Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.07.00 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR February 7, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Elm Park Clean-Up Grant Presentation - Mr. John Conzemius, Metropolitan Council b) Staff Introduction - Parks and Recreation Department c) Staff Introduction and Oath of Office - Police Department 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (1/18/00) (Regular) b) Approve Fire Department Bylaws - Amendments c) Capital Outlay - Administration Department d) Capital Outlay - Administration Department e) Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation Department f) Capital Outlay - Public Works Department g) School and Conference - Community Development Department h) School and Conference - Fire Department i) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation Department j) 1999 Liquor Operations Sales Report k) Acknowledge 1999 Recycling Survey Results I) Authorize Assessment Agreement - Water Connection m) Approve Change Order - County Road 72 Project n) Consider Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids - Truck Chassis - Parks and Recreation Department 0) Hwy 3 Frontage Road Project - Re-authorize Property Acquisition p) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Consider Adoption - Business Subsidy Policy 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Consider Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Amendment - Silver Springs Zone Change Request b) Consider Ordinance Amendment - Murphy Farm PUD Zone Change Request Action Taken Continued Inlroduced Inlroduced ApprowuJ Approved I1lformationReceived /1lformation Received /nfo17ll4lion Received Information .Received Information Received /1lformationReceived /1lformation Received Infon1lDtion Received Acknowledged Authorized APf'roved R07..J)(J Authorized Approved Adopted Denied Ord (J()().448 c) Consider Ordinance Amendment - Tamarack Ridge PUD Zone Change Request d) Ash Street Feasibility Report Update e) Consider Resolution - Dakota County Cities Legislative Position Paper f) Consider Resolution - Retain Local Authority to Negotiate Award and Regulate Cable Television Franchises g) Approve Gambling Event Permit Fee Waiver - Dakota Valley Arts Council 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Authorize RFP Audio Visual Services b) CSAH 31 Fence Project Update c) Akin Road Tumback - Schedule Council Workshop 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 5a" TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrato~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Grant Presentation - Metropolitan Council Representative - John Conzemius DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION John Conzemius, District Representative to the Metropolitan Council has requested an opportunity to make a formal presentation to the City Council and HRA Board of the grant award of $85,030 that was received for the cleanup of Elm Park Landfill. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully S?,/ David L. Olson Community Development Director cc: HRA Board City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 5e.. FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police TO: SUBJECT: Oath of Office Officer Mark Sundgren DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION Officer Sundgren was hired by the City of Farmington as a full time police officer on January 3, 2000. He will be introduced to Council and take his Oath of Office at the Council meeting. ACTION REOUESTED The City Administrator will administer the Oath of Office. Respectfully submitted, ~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police FARMINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT I, Mark Sundgren, do solemnly swear, That I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States of America and the State of Minnesota against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. That I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. I do further swear, That while a member of the Farmington Police Department, I will not advocate, nor become a member of any political party that advocates the overthrow of the United States of America or the State of Minnesota by force or violence, so help me God. Officer Signature Witness Mark Sundgren John Erar, City Administrator Date Februmy 7. 2000 February 7. 2000 Chief of Police Daniel M. Siebenaler k COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR January 18, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Mayor Strachan at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Mayor Strachan led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch Ristow City Administrator Erar, City Attorney Jamnik, City Management Team 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Mark Snider, 19509 Ewing Street, stated he has been a resident of Farmington for seven years and currently lives in Charleswood. When he arrived home from work he noticed his wife's van was gone. He called the Police and found out it had been towed due to the winter parking ban. He did not know about the ordinance. Dispatch informed him it was approved in November, warnings were issued in December, and ticketing and towing began the first of the year. He wanted to know what the reasoning was for this ordinance. Councilmember Strachan stated the Council is committed to keeping taxes low. When vehicles are parked on the street every night and plows have to go around them, the plows have to come back and clean it up. With the ordinance, the City will have to buy fewer plows, hire fewer people, and pay less overtime. Other options were considered, but it was determined to go with a winter parking ban. The Police Department issued 1,000 warnings before the first of the year. Signs are posted at the entrances to the City, it is on the web site, in the City Newsletter and in the newspaper. Mr. Snider then stated they called three friends living in Farmington and they had not heard of the ordinance. He then called another 13 people, of those, 3 people knew of the ordinance. One of those thought it pertained to when it snowed. Mr. Snider stated he was also informed signs are placed on the main roads coming into town. He stated a car Council Minutes (Regular) January 18, 2000 Page 2 has to pull over to be able to read the sign. He stated he was told there was a notice in the newspaper. Mr. Snider does not receive the paper. Staff stated it was also in the City Newsletter which is mailed to every household in Farmington. Councilmember Strachan stated he knows people do not read the paper, but they should. He asked if fewer words on the sign would help? What else could be done? Mr. Snider stated fewer words on the sign would help. When he picked up his car he was charged $55 for the tow, and $25 administration fee. Who gets the administration fee? Staff replied the towing company receives the administration fee. Mr. Snider stated the warning period was fine, but felt just the ticketing would have been enough. Mr. Snider suggested a notice be included in the utility bills. Councilmember Strachan suggested staff review what else could be done as far as notifying residents. Staff stated an individual mailing was sent with the City Newsletter. The notice was on a separate blue flyer in the NovemberlDecember Newsletter, and there was an article in the January/February Newsletter. There were also notices in the local newspaper. All efforts to publicize the ordinance have been made. