning Staffs interpretation of the City's Sign Ordinance was supportable.
On December 18, 2001, during a phone conversation, the appellant requested that staff review
existing commercial signage within the downtown inquiring why other businesses were
I if?
permitted two (2) or more cabinet signs. In a letter dated December 19, 2001, staff addressed
those questions (see attached letter).
Staff feels that the Sign Ordinance clearly states that wall signs are limited to no more than one
unit per wall face and that unit may project from the wall no more than fifteen (15) inches at all
points. Staff s interpretation was that all portions of the sign must be an equal distance from the
wall and can extend no more than fifteen (15) inches from the wall.
The appellant's sign is angled on a frame, with the apex of the angle measuring fifteen (15)
inches from the wall while each end of the frame is attached to the wall. A separate sign cabinet
would then be placed at each angle of the frame.
The Planning Commission, at its January 8, 2002 meeting, heard Ms. Friedrich's appeal of the
decision of Planning Staff to deny her sign permit application. After hearing Ms. Friedrich's
arguments to overturn the denial, the Planning Commission voted 5 - 0 in support of staff s
decision for denial.
Planning Staff did recommend to the applicant, in the letter dated December 19, 2001, that she
could make use of the purchased cabinet signs by attaching one sign to the front and one sign to
the rear of the building that would meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
REQUESTED ACTION
Consider Ms. Friedrich's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to support Planning
Staff s denial of her sign permit application. City Council should also then direct staff to draft
Findings of Fact concerning its decision.
cc: Kim Friedrich, Hometown, Inc.
II./?
January 11,2002
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the owner of Hometown Furnishings located at 331 Third Street in Farmington.
I finally made enough profits to justifY redoing the front of my building in hopes to create more traffic for
my store and the rest of the downtown area.
On or about the 2nd Day of May, 2001, Mr. Y. M. Akbar came into my store and commented on the
condition of my sign outside and I agreed it was time. So I signed a contract with Mr. Akbar to repaint the
front of the building, new sign. & new awning. I paid Mr. Akbar in full ($6,000.00). He had someone
paint the front, took my awning frame and never returned.
On or about the 5th day of September, 2001, I met with a gentleman from Signtronixs. The gentleman went
over to the city to get preliminary approval on the sign then we walked the block and looked at other signs.
On several business there are more than one signs attached. I then ordered the signs at a sum of
$13,518.00. I also ordered a new awning at the cost of$I,473.00. The awning cannot be put up until the
sign is up.
On approximately September 26,2001, I received the signs. I had some electrical work to do on the front
of my building before I could put this sign up. I applied for the permit sometime after that.
To my surprise and Signtronixs surprise, I was denied the permit on November 14, 2001 in writing.
Signtronics asked for this to be reviewed and I was denied the permit again on November 29,2001 in
writing.
I called Mr. Schultz and asked him to look at the business on my block and tell me why I could not have
these sign up. I was denied a third time in writing on December 19,2001.
On January 8, 2002 I went before the Planning Commission and was denied the permit again. I understand
that my last chance with appeals is to go before the City Council, therefore I am asking to do that.
The basis of denial on all occasions is that the staff considers my sign 2 faceplate signs. I agree they are 2
faceplates so they can be bent at an angle. This is what we preliminarily had approved in the beginning. I
am including pictures of businesses on my block that bave more than I faceplate bolted together, some
even protrude off the building.
I have at least 2 customers a week say they do not even know my business is here. I have been here 6
years. I find that the need for a dramatic sign is a must at this point of my business growth. The sign also
enhances the front of my building greatly. I also am Including a current picture of the front of my building,
as distressed as it is right now. Please get the above mentioned pictures from the City staff..
I strongly believe this has created a hardship for my business.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me.