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (113/00) (Regular) and (118/00) (Special) b) Approved Change Order - Daisy Knoll Project c) Approved Appointments to Boards and Commissions d) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Parks and Recreation Department e) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Public Works Department f) Adopted RESOLUTION R03-00 Authorizing Traffic Signal Agreement - CSAH 31 and 50 Traffic Signal g) Adopted RESOLUTIONS R04-00 and R05-00 Ratifying AFSCME Clerical and Maintenance Agreements h) Ratified 1999 Pay Equity Report i) Established Board of Review/Equalization Date j) Received Infonnation School and Conference - Police Department k) Received Infonnation School and Conference - Administration Department 1) Received Infonnation Capital Outlay - Administration Department m) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Consider Approval - 2000 CDBG Application The City is scheduled to receive $54,715 in Community Development Block Grant funds in 2000 from the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Council Minutes (Regular) January 18, 2000 Page 3 Authority. Staff is recommending the grant amount be used to fund two activities. This would include a portion of the salary and benefits for the Senior Center Coordinator position at a cost totaling $25,000 with the balance of$29,715 dedicated to the cleanup and redevelopment of the Elm Park area north of City Center. The City has received grant funds totaling $496,344 for demolition and cleanup costs associated with the old Elm Park Landfill. It is anticipated that the $29,715 in 2000 CDBG funds along with the previously committed $33,066 in 1999 CDBG funding will fund the portion of the cleanup not funded by the State grant as well as provide a small contingency for unanticipated cleanup costs. MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg to adopt RESOLUTION R06-00 approving the application of the City of Farmington for fiscal year 2000 Dakota County Community Development Block Grant funding. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) 1999 Summary Building Permit Report During the fourth quarter of 1999,83 new single-family home permits were issued. This was 30 more than the same period last year. The City also issued 15 multi-family permits. Year-end numbers included 273 new single-family permits, 28 new townhome permits and 1 multi-family building for a total of 302 new building permits issued. c) Acknowledge Citizen Communication - Mr. Dale Pettet A letter was received from Mr. Dale Pettet, 20155 Dunbar Avenue, regarding the use of snowmobiles on the Pine Knoll pond and surrounding area. Staff stated Council had agreed last year to receive a report at the end of the season, unless Council would like a mid-winter update in terms of the number of complaints received, but Council has made it's intentions clear with continuing with the snowmobile ordinance. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Council member Strachan: The Joint Planning School Board Task Force finished their work last week and a report will go to the School Board on January 24, 2000. Council member Soderberg: Confirmed that the signage for the seasonal parking ordinance will be reviewed administratively. Council member Verch: At the Chamber meeting, it was discussed April will be Volunteer month. A League day party will be held at the American Legion on February 27,2000. The Chamber wanted to know if the banners could be included in the budget for the streetscape project. City Administrator Erar replied it was his understanding that the cost of the banners will be part of the entire streetscape budget. A committee has Council Minutes (Regular) January 18,2000 Page 4 been formed to determine the type of banners. A business owner has also requested to include the Holiday decorations in the streetscape budget. That will be reviewed further in terms of costs and will be brought back to Council with the award of bids. Councilmember Verch then asked if a clock will be included. Staff replied the wiring will be installed, but the clock will be a separate fund raising issue. City Administrator Erar: evening. A Chamber Awards Banquet will be held Thursday City Engineer Mann: Within the next few weeks a neighborhood meeting will be scheduled for the residents living along Akin Road, to hear any issues and concerns. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, //;-&~ ?77/~ l,f,:p ,.v~., 2' ,;:;./" Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 76 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief FROM: SUBJECT: By-Laws Amendment - Fire Department DATE: February 7,2000 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department recently amended the By-Laws and Constitution. These amendments were voted on and approved by the Fire Department membership. DISCUSSION Upon review of the Fire Department By-laws and Constitution, it was determined that the language regarding the appointment, reappointment and removal process for Fire Department Officers was ambiguous. In May of 1999, there was a proposed amendment that failed by membership vote within the Fire Department. This failed amendment would have provided personnel with the opportunity to rotate in and out of Captain positions. Some issues were raised and brought to the attention of the Human Resources Coordinator, Brenda Wendlandt. Due to the concerns raised by the membership, the Fire Chief met with the Human Resources Coordinator and the City Administrator regarding the proposed amendment changes. Of particular concern was the appointment, reappointment and removal process for Fire Department Officers. Upon consultation with the City Attorney and the Human Resources Coordinator, it was agreed that decisions affecting any person's employment with the City, regardless of status (volunteer, full-time, etc.) should be based on performance measures and must follow approved City policies and procedures. Adherence to established policies and procedures are designed to protect these decisions from challenge and to minimize and/or avoid potential liability by an aggrieved City employee or volunteer. Therefore, any proposed change to the amendments were reviewed and approved by the City Administrator, City Attorney and Human Resources Coordinator based on conformance with City administrative and personnel policies, past practice, and state and federal law. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REOUESTED Approve amendments to the Fire Department By-laws and Constitution. Respectfully submitted, XcpJ )( c&JI~ ~,..../ Ken Kuchera Fire Chief CC: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Coordinator CONSTITUTION Revise Article 2 to read: ARTICLE 2-0RGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT Sec. 1 The elected officers of the Department shall be: A. Chief! Assistant Fire Marshall B. Assistant Chief s C. Secretary/Treasurer Sec. 2 The appointed officers of the Department shall be: A. Fire Captains B. Rescue Captain C. Rescue Lieutenants Sec. 3 The Fire Marshall shall be under the direction of the Chief. Sec. 4 The Chief and Assistant Chief s shall appoint he following positions: A. Communications B. Maintenance Engineers C. Fire Captains D. Rescue Captains Sec. 5 The Chief and the Rescue Captain shall appoint the Rescue Squad 1 st and 2nd Lieutenants. Sec. 6 All appointments are subject to the approval ofthe City Council. Sec. 7 Board of Directors: This board will consist of the Chief, 1st and 2nd Assistant Chief s, Captains, and Secretary/Treasurer. This board is to serve as prescribed in the Department By-Laws. Sec. 8 The Chief shall appoint the following standing committees: A. Nomination Committee B. Grievance Committee C. Constitution Committee D. Other Committees, as deemed necessary by the Chief. Sec. 9 Chain of Command for the Department shall be: Chief I Rescue Captain FIRE Chief I 1 st Assistant Chief RESCUE "'~"".~_.:,,"'~.Q':"-"'~..~',,,. _..i.__.~..~7.":~""" .'_'~-"--- I 1st Lieutenant I 2nd Lieutenant I Fire Captain I 2nd Assistant Chief I Fire Captain I Rescue Captain I Secretary/ Treasurer I Senior Member I Fire Captain BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chief Assistant Chief s Captains Secretary/Treasurer Revise Article 3 to read: ARTICLE 3-0FFICER RESPONSIBILITIES SEe. I The Chief shall have command and shall preside at all meetings of the Department in accordance with City Ordinance, Constitution and By-Laws of the Department. SEC. 2 The Assistant Chiefs shall assist the Chief in his duties, carry out the responsibilities and act as next in command in the absence of the Chief. SEC. 3 The Ca~tains shall assist the Chief and Assistant Chiefs perform their duties, Carry out their responsibilities and act as next in command in the absence of the Chief and Assistant Chief s. SEe. 4 The Secretary/Treasurer shall keep the records of all the proceedings of the Department, safe-keep all the funds belonging to the Department, pay all approved orders drawn on the Department and perform other duties as may be prescribed within the Department By-Laws. . Revise Article 5 to read: ARTICLE 5- TERMS OF OFFICE Sec. 1 Terms of office for elected officers of the Department shall be: A. Chief! Assistant Fire Marshall - Every third year B. Assistant Chief s - Every second year (alternate years) C. Secretary/Treasurer - Every s~cond year Sec. 2 All officers shall be elected by the'members of the Department at the first meeting in February and this election is subject to the approval of the City Council. Sec. 3 Terms of office for -positions appointed by the Chief and Assistant Chiefs shall be subject to the following: A. An annual review of the position shall be conducted by the Chief and Assistant Chief s. B. Appointed Officers shall serve indefinitely sublect to the following proVISIOn; C. The Chief and Assistant Chiefs. based on the annual review. may remove any ap-pointed officer sublect to prior review and recommendation of the City Administrator. and approval of the City Council. Revise Article 6, Section 1 to read: Sec.1 Any officer of this Department, for the abuse of authority, violation of the By- Laws, misconduct in office or failure to Carry out duties, may be impeached and removed from office by a vote of sixty-six percent (66%) of the regular members at any regular meeting; provided however, that the charges against the person have been made in writing, read at a regular meeting and filed with the Secretary at least one month before any vote shall be taken upon it and a copy of said charges shall be served upon him/her by the Secretary at least two weeks before any vote shall be taken. BY-LAWS Add New Article 7 to read: ARTICLE 7 - APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS r , .. .... Sec. 1 Appointments to Fire and Rescue Squad Captains positions shall be made by the Chief and the Assistant Chiefs. Sec. 2 Appointments to rescue squad Lieutenant positions shall be made by the Chief and Rescue Squad Captain. Sec. 3 Annual review of the Captains positions shall be conducted by the Chief and the Assistant Chief s. See. 4 Annual review of the Rescue Squad Lieutenant positions shall be conducted by the Chief and Rescue Squad Captain Sec. 5 Upon completion of the annual review, the acting Captains may be replaced if deemed necessary by the Chief and Assistant Chiefs. Sec. 6 Upon Completion of the Annual reviews, the acting Rescue Squad Lieutenants may be replaced if deemed necessary by the Chief and Rescue Squad Captain Sec.7 The appointed officers will assume their duties immediately, subject to the approval of the City Council. Sec. 8 Vacancies in appointed offices may be filled at any time by the Chief and Assistant Chief s or Rescue Squad Captain. Sec. 9 No person may hold more than one elected or appointed position on the Board of Directors Renumber remaining Articles to reflect inserted Article Revise new Article 8, Section 3 to read: Sec. 3 The Chief shall appoint and reappoint on an annual basis the Captains, 1 st and 2nd Rescue Lieutenants. Add to new Section 13 to new Article 9 to read: Sec. 13 The Assistant Chief s shall recommend to the Chief the appointments of fire and Rescue Squad Captains. Miscellaneous clean up: Current Article 7, Section 2 should be moved to Current Article 8 Section 2. Remaining Sections need to be renumbered to reflect.inserted section. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7c, TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Capital Outlay - Administration Department February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION DATE: A need for a new computer for the Recreation Programming Division has been identified to replace a more limited service use model. DISCUSSION The computer currently in use by the Recreation Programming Division was shifted from another department last year. At the time, software applications consisted of basic word processing and spread sheets. Since that time, the need to run more sophisticated software on this computer has been identified to support division service program activities. A more powerful computer will facilitate more efficient use of staff time, reduce computer processing wait time and avoid system crashes that may result in data loss. The existing computer will be shifted to another department with reduced program processing needs. BUDGET IMPACT The cost of a new computer is approximately $1,990, including sales tax and delivery, and can be funded through the Recreation Operating Fund, a special revenue fund. This funding source has been used in the past to underwrite capital expenditures directly associated with recreation programming service costs. Adequate funding is available in this special revenue fund and will have no impact on the City's general operating fund budget. ACTION REOUESTED As this capital item was not previously approved in the 2000 City Budget, Council approval of this proposed expenditure is requested. J n F. Erar ity Administrator file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7d TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Capital Outlay - Administration Department DATE: February 7,2000 INTRODUCTION The 2000 budget provides for the purchase of six electronic vote tabulators to replace existing voting equipment and will be used in the 2000 General Election. DISCUSSION An agreement with Dakota County to arrange for the purchase, use and maintenance of an electronic Voting System was approved by Council at the meeting of September 8, 1998. A copy of the agreement is attached for your review. Purchase of the equipment is in the final phase and the exchange of the old equipment is scheduled for the week February 14,2000. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost of the six electronic machines is $30,776.37, 75% of which will be paid for by Dakota County. The City portion is $7694.10 and will be paid over a period of three years which brings the total costs to be paid in 2000 to a total of $2564.70. Funding is included in the 2000 budget ACTION REOUESTED For Council information. Respectfully submitted, 1/ (~ /7 UW>>J ;C:~;;L/Z::(.e.-.-J e-,.......J Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager '" . '1 AGREEMENT TO ARRANGE FOR THE PURCHASE, USE AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM This Agreement is between Dakota County, 1590 West Highway 55, Hastings, Minnesota (referred to in this document as County) and the City of Farmington , 325 Oak Street (address), (referred to in this document as City), and concerns the cooperative efforts of the County and City (collectively referred to as the parties) to arrange for the purchase, use and maintenance of electronic voting system. WHEREAS, the parties desire to purchase new electronic voting system hardware and related software and to have all equipment in place for elections to be held in year 2000, and after; and WHEREAS, County has agreed to initially fund 100 percent of the purchase price of the equipment upon the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties intend by this document to enter into a written agreement on all issues related to the purchase and use of this equipment including, but not limited to, factors such as the allocation of the purchase price, insurance and maintenance costs, storage of the equipment and ultimate replacement of the equipment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants of the parties set forth below, the parties agree to the following: A. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY: 1. The County, in consultation with all the local governmental units located in Dakota County, will prepare specifications for the purchase, through a competitive bidding process, of an electronic voting system meeting the requirements stated in Minn. Stat. 9 206.57 and 9 206.58. It is anticipated that the specifications will include vendor-supplied technical maintenance of all equipment for at least eight years after the purchase, including assuranc~s of sufficient parts, supplies and accessories, warranty service of the equipment, wherever stored, and trade-in allowance for all existing voting systems owned by the parties. Competitive bids will be solicited in a manner consistent with the provisions of Minn. Stat. 9 471.345. Results of any bids received will be tabulated by the County and made available to all local governmental units in Dakota County. The final decision on lowest responsible bidder, and award of contract, will be made by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners. County will defend and indemnify the Cities and hold them harmless from any claims for damages arising out of the public bidding process utilized by County. 1 2. In addition to pmchase of sufficient, necessary equipment, County will contract with the vendor for warranty repairs and regUlar maintenance of the voting equipment, wherever stored. 3. County will arrange for pmchase and delivery of sufficient voting machines to meet the needs of the voting precincts in the City. In addition, County will purchase spare, replacement equipment as well as ballot tabulation equipment for use by the Dakota County Treasurer/Auditorls Office. The initial costs for the purchase of the necessary equipment will be paid by the County, minus the City's share of 25 percent as required by Section B( 4). 4. County will list the election equipment on its commercial property casualty insurance policy to provide for coverage against loss or damage to the equipment resulting from theft, fire, or other loss covered by the existing policy. 5. County will arrange for timely training of election judges using the voting equipment as well as on-going training for upgrades to new software or hardware, as necessary . 