~~~
Friedrich
Hometown Furnishings
331 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
651-463-9999
/50
D
1
f
-r
+v
@fC1 a e /:?I Q -f..[5 Y3D L:r6L) '10 C;.I;;. TtfG e.
f\ft'D flLvJQLt ()G:) O:::P 1311 U'J/ N(C
(fi
f\'1'\'\E t?LOCtL-
/ '
/,",l\",~ J- ....... [).-
'- .Irv , H::.> <:.,) /, t::::-
OF -=:5t7lE:::iS ,-
15/
,
f~(\
,.~
G: :rPC.E e Lt-\Tt;;L) Bot Tb D \l) C;;b rHLR-
ON 5f1H)B f~UCJL l5f\fh6 C:-;iOC- D.p5fiZt:..ET
l..j-"~
\1 '
D \) e \ clv\.1
\i\
",,~
(i,1 rACbPLJ-\te5 fu-TEh TD6{;ifIEI<-
tieecJ I Lf 1!.e'i-+ .Doo I(
.
/53
!
~. \
t.. \
rv~ y
e,2DPr513D I'Jt; LJ
, r
-.:'51 GN
-,
-H~5fHLJ_",2 D
" fIr.- -
:;>Ht::8 I
Pz:3tZ
/'')-/ ,L
Jf:;;C~..)
<-5 E "e-
ep PrtZ A 77.;
IS,/
~-
I)
. \
f0JtSr of (Y\ Y Bu.1 LJ)/NG ,\Iou.) .
\1:27-0 I
/55
A.
. INSTALL SECOND UNIT
. . ff
~'.." YO'U~Rl!..
' .
;': SIGN
., ..~ :
2~~~..~
"-,...~'..~i
.OUR:~i
SiGN
12) Repeat steps (8)
through (11) for the other
side.
30
-
-..-----.-- ..-
I'i'- 5 ~j ^ U..I"l t
9~t
')LII
I
I
, \
:3
3'
<3'
73'
23
/5&
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651)463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.fannington.mn.us
November 14,2001
Hometown, Inc.
Attn: Kim Friedrich
331 3rd Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Sign Permit Application
Dear Mrs. Friedrich,
City staff has completed review of the proposed cabinet wall sign to be placed on the building of
your business at 331 3rd Street.
Because the sign is angled at the center and consists of two (2) faceplates, City staff considers
this to be two signs, which under Section 4-3-3 (B) restricts more than one (1) sign per building
face (see attached language).
The City's sign ordinance does allow signs to encroach fifteen (15) inches into the right-of-way
measured at all points of the sign (see attached language).
City Planning staff is denying the sign permit application for the angled cabinet sign based on the
language stated above.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at (651) 463-1821.
Sincerely,
~'
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
cc: John Manke, Building Official
property file
157
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651)463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
November 29,2001
Hometown, Inc.
Attn: Kim Friedrich
331 3rd Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Sign Permit Application - Review of Proposed "Angled" Sign
Dear Mrs. Friedrich,
City Planning staff has completed a re-review of the proposed cabinet wall sign to be placed on the
building of your business at 331 3rd Street.
This item was presented to the City Development Committee on November 27, 2001 to discuss if
Planning staff s interpretation of the sign ordinance was current in that the wall mount consisted of two
signs. It was the consensus of the Development Committee staff that the wall mount did consist of two
separate signs.
A copy of the sign plans were also forwarded to our City Attorney for his review and would support
staff s interpretation of the City Code.
The basis of denial of the sign permit application was based on the angle at the center of the mount that,
in the opinion of staff, consists of two (2) separate and distinguishable cabinets and faceplates. Because
city staff considers this to be two signs, it would not permitted under Section 4-3-3 (B) which specifies
only one (1) sign per building face is permitted (see attached language).
The City's sign ordinance does allow signs to encroach fifteen (15) inches into the right-of-way measured
at all points of the sign (see attached language).
City Planning staff is denying the sign permit application for the angled cabinet sign based on the
language stated above.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at (651) 463-1821.