6. Ownership of all electronic voting equipment purchased pursuant to this agreement will vest in Dakota County, regardless of where the equipment may be stored or used. County will consult with City before any final decision is made in the future on trading in or replacing the system to be pmchased pursuant to this agreement with a different or new voting system. B. CITY RESPONSIBILITY 1. City will give County any existing ballot tabulation equipment and ballot boxes currently belonging to City along with a proper bill of sale transferring ownership of the equipment to County. County will use the old equipment as a trade- in for credit on the purchase of the new voting system contemplated in this agreement. City will retain ownership of voting booths, signs, tables and related polling place equipment. 2. City will consult with the County in preparing specifications for the new electronic voting system and in preparing an itemized listing of new equipment needed by City to properly equip the voting precincts in the city. City will accept and use only the voting system approved and purchased by County. 3. City, will- provide safe storage and proper handling of election equipment used by City. Maintenance needs of equipment stored by City will be reported, in writing, to vendor directly by a person designated by City to arrange for service. City will provide vendor with a list of individuals authorized to arrange repair or service calls on the voting equipment. 2 ...... . 4. Each City will pay to County 25 percent of the cost incurred by the County in providing the necessary electronic voting equipment for the City. Payment of the City share will be for actual cost without interest, paid in three equal annual installments beginning on July 1,2000. Prepayment of the City's share may be made at any time. Each City will pay to the County its pro rata share of the ongoing annual maintenance costs for the voting equipment. Pro rata share is determined by dividing the total number of voting machines purchased by the number of machines required by City. The payable date will be based on the County billing dates. The City payments for maintenance costs will be deposited in a holding fund to be established by County to pay for maintenance of the equipment. 5. City will continue to select and pay necessary election judges and arrange with County for timely training of the judges to use the voting equipment. 6. City will coordinate with County to order additional election equipment from the vendor as local voting precincts are added. The purchase price of additional equipment will be at the same 75 percent-25 percent split, with the City's 25 percent share to be paid to County in one lump sum at the time of delivery of the additional equipment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and County have caused this agreement to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf, and the City's seal to be affixed hereto on September 8, 1998. COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF Farmington By: Thomas V. Novak. Director Public Services & Revenue Division By: 12,~.l/{)~ Mayor By: #!-~ . 'Clerk K1C97-193 3 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Service Manager SUBJECT: Agreement with Dakota County - Electronic Voting Equipment DATE: September 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION Dakota County has agreed to initiaI1y fund a new electronic voting system for use in the year 2000. DISCUSSION Dakota County will prepare specifications and solicit competitive bids for the purchase of a new electronic voting system for cities within the County. Bids will include maintenance, assuraJlce of sufficient parts, supplies and warranty service of the equipment. Ownership will be retained by Dakota County and the cities will store and use the equipment. The City will give the existing voting equipment, which is obsolete due to the unavailability of parts, to the County as a trade-in for credit on the new system. The City will retain ownership of voting booths and other related equipment and supplies. Upon receiving the new equipment, the City shall provide safe storage. BUDGET IMPACT Initial costs for the purchase of the Electronic Voting System will be funded 100% by Dakota County. Each City will pay to Dakota County, 25% of the costs, without interest, in three equal annual installments beginning July 1, 2000 estimated at $3195 per year. Each City will also pay its pro rata share of on-going annual maintenance. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached resolution approving the agreement with Dakota County to arrange for the purchase, use and maintenance of an electronic voting system. Respectfully submitted, Karen Finstuen Administrative Service Manager City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us 7e TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION The 2000 Budget authorizes the purchase of a broom attachment for the John Deere mowers. DISCUSSION The broom attachment will replace the one in current use, which is worn out. The broom is used to sweep snow and debris from the ice rinks and sidewalks. BUDGET IMPACT Quotations were received from two vendors and are as follows: Polfus Implement Northfield Tractor & Equipment $3,248.00 - tax included $3,354.75 - tax included Staff will purchase the broom attachment from Polfus Implement. ACTION REQUESTED This is for information only. Respectfully submitted, Jc.-- 6~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.fal.J11ington.mn.us ?F FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrat09?t- Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer TO: SUBJECT: Capital Outlay - Public Works Department DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION The 2000 Budget provides for the acquisition of a 4 wheel drive pick-up truck by the Public Works Department. DISCUSSION City staff have solicited and received three quotes for a 4 wheel drive pick-up truck: Apple Valley Ford, $25,523, Furlong Motors, $22,877 and Grossman Chevrolet, $22,577. All vehicles had the necessary equipment and specifications. As Grossman met all the qualifications and offered the lowest price, the truck was acquired from them. BUDGET IMPACT The 2000 budget allowed $28,000 for this purchase. With tax and license, the vehicle is still under the budgeted amount. ACTION REQUIRED For information only. Respectfully submitted, >{M~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmin~on.mn.us 3J TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator~ David L. Olson Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: School and Conferences - Community Development Department DATE: February 7,2000 INTRODUCTION Attendance at a Building Inspection Plan Review course that is being offered by North Hennepin Community College and scheduled for February 26 & 27, 2000 is being planned. DISCUSSION The course that is being offered emphasizes the techniques of plan review with special reference to the life safety and environmental health features of the State of Minnesota Building Code. Fire zoning, occupancy, type of construction, exiting, fire safety, and suppression requirements will also be discussed. This type of training is extremely helpful for building inspection staff as the Department continues to process a large number of building permits for a variety of types of construction. It is intended that two Building Inspectors would attend this course. BUDGET IMPACT Funding is authorized in the 2000 Budget for this purpose. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitte , /~ David L. Olson Community Development Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7A TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator 1~ FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: School and Conference - Fire Department DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning the attendance of Rescue Squad and Fire Department personnel at four separate schools and conferences. DISCUSSION Two Rescue Squad personnel will be attending the Emergency Medical Services 2000 Conference, March 17-18,2000, in Rochester, MN. The conference is being sponsored by Emergency Medical Services of Southeastern Minnesota. A member of the Fire Department will be attending the State Fire School in North Mankato on March 4-5,2000. Topics covered include Technical Operations, Vehicle Fire Suppression, and Instructional Techniques. Three firefighters will be attending the State Fire School in Duluth on March 25-26, 2000. Topics covered include Leadership Strategy, Incident Management, and Special Rescue Techniques. Four firefighters will be attending the State Fire School in Alexandria on April 1-2, 2000. Topics covered include House Burn, L.P. Gas Emergencies, and Drug Lab Awareness. BUDGET IMPACT Funding is provided in the 2000 Budget. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~~ Ken Kuchera Fire Chief City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~. FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director TO: SUBJECT: School and Conference Request - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION The Parks Department will be sending an employee to Pool Operating School on April II and 12. DISCUSSION Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Dwight Bjerke will be attending a Pool Operating School in Hopkins to re-certify his license. State regulations require the City have a certified operator available at all times the pool is open. The certification is for five years. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost of registration will be $189.00. The dollars for this school will come from the 2000 Recreation budget. ACTION REOUESTED For Council information only. Respectfully submitted, ~TS~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director "C r::r ~ Q ~ ;- 52. "C e ~ rn. ~ ~ ~ ..s: ;- = s: c..:;'>-7 , = L, ... -. CI:J. Q ~ ; - "1 Q c.. a. = = Q ~ I:Il "1 "C ~ ~;'~= ~ = ~ -. .... -... :Q- _"1 \.. ~ I:Il =- ~ (1 = =-~"C ~ ::l ;- = -. "1 ~::2". ~ ~ 'I ~ = ioooo" "1 ;- 'I ~ :3 Q Q=Q'\ = I:Il Ul "1 _ Q ~~s.~ ~ ~ ~ N !::l '"- ~ ~ ~. ~ ::: c5 !::l <:;.!::l..~ '"-;::--~~ ~ - - e..~;::--t::::l ~ I::l'- ~ ~ ::: "'l "" ~ 5"' :;:. ~ ~ :::-.~ ~ -~ ~ ::: ,; !::l..~ :t s--.-. ~ ~ ~'-::: ~ ::: ~~ S. ~ a s.. ~ ~ ~ <:;. : ~ ~ \'W !::l !::l <:i 8 ~ "" ~ 2! ~ ~ <:;. ~ ~~ ::: :;;. ~ ~ ~ - .... ;::--::::'!::l , "" - (') ...... ;>< ~ 3~ 0 C/:l 0....... ~ ~ t:: _. "-<: 0. ...... ("l (') ::r' 0 a ~ t:: ~ --J ;; ~ O(')::r' ~ S' 0 ~ ("l ~ c:rC:("l (') 9-: g ::; ~ ~ ~ (fQ ~ ~ ...... t:: ("l::r'::: o (') "-<: ..., - ("l ......(')60 g ~.~ 3 z:::~"2.. ~ (ti tt' ~ g. ("l 0 (') ~ ~. 0 :;. ~ <: ~ -. -(') :~ C/:l~ ~ (1 s' g, 3 :=..; S' o' (fQ ~ "'t:l(') o 0 o -. -(1 63 t::"'O ~ - o.~ ~ o' o' ~ ~ =t' . 0 3 3 ::;. (l ~ -"(JQ --< ::l ~ 0 ~ (') t::_ '""l (') a. ro !:. Q '< "1 . '""l ~ o ~ ~ :!:.~ "1 o r: Q ::l"r::r ~l'- ::l ~ ro o..Jg 8 '" -CIJ. (') ~. ~ '""l (DC/) . ~ ~ '" t:: ~'""l e:.~ :1 =. -'0 ::l ::l IJQ...... I _ o ..... '""l a. IJQ ~ ~ >< ::l ~ _. "Tl (') 0 ~ ~ ::l a 0.. I (ltfj -',.Q ri = t:: _. ~"C g. e ::l ro ........ - ""I'l- ::.;- ~ '""l ~ ~ o' ::l m a ~ '""l IJQ ~ ::l (') ':< ~ o om ~g. ~2 0. Og ~...... I~ ~ ~ ~ rt ~ == =. """'t ~ .- ::l +:-- ~ .., El. ::: 0 t5 ~ --J ~ (') ~ CI:J. <' 1;;0 ~ == ; ~a~(') ~(')~2 t:: "'0 '-' . (pe;~~ ~30~ (')O~ g ~ r.IJ~ o :: -. ..... xc. (') ~ ~ ("l -0 :;'''0 "'t:l"-<: t:: 0 c:r-' ~(1 () ::r' SCI:lO ~ ~ ... -....., CIJ. o ~ ro ?Q'= :z> ~ CIJ. -'.0 ro IJQ t:: ~ .;0' ~ . - = ::l :::l Q.. o Q =.:=- > ....,~ -. ,-., ~ (') \.1 ~ a :r -. -. ~ Q.. o ::l ~ ~ ;s' = . ~- "'O-~ g g; "1 -(t'ro (') ::r ~ o~ro :z> ::l = ::;. a. ~ IJQ~Q 'Jg= '" ~ ::l I 3 ("l 0 0"'0 g a ~ ~ ,..~~:t ~ ~ 8" z;;' - (') ~ ...... 0.: -- \, (')~......o Erao~ ..... ..... 3 ~ ~ ot"'" ~ ~. ("l ~ ~ ~ ~ 0. - (fQ (') ~ (') ~ ~ -. 0. :;. (fQ (') ~ C/:l - . (') ...... ..., 0. ~ - ...... rt 0 0 X 0 (') (') ~ ~ ~ - ~ _~c:r ...... "'0 - ::r' ~ (') a~e:.. ..g 5'';- e; ~ 0 'i"' ~ ~ ...o~"""~ t:: (') 3 ,..., -. (') _ ro '""l _.'.,J ~ ~a.oo ag:4"1 Qf;j!5Q.. :=. '4 n '" -. ~ ~ ~::l Il'"'1 l' <,,;..,. 0 ro o~~ro (') _. ~ "C ::. ~ ::.:". -. ~ '< = Q' a -(JQ < !:.~ ~ .....,:Z> '""l t:: ~ ~'::l 3 ::l ~ ~ ("":) -.-' ~ 0 ::l . ::l ~ '" ~ ~ ::l ::l ~ o ::l ......(') ;:;.;~ -. (') (') ::r ~ ~ =. n o ~ ::s ~ '""l '" ~ ...... ,Y' 3~C/:l~ ~~(')Q ~:::3Q ~ ~ -. - ..., (fQ I o::r (') ~ "'t:l _ Z;;' ." ~ t:: :::: - 0. c:r :.:; ("l "'0 ~ :=: = 0 0~("l_3 ~0"'t:l~"'O ~ ~ 0 I:Il (ti 5.[~Qg o (fQ C/:l = ~ ..., (') "'0 "1 - . ~ ~ ~ I:Il <: "'0 (') 0 ~ (') Pg"'O~""" ~ (') 0 ~ ~ ~ ~. 0 ~8"g.g. ..... ;;:; ~ "-<: o "'t:l "'0 ~ t:: (1 ..., ~. g ~ o ::r' -. ::l "'0 ("l_. (') ...... ~ ::2 :::!.::r'~ ~ ,,-<:(')Q.c.. ::I;:tTJ= ~ ~ ro !:.g.~ ...... - ::r",_ I'" S' =- t::a._ 0" ~ \.. ::-:::l0 ,(') :: ~ ~ ~ CIJ. _.~ a _. a ~ -.'" ::l ~ I'" (') o 0 0"'0 I;;~f t:: ....., ff~ . z o ~ "'0 ...... o ....., ~~ :!.~ o - t:: ro '" "1 o~ ~CIJ. -.- ::l -. IJQ= aac:! ~ ...... ::r o 0.. '" "'0 '""l o "'0 ~ '""l ...... ~ (') ::r ::l -. .0 t:: ~ '" (1 0(1 ~~ ~O 00 ~ "'=)>(l~ O.....-::r-< <g~-~ ~~ !:.Q- a. (l :. -. ro CI:l ~ :=. ~ .., o -...... - !::.:< :z> (1 5:=(l!5=- ~:::l,< ;:::;:~ ::t ~ -'.. ~ ~ ~ -. 2. :!.;l ~ ::l ('). .., ~~ ~ ~~ -. (l ~ ;3 E:: . e:.. -CI:l.....J~ .g S )> = ~ 0",-., ~ '""l _. \.1_ ~ -~ ,.. S'N(l '""l ~ ,-., ~ ~'""l \ ~ ~~~ soP: -'""l 00"0 ;n' !:. S I 1- :2:!g."'(1 ...... ~ 0 ~ ~a2..- ~ r') -. < = "g~2..- a -t:: = ,?~3~ a ~~ Q a 0 ...... = sag~CIJ. Q f;j g "'0 ~ < _.~ ~ "'0 a. '""l ~ ~ '" ~ ::l N'.o a. ::i' :. :::l ~]~ ~ '""l ::l ~ .... ...... ~ -~ 3' (') ~..g ~ ~ =. n o :=. ::l ~ CIl '" ~ ~ ~z O~ O~ ~O ~Z g~~ zoo=: ~~~ ~~ S~ Z~ ~Z oo~ ;0.3 o ~ ~ n r.n (1 o < ~ ~ ~ o - - - -. -...-.. -- -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- COURSE DATES ON REVERSE Registration Form Please complete this registration form, detach and mail it along with a check for 18900 to: John Moorman Inc., 1643 Vincent Ave. No. Minneapolis, MN 55411 Phone: (612) 529-8616 Student Name .OuJ ~h t fJje..r- ke. Student Phone(c; !::.-j ) 4' 3 - 36"E ~ Address 9:l. =<. We 5 t w c:; 0 d C"t ~~ ,.. m " r;:J f;v; \ Mill sS- 07. '-I Address 32S- Ot9,f sf- rf:Jrm:,idn. M IV ~-j-() -:<.'1 CS/ pany Name 'f~3 - ") j I J Company Phone (:-';.5 01 ~1'"J?1/I}!J~17 Course Location LiD IJ k/ (J 5 [J..(. I . Course Dates \'1 A i' I' ) I Class sizes are limited! Register early! J / cf /~ 00 Q~~~ e3~ooo ~~"~~Q) =~~~p~ ~~o~oO ~o~u u~~ /I" """ """'" 'II" "'11 "11'""" "" ""'" """"'" NV'J 'S!lodeauu!V'J VV9€ 'ON l!WJad CIVd aoelsod 's'n 3.L'v'l::I >llna o o o N c> c6 coW >- (J) .... ...::>.... glor:: ,OIL!, Q)(J)"" LLZC> >--- Ctl~N -ca...... (l)o~ ~I"'" -c'>- Q) en 3: S:ZI c6~.... >-0. 0 CtlOLO -c .... m~ Q) ~ CJ z - a: 0- (J) 6z~r-pZogg NW NO~~Nrw~~~ lS .}ftjO :;Z9 NW NOl~NrW~tjd dO ,~lrJ 1138 ~t/ r 1- ::IOlf:::l::J3dO 100d -q- .... N .t:: -q- U C> ...z ' Ctlz1;; :E-LO c6U- c>a:t; NWLO ~:E :::- Ctl <C Q) 2.~ .0...1- Q)...I(J) LL<(c ~~o ~en3' >cc- c6<(~ cn:Ew Q) co ~ ~ .... LO .... c6W -q-U).... ....::>.... .t::O"'" uI"" ili(J)~ :Ezc> >--- Ctl~N -ca...... :go~ cI,.... -c,>- Q) en 3: S:ZI c6~.... >-0. 0 CtlOLO -c .... m~ Q) ~ ,.... c>U)co (\JU)~ c6W' coa:U:; Na..,... .t::x- 2wCO CtlZN :Ez- >-- s: ~~z me' Q) - ~ C-l<c ~O >- s:ICtl I 3: c6-Q) >- "") Cl Ctl9:g ~:Ea: Q)U.IN ~m~ N OJ ::> ...I U LO>-,... c6a:"" -q-f-co _ZLO .~ ::J ~ c.. 0 co <CU"" ~U)$ -coo 0 :go~ c a: ' -cu-c Q)Ctla: ;: ...I i3' c6 ' U >-i ~ ~<(~ m~o Q)eno ~<("" ...I <( Z o N .... c6W 00.... ....::>.... ....0,... 'EIr-;- c.. LO <COO"" >-z C> Ctl-- -c~N ma...... Q)o~ -6I,.... Q)'>- s:en3: c6~I >-~ .... CtlQ.o -COLO m .... Q)~ ~ ~ g LO c6zco coz~ ....-,... =~,... c..a: 0- <C~o ~...I~ -c<CQ) m z.~ Q) <C ... cue ~,~ s:~~ c61-- >-:J Ctl Ctl ...I c -c:JCtl moU Q) 0 ~ LO N ~z ~O ~~ ~~ ~Q ~Z OO;J ~O <~ z~ 90 ~~ z co N LO c6ZLO LOZCO - co N ' . =S:ffi c..z LO <C,_ >- ~ N Ctlccm -c _ :g~.... c co -cZ . Q)>.-C S::..Ja: od~ci >-Ou CtlOod -cCC-q- mmc> Q) - ~ Z o ~ - tIJ E-- ~ =c~z u E-otIJE-tt: ~~:Ez- ..JtIJE-tIJg dZO::::EtIJ ~~~tIJU ::J:EtIJe::ez:: ~~O::JO tIJez::=eQl~ ~otitIJez:: 8~~;~ uO=CtIJO ~~tIJZa =C:E~ 0 E- Eo-' Cl.. ~ ez:: o ~ ic ic ic ic ic ic ic ic ic ic ic ,. 6~ E:::~ u~ ~t:... ~Q::; E:::a Q::;t:... ~s ...:J ~ )-105 ~1 II a?J~1I 00 ~50dO UVSS NW 'SI'10dVHNNIW 'ON 'HAV .LNH:)NIA €v91 .NVWlIOOW NHOf llODnlIl.SNI Od:> o o "" .... N ""z-q- c6Z"" N:(IO >-e 0 Ctl <C ~ :E:EQ) ~<C ~ -ca:e (I),U Q) 0 Ctl -6en-l Q) ~c6 s:>-o c6t:~ >-Oai Ctl 0 m -c-m mQ.e Q)<(u ~CCCtl -I -q- N 0 c6 ll; ""z.... NZ-.t >-- "" Ctlz"" ~O- >-:E 8 Ctl- co -cU_ m'-q- ~oc> -cz- Q) ~ E s:oe c60- >-cc ~ CtlLf"" -c _ m .- Q) x :J W F .... N ,.... .... ~ S "=S 'S Q ~ =: l::l. c r'f') ~ =: l::l C r'f') 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ l::l CJ . U Z ~ Z < ~ ~ o o ~ z == o ~ 6- \C z;7. r.: ,utr. - >z 00 ~~ ~ ~,;.M u:'= 1O = 0 .- ,..., ,,-.. >~ ('fl ~ "<:1";:" \0.= _ -~ '-' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~. J TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Paul Asher, Liquor Operations Manager SUBJECT: 1999 Liquor Operation's Sales DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION Sales figures for the 1999 Liquor Store Operations have been tabulated. DISCUSSION As shown in the table below, the total 1999 sales for the Liquor Operations were $ 1,920,955, an increase of 16.7 % over 1998. The Downtown Store's sales were $ 953,607, an increase of 12.4% over 1998. The Pilot Knob Store's sales were $ 967,349, an increase of21.2% over 1998. STORE 1998 % OVER 1999 SALES % OVER SALES 1997 SALES INCREASE 1998 IN 1999 Downtown $848,712 12.5% $953,607 $104,895 12.4% Store Pilot Knob $797,868 10.1% $967,349 $169,489 21.2% Store Totals $1,646,580 11.3% $1,920,955 $274,376 16.7% BUDGET IMPACT The above numbers are subject to review in the annual audit, and may differ slightly from the final audit. RECOMMENDATION For information only. Respectfully Submitted, o //'a,~, - b{~ \, 7o.~ ~ - (U..--J Paul Asher Liquor Operations Manager City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ct.farmington.mn.us 7"f TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ FROM: Lena Larson, Public Works Administrative Assistant -.Jfb SUBJECT: 1999 Recycling Survey DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION As a requirement of the 1999 Landfill Abatement funding, cities were required to implement an evaluation method to measure the effectiveness of the recycling program. DISCUSSION In an effort to comply with Dakota County's requirements for the Landfill Abatement funding, the attached survey was sent randomly to 375 residents. This information will be forwarded to Dakota County's Environmental Management Department as part of the annual report. This survey will again be useful to the Solid Waste Division in determining the most appropriate media vehicles to use in dispersing recycling information and which recycling and customer service issues need more attention. Residents' comments will be addressed in upcoming newsletters or other appropriate avenues. The information from the survey also provides insight into where the Solid Waste division can improve the level of service to Farmington residents. ACTION REOUESTED This memo is for information only. cc: file Jim Bell Benno Klotz David Domack, Lakeville Sanitary, Inc. City of Farmington 1999 Recycling Survey Results December, 1999 In November of 1999,375 surveys were sent to residents randomly chosen in the City of Farmington. Of the 375 sent out, 190 (51%) were returned. This is an excellent response percentage. The results of the survey are contained in this report. 1. How many people are in your family? no response 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 15 61 30 51 22 8 2% 8% 32% 16% 27% 12% 4% 9. How long have you been a resident of Farmington? under 1 year 1 - 5 years 5 - 10 years 10 - 15 years over 15 years 10 66 32 20 62 5% 35% 17% 11% 33% 3. Do you own or rent your home? 185 of the responses were home owners and 5 were renters or did not respond. 