~ ~~/// -
Michael sc~ ~/
Associate Planner /
cc: John Manke, Building Official
property file
/51r
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651)463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farrnington.mn.us
December 19, 2001
Hometown, Inc.
Attn: Kim Friedrich
331 3rd Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Review of Existing Signage for Downtown Businesses
Dear Mrs. Friedrich,
This letter is in response to our phone conversation on December 18, 2001 concerning the existing
commercial signage for downtown businesses and the proposed signage for your building.
Attached are pictures of wall signage of several downtown businesses. All of the signs within the pictures
have single-sided wall signs, parallel to the building fayade, meaning that the signs face directly out from
the building. The latest sign that you have proposed (see attached) has been determined by staff, and
concluded by the City Attorney, to be two separate cabinet signs placed at an angle on a frame attached to
the building.
Concerning the example of the Car Quest Auto Parts sign, that sign has been grandfathered into the Sign
Ordinance. The two cabinet signs were installed on the building prior to adoption of the current
ordinance; the panels and lettering were replaced in 2000 (see attached portion of subject sign
application).
One option to be considered would be to remove the cabinets from the frame and place one cabinet sign
on the front of the building and the other in the rear of the building.
If you would like to consider an appeal of this decision, please submit a written appeal stating the specific
context of why you disagree with the decision. This appeal would then be forwarded onto the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendation. The next Planning Commission's next meeting date
is January 8, 2001, the written appeal should be received at least a week prior to that meeting in order for
staff to prepare a report for the Commission.
If you have any questions concerning this letter please contact me at (651) 463-1821.
Sincer..e/.~? . /. / ~_
-;4~-A
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
cc: Ed Shukle, City Administrator
Kevin Carrol, Community Development Director
Property file
/59
~Wr- ,~f'\ S'~J\ 5! 811 r8oO-r&? s
If - 3 - I , UJLn^ ,t'OA S
MARQUEE and/or CANOPY: A rooflike structure projecting from and attached to a building.
NONCONFORMING SIGN: Any advertising structure or sign which was lawfully erected and
maintained prior to the adoption of this Code which fails to conform to all applicable regulations
and restrictions of this Code.
PAINTED WALL SIGN: A sign which has been painted directly onto a building wall, using the
wall material as a base of the sign.
PORTABLE SIGN: A sign not attached to the ground and designed so as to be movable from
one location to another.
PUBLIC SIGN: Noncommercial signs in the public interest, erected by, or on the order of, a
public officer in the performance of his duties.
REAL ESTATE SIGN: A temporary sign erected by a realtor or private individual for purposes
of advertising for sale or lease a particular building and/or parcel of property.
ROOF SIGN: A sign erected upon or above a roof or parapet of a building or above the eaves in
the case of a hip, gable or mansard roof where the plane of the roof is less than sixty degrees
(600) from the horizontal.
SNIPE SIGN: Any sign of any material whatsoever that is attached in any way to a utility pole,
tree or any object located or situated on public property.
TEMPORARY SIGN: A banner, pennant, poster or advertising display constructed of cloth,
canvas, plastic, sheet, cardboard or other like materials and intended to be displayed for a limited
period of time.
-*
WALL SIGN: A sign affixed directly to the exterior wall or screening surface and confined
within the limits thereof and which proj ect from that surface less than fifteen inches (15 It) at all
-
points.
4-3-2: PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS:
(A) The following signs are permitted uses subject to the following regulations:
1. Temporary Real Estate Signs: For the purpose of selling, renting or leasing property, one
sign may be placed per street frontage within fifteen feet (15') of the right-of-way line, on
the property to be sold or leased. The size of such sign shall be a maximum of six (6) square
feet for residential property and a maximum of thirty two (32) square feet for all other
properties.
/c;c;
(B) The following signs are prohibited as prescribed:
1. Illuminated Signs: Illuminated signs shall not be permitted within the "A", "C" and "R"
Districts.
2. Rotating, Moving or Flashing Signs: Rotating, moving or flashing signs shall not be
permitted in any district.
3. Traffic Interference: No sign shall be erected that, by reason of position, shape or color
would interfere in any way with the proper functioning or purpose of a traffic sign or signal.
4. Snipe Signs: There shall be no use of snipe signs anywhere within the City.
5. Roof Signs: Roof signs, roof advertising symbols, roof logos, roof statues or roof
sculptures shall not be permitted in any district. No sign shall extend above the roof line.
6. Business and Advertising Signs: Such signs shall not be painted, attached or in any
manner affixed to trees, rocks or similar natural surfaces, nor shall such signs be affixed to a
fence or utility pole.
7. Public Rights of Way: No sign shall be upon or overhang any public right of way, with
the exception of B-2 Districts where an overhang of fifteen inches (15") is possible.
8. Bench Sign: Bench signs shall not be permitted in any district. (Ord. 086-173,2-21-86)
9. Advertising Signs: Signs which advertise an activity, business, product or service that has
not been produced or conducted on the premises for more than thirty (30) days. (Ord.
090-228, 2-5-90)
4-3-3: SIGNS IN ANY DISTRICT:
(A) Signs in C and R Districts:
1. C, R-l and R-2 Districts: One nameplate sign for each dwelling unit. Such signs shall not
exceed two (2) square feet in area per surface, shall not exceed five feet (5') in height, and no
sign shall have more than two (2) surfaces. Nonconforming business uses shall be permitted
one on-premises wall sign not exceeding twenty (20) square feet in area.
2. R-3 Districts: One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of six (6) or more units, and
such sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area per surface and no sign shall have more
than two (2) surfaces. (Ord. 090-228, 2-5-90)
3. Nameplate Sign: One back to back nameplate sign for each permitted use or use by
conditional use permit other than residential. Such sign shall not exceed thirty (30) square
/~/
feet in area per surface. Back to back signs exceeding a ninety degree (900) angle shall be
measured as one surface. Such sign is permitted in areas other than residential by a
conditional use permit. (Ord. 093-321, 12-6-93)
4. Set Back Requirements: Any nameplate sign over one foot (I') square shall be set back at
least ten feet (10') from any property line.
5. Freestanding Signs: Freestanding signs shall be permitted for the purpose of permanent
identification of residential areas. At each principal entrance to such an area a maximum of
two (2) signs, not to exceed fifty (50) square feet of sign area per sign. Such signs shall not
extend beyond the drainage and utility easements on those lots adjoining the principal
entrances. (Ord. 090-228,2-5-90)
(B) Signs in the B and I Districts:
1. Option A - Wall Signs: Under Option A only wall signs shall be allowed.
~ (a) The maximum number of signs on any principal building shall be two (2) and, in all
cases, each sign shall be placed on a separate wall fronta@.:. The maximum size of wall
signs under Option A shall be as specified below.
(b) When a building faces two (2) or more streets, the total allowed sign area shall be
based upon the gross silhouetted area of the two (2) smaller building sides facing streets.
(c) For multiple occupancy buildings, each tenant may have one business sign, however,
the design, color and typeface shall be regulated by a plan developed by the property
owner and as approved by the Planning Commission. The following standards shall apply
to said signs:
(1) Multiple occupancy buildings shall submit a sign plan which will coordinate
signage for the entire project.
(2) The plan shall address height, location, size, number type, decorative theme,
design, color and materials to be used on the building.
(3) The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance
of a sign permit for the building.
(4) The owner of the building is responsible to obtain the sign permit, prescribe to the
approved sign criteria and insure that signs erected are in compliance with the
approved sign plan.
(d) Signs may be placed on the side of a building not facing a street, but the total sign
Ic;~
area on the building shall not exceed that allowed in Option A as follows:
OPTION A - WALL SIGN ONLY
Basic Size Size Based On Bldg. Face Maximum
B-1 24 sq. ft. 12% 300 sq. ft.
B-2 50 sq. ft. 16% 400 sq. ft.
B-3 75 sq. ft. 18% 400 sq. ft.
1-1 100 sq. ft. 20% 500 sq. ft.
2. Option B - Wall And Pylon Signs:
(a) Under Option B, both wall and pylon signs may be used, but only one pylon sign is
permitted. The maximum allowable sign area for any wall sign in this option shall be
specified below.
(b) When a building faces two (2) or more streets, the total allowed sign area shall be
based upon the gross silhouetted area of the two (2) smaller building sides facing the
streets.
(c) For multiple occupancy buildings a sign plan shall be prepared and approved with the
same conditions as listed under Option A above.
(d) Signs may be placed on the side of the building not facing the street up to one sign per
tenant, but the total sign area shall not exceed that allowed in Option B as follows:
OPTION B - WALL AND PYLON SIGNS
Basic Size Size Based On Bldg. Face Maximum
B-1 24 sq. ft. 10% 200 sq. ft.
B-2 50 sq. ft. 14% 300 sq. ft.
B-3 75 sq. ft. 16% 300 sq. ft.
1-1 100 sq. ft. 18% 400 sq. ft.
(Ord. 095-347, 2-6-95)
/G3
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:
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
I?pc'
SUBJECT: Appeal of Zoning Decision - Sign Permit Application for Hometown, Inc.
DATE: January 8, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The appellant, Kim Friedrich of Hometown, Inc., has requested a review by the Planning
Commission concerning the decision of Planning staff in the denial of her sign permit application
for a proposed wall sign for the business located at 331 3rd Street.
DISCUSSION
City staff initially received the sign permit application in early November involving the proposed
sign. Attached is the denial letter dated November 14, 2001 informing the applicant that the
permit application was denied based on the following guidelines outlined in the City's Sign
Ordinance:
1. Under Section 4-3-1: Definitions, wall signage is defined as a sign affixed directly to
an exterior wall and may project from the wall no more than fifteen (15) inches from
all points of the sign (see attached definition).
2. Under Section 4-3-3 (B)la: Signs in the B and I Districts does not allow for more
than two (2) wall signs on one (1) building face;
The appellant then requested that the City's Development Committee review the sign permit
application for their interpretation of the Sign Ordinance. The Committee reviewed the
application at their November 27,2001 meeting and concurred with Planning Staffs decision. A
copy of the sign plans were also forwarded to the City Attorney for review and was determined
that Planning Staff s decision was supported.
On December 18, 2001, during a phone conversation, the appellant requested that staff review
existing commercial signage within the downtown inquiring why other businesses were
permitted two (2) or more cabinet signs. In a letter dated December 19, 2001, staff addressed
those questions (see attached letter).
I~f/
Staff feels that the Sign Ordinance clearly states that wall signs are limited to no more than one
unit per wall face and that unit may project from the wall no more than fifteen (15) inches at all
points.
Planning Staff did make a recommendation to the applicant to make use of the current cabinet
signs, in the letter dated December 19, 2001, to attach one sign to the front and rear of the
building.
REOUESTED ACTION
F or the Planning Commission to review the appeal of the applicant concerning the zoning
decision from Planning Staff involving the proposed wall sign for Hometown, Inc. and to render
a decision in support or against the appellant and direct staff to draft a Findings of Fact
concerning their decision.
Respe~.tfullllYY}}ubrniJP/tf /.." .'
/7M~Ad~',' .
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
cc: Kim Friedrich, Hometown, Inc.
/~S'
December 27, 2001
To Whom It May Concern:
I am the owner of Hometown Furnishings located at 331 Third Street in Farmington.
I finally made enough profits to justify redoing the front of my building in hopes to create more traffic for
my store and the rest of the downtown area.
On or about the 2nd Day of May, 2001, Mr. Y. M. Akbar came into my store and commented on the
condition of my sign outside and I agreed it was time. So I signed a contract with Mr. Akbar to repaint the
front of the building, new sign, & new awning. I paid Mr. Akbar in full ($6,000.00). He had someone
paint the front, took my awning frame and never returned.
On or about the 5th day of September, 2001, I met with a gentleman from Signtronixs. The gentleman went
over to the city to get preliminary approval on the sign then we walked the block and looked at other signs.
On several business there are more than one signs attached. I then ordered the signs at a sum of
$13,518.00. I also ordered a new awning at the cost of $1,473.00. The awning cannot be put up until the
sign is up.
On approximately September 26, 2001, I received the signs. I had some electrical work to do on the front
of my building before I could put these signs up. I applied for the permit sometime after that.
To my surprise and Signtronixs surprise, I was denied the permit on November 14,2001 in writing.
Signtronics asked for this to be reviewed and I was denied the permit again on November 29,2001 in
writing.
I called Mr. Schultz and asked him to look at the business on my block and tell me why I could not have
these sign up. I was denied a third time in writing on December 19,2001.
The basis of denial on all occasions is that the staff considers my sign 2 faceplate signs. I agree they are 2
faceplates so they can be bent at an angle (see attached). This is what we preliminarily had approved in the
beginning. I am including pictures of businesses on my block that have more. than 1 faceplate bolted
together, some even protrude off the building.
I have at least 2 customers a week say they do not even know my business is here. I have been here 6
years. I find that the need for a dramatic sign is a must at this point of my business growth. The sign also
enhances the front of my building greatly. I also am Including a current picture of the front of my building,
as distressed as it is right now.
I strongly believe this has created a hardship for my business.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me.
S~c/elY, ",'
111m t:ULd'Uh
Kim Friedrich
Hometown Furnishings
331 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
651-463-9999
I~&
foJ
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
e: .1,.
TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator
FROM: Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Fourth Quarter 2001 and Year End New Construction Report
DATE: January 22, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The following report summarizes the new construction permits issued during the fourth quarter
of2001 and the year end totals.
DISCUSSION
During the fourth quarter of the 2001 building construction season, October 15t through
December 315\ the City issued 76 new single-family detached housing permits and 71 new
multi-family permits.
The 76 single-family permits issued during the fourth quarter of 2001 are 24 less than the 100
single-family permits issued over the same period in the year 2000. Overall for the fourth
quarter, the total of 147 new housing permits (single-family and multi-family units) issued is 32
more over the same period of a year ago when 115 total residential permits were issued.
Construction valuation of the single-family and multi-family homes totaled $12,110,003 and
$8,033,200, respectively.
The year-end numbers finished with 227 new single-family units and 259 new townhome units
for a total of 486 new building permits issued. This is an increase of 13.6% over last year's total
of 427 residential units.
The 486 residential permits resulted in a total new building valuation of $63,641,963 (compared
to $48,460,626 last year). The total valuation for just new single-family home construction
totaled $35,063,203, for an average valuation cost of$154,463 per single-family unit, an increase
of $28,276 from 2000.
The City also issued four (4) new commercial, four (4) new public/institutional and two (2) new
industrial building permits for a total building valuation of $23,594,200.
I&;7
(Note: The construction valuation is determined by a building formula utilizing square footage of
the home or building. The valuation average does not represent the overall sale or market value
of the home or building since it does not include the value of the lot or any amenities added to
the home that are not part of the building code formula).
ACTION REQUIRED
No action is required, for City Council information only.
~e::;111Y ::bnU~ I ~
7/~d~~
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
/~'1)
T'""
o
o
N
o
C +-'
01"-
+-'00
0>0)
CT'""
>.
....
ro
..L E
'0 E
>.::J
~C/)
() 0>
C
"0
::J
CO
o
o
, I
CO
000
O'>~co
O'>::JI'-
T""ro~
>-.i
00
00
00)
01O
o CO
C'?O'>
lOa
NlO
o
o
0)
1O
~
o
1O
v_
co
lit
lit lit lit lit
2
g 'E I'- 0 T"" ffi
O'>Q:;co T""
a..
I'-
C'?
N
0000
C!C!C!C!
COOlOv
0001'-T""
CO__O'>OC'?C'?
co ';;; 0'> C'? 1O co
O'>~VONI'-
>w I'- T"" V V
r--:
lit lit lit lit
o
o
0)
co
1O
c.O
1O
I'-
co
lit
2
gs 'E ~ NO;:!:
O>(j;'r'""" 'r'"""
a..
C'?
V
N
C
o
...
C)
c
E
...
ev
l.L
....
o
~
U
0)
E
o U5
..c C
c:;:;
:s: IJl
o ::J
1;;-0
'c ~
::J E
:;!; E Q:;
"50:5
200
en
...J
<(
I-
o
I-
~
E
...
~ro
....:g
o 0)
Q):!2
Q,1Jl
~&
0000
ooc!c!
cMOOCO
co ,Q ~ g 25 I'-
~~c.Ocorir--:
T""ro[;;;j!;a;~
>ri""':""':co
C'?
lit lit lit lit
2
~ 'E v 1O N
O'>.....~C'?v~
T"" 0)
a..
o
C!
T""
N
co
1O
N
q
C'?
V
lit
1O
v
co
0000
OOC!C!
CL{)OOlO
vONOOT""
O'>~T""OOCO_
0'>::J;j!;~~~
ro I'- v_ co C'?_
>VCONT""
N
lit lit lit lit
2
;j!; 'E g 1O co [:::
O'>Q:;Nv T""
a..
o
C!
o
v
0'>
r--:
I'-
v
.0
C'?
lit
co
co
v
0000
0C!C!C!
COOON
N~g_g~~
0'> ';;; NOr--: v
0'>~T""C'?T""1O
>C'? C'?I'-
c.O
lit lit lit lit
2
Sl 'E v T"" C'? ~
~Ci>co 'r'"""
a..
0)
E
0U5
..c c
c:;:;
~ IJl
~~
~
E
...
~ro
O~5'
Q):!2:;!;EQ:;
Q,1Jl-E..c
~&~86
o
o
N
0'>
C'?
-.i
T""
v_
I'-
lit
co
N
N
en
...J
<(
I-
o
I-
0000
0000
cocooco
oOONOT""
o~co_C'? _~
~.216C;;C;;R
C1l 0'>_ q I'- I'-
>vC'? C'?
C'?T""
lit lit lit lit
o
C!
v
v
~
co
v
1O_
N
1O
lit
2
25 'E
o .....
Nrf.
I'-
V
1O
1O
I'-
0'>
1'-0
1'-1O
N
0000
0000
co~g~~~
0'> ';;; ri 00 c.O .,...:
~.2lOcoC'?o
C1l I'- N_ co_ 0_
>O'>T""lON
N T""
lit lit lit lit
o
C!
v
1O
o
co
co_
co
V
lit
2
~ 'E co v T""
O'>Q:;~T""N~
a..
u
1il
<Ii
C'? .><
1O u
I'- ~
<Ii
(5
o
a.
<Ii
Q)
0>
'"
m
0>
<Ii
c
o
:;:;
'6
'0
'"
~
E
...
rf. C1l
o~
Q):!2
Q,1Jl
~&
0)
E
o U5
..c c
c:;:;
~ IJl
~~
c,
7 E 0).....
:E E
::J0:5
200
.,.:
o
e
~
cl
c
,'6
; "Ci)
~
<Ii
Q)
~
III
'c
4=
(;
.~
1;
u;
Q)
en -g
...J U
<( ,~
I- Qi
g 6
/(;~
/()~
Apple Valley, Farmington, & Rosemount Cable Commission
Apple Valley Municipal Center
7100 West 147th Street
Apple Valley, MN 55124
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date:
January 15, 2002
Contact:
Mark Moore, AFRCC Cable Coordinator, (952) 953-2502
RE:
CABLE COMMISSION CHANGES TV CHANNELS
The Apple Valley, Farmington, & Rosemount Cable Commission is creating a second
Government Access cable channel within the three-city viewing area. The Commission
is reorganizing two access channels in its franchise area to provide capacity in the
government access program line-up for the addition of Rosemount city meetings and
Dakota County Board taped replays. AFRCC-22, the new government channel on
Charter Communications, should begin carrying some of the new programs by January
23, 2002. Live and taped telecasts of Rosemount City Council and Planning
Commission meetings will soon follow starting on Tuesday, February 5th.
By February 1 st, the new AFRCC access channel line-up will be:
~ Channel 6 - Regional Access,
~ Channel 10 - Educational Access (ISD 192/196),
~ Channel 12 - Public Access,
~ Channel 16 - Government Access (Apple Valley/Farmington), and
~ Channel 22 - Government Access (Rosemount/Dakota County).
This realignment moves Independent School District 192 cable television to Channel 10,
sharing that bandwidth with ISD 196. However, viewers will continue to see the regular
cable program schedule for each district within their respective boundaries. Program
listings for the Government and Educational Access can usually be seen on each
channel, or at the city or school district web sites.
The channel realignment will primarily affect the Apple Valley, Farmington, &
Rosemount franchise territories. Mark Moore, AFRCC Cable Coordinator, states that
the challenge of achieving the changeover was significant, but credits the cooperation of
the school districts and outstanding technical support from Charter Communications as a
major factor in its accomplishment. Moore also notes that this is a major step toward the
Cable Commission's goal of utilizing existing resources to broaden and enhance the
delivery of access programming services in the AFRCC viewing area.
/70
I / Cl..J
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: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Extension Project - Use of
Eminent Domain
DATE: January 7, 2002 (continued to January 22, 2002)
INTRODUCTION
At the November 5, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council accepted the feasibility report, ordered
plans and specifications and authorized the advertisement for bids for the Middle Creek Trunk
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Extension Project.
DISCUSSION
The sewer and water main project will require that the City acquire easements from two adjacent
properties owned by the Donnelly's. Staff is currently in process of negotiating with the Donnelly's
to acquire the needed easements.
In order to insure that the easements can be acquired to commence construction of this project in the
time frame necessary to serve the new elementary school, it is recommended that the Council
authorize staff to initiate eminent domain proceedings.
It is desirable, and staff's goal, to negotiate the right-of-way acquisition with the property owner, thus
making the use of the City's power of eminent domain unnecessary. However, if negotiations
become protracted and the City has not initiated eminent domain proceedings, it will be too late to
acquire the right-of-way to allow the improvements to be constructed this year in time for the
opening of the new school.
BUDGET IMPACT
None at this time.
/7/
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the attached resolution authorizing staff to commence with eminent domain proceedings for
the necessary easements for the Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Extension
Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
~YYz~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
/7d.
RESOLUTION NO. R -02
AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USES
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 22nd day of
January, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Farmington does hereby determine that it is
necessary for a public use and purpose to acquire the property interests as identified and
described by the City for the Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Extension
Project, Project 01-17, as amended and modified from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the construction schedule and seasonal construction
conditions make it necessary to acquire title to, and possession of, the subject property as soon as
possible in order for the project to proceed in an efficient, cost effective and expeditious manner;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. The City Attorney is authorized to commence eminent domain proceedings pursuant to
Minnesota Statute Chapter 117 to acquire the property interests necessary to proceed with
City Project 01-17.
2. The City Attorney is authorized to acquire the necessary property interests pursuant to the
"quick take" provisions of Minnesota Statute ~ 117.042.
3. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute all documents necessary, in the opinion
of the City Attorney, to effect the acquisition of the necessary property interests.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
22nd day of January, 2002.
Attested to the 22nd day of January, 2002.
Mayor
City Administrator
SEAL
/73