4. How frequently do you recycle at the curb? weekly twice a month once a month never no response 143 26 12 8 1 75% 14% 6% 4% 1% 5. Which items do you most commonly recycle? newspaper cans plastic mail phone books cardboard boxboard magazines glass 164 148 147 53 22 81 67 76 142 86% 78% 77% 28% 12% 43% 35% 40% 75% 7. How do youfind out about local recycling programs? Use City newsletter Use Green Guide Use City Waste Disposal Guide Use newspaper Use other info for programs 95 80 66 24 19 50% 42% 35% 13% 10% 8. Which drop off sites have you used during the past year? Used no drop offs Used Eco-Site Used SKB Used HHW 1 Day drop off 71 26 95 4 37% 14% 50% 2% 9. Who do you ask when you have questions or need information about recycling? no response City staff County staff other G:\LLARSON\REPORTS\99RECSURV,doc 42 22% 104 55% 7 4% 37 19% Page 2 of 10 10, Have you called Farmington City Hall regarding solid waste and/or recycling in the past year? 54 of the residents responding had called City Hall in the past year. Of the 54, 51 felt that their request was handled promptly (3 said no or did not respond), and 53 found staff to be knowledgeable/helpful. 11. Didyou know you could choose one of three sizes of garbage containers? 12. Did you know you are not limited to the amount of recycling you put out? 13. Are you aware of the following services? (categorized by length of residency) yes 74 no 106 4 6 26 40 10 22 9 11 29 33 G:\LLARSON\REPOR TS\99RECSUR V,doc Page 3 of 10 15. How satisfied are you with the recycling program in Farmington? no response very satisfied satisfied somewhat satisfied somewhat dissatisfied dissatisfied 3 54 90 38 3 2 2% 28% 47% 20% 2% 1% Recycling Program Satisfaction dissatisfied 1% G:\LLARSON\REPOR TS\99RECSUR V,doc Page 4 of 10 . no response EJ very satisfied o satisfied o somewhat satisfied . somewhat dissatisfied . dissatisfied 16. How satisfied are you with the solid waste/garbage program in Farmington? no response very satisfied satisfied somewhat satisfied somewhat dissatisfied dissatisfied 2 58 86 34 9 1 1% 31% 45% 18% 5% 1% Solid Waste/Garbage Program Satisfaction somewhat dissatisfied 5% / / dissatisfied 1% III!IJ very satisfied . satisfied o somewhat satisfied o somewhat dissatisfied . dissatisfied G:\LLARSON\REPOR TS\99RECSUR V,doc Page 5 of 10 17. Ho satisfied are you with the yard waste program in Farmingt9n? no response very satisfied satisfied somewhat satisfied somewhat dissatisfied dissatisfied 46 32 66 32 8 6 24% 17% 35% 17% 4% 3% Yardwaste Program Satisfaction 70 60 !/) 50 CI) II no response !/) I: 0 . very satisfied c. 40 CI) o satisfied 0::: - 0 o somewhat satisfied ... 30 CI) II somewhat dissatisfied .Q E II dissatisfied ::J z 20 10 0 e. b b b b b ~(;j &.'lJ &.'lJ &.'lJ &.'lJ &.'lJ ~p ~(;j ~(;j ~(;j ~(;j ~(;j ,e.(;j e:,'lf e:,'lf e:,'lf eo'lf eo'lf ... ~ ~ &-e:, &-e:, <;::-0 ~e. ~'<::' ~ ~e. ~'<::' e:,o ~e. e:,o G:\LLARSON\REP RTS\99RECSURY.doc Page 6 of 10 1999 Recycling Survey Comments Service is expensive. I wish we were given more containers for recycling. One container is not enough. I did not know you could recycle cardboard curbside. Very satisfied with garbage pickup. We have not been here long enough to really have any opinion, but thanks for asking. overall - good job! The compost recycling program seems too charge too much money for recycling proper materials. Do you want us all to start depositing our leaves on the side of the road or to start burning the leaves? Please watch the prices you charge or re-think about the prices you are charging!! If you want people to recycle don't make it so difficult. They won't pick up anything unless it's bagged perfect - that's ridiculous! We think the services in Farmington are really great. Keep up the good job all you men and women who work hard to keep up with all the new neighborhoods in our town. I am very satisfied with the current collection process. The folks who pick up do a good job. I don't have a lot of garbage or recycling. The folks at the City are always helpful answering questions and providing information. I would like the clean up day to be twice a year again to avoid the long lines. I would also like to see the yard waste program cheaper and then we would utilize the program. We received no mailings when we moved into town. A name change should prompt a newsletter for new neighbors. The solid waste containers should have latches on them and you should make people have a closed container on pickup days. Lately every pick up day has been very windy and garbage flies all over the neighborhood and it looks awful. I know this may add time to the new "machine" pickup, but the littering looks worse. I believe it would be cheaper for residents if we could choose our own garbage hauler, as it is you have a monopoly which I do not like. Would like to see a fall clean up day added. New residents should get newsletters as what to do with clean up - seasonal yard waste and holiday pick up. Yard waste program is costly. G:\LLARSONIREPORTS\99RECSURV,doc Page 7 of! 0 I would like program services to the curb. We-use bakeville for yardwaste piekup. l'he cardboard pickup service has gone from good to lousy. 1. Charge for yard waste is outrageous at the Pilot Knob Facility! 2. My trash to street almost never fits in my garbage can! I am appalled that someone can tell me how much I am allowed to throwaway - and charge me for any extra! Go figure! Garbage, water and sewer seem a little higher in cost that in other city suburbs. I could be wrong, but I'm bothered by the fact we are charged for recycling when other cities are not. Is that what the non-taxable garbage charge is? I sometimes think it is too much trouble to cut up (acceptable) cardboard according to measurements, then tie it up in bundles before it is accepted. I usually do this because I think it is important to recycle but admit I get frustrated and sometimes throw corrugated cardboard into my garbage container. Couldn't we (someday) simply flatten boxes and set under the recycling bin? The recycle bins need to be bigger. We would like to select our own garbage service. As mentioned earlier, if new orange recycle bins are ordered they should be big enough to fit 3 brown grocery bags. Never knew about yard waste program. Have not used yard waste program. I am a bit dismayed that I will spend my time sorting, bundling, bagging etc. (not to mentioned freezing or sweating) the recyclables when there is no incentive to do so. If I got a reduction in collection fees, it would be at least an acknowledgement from you that you appreciate my efforts. Don't tell me you weigh the garbage - that's a bunch of garbage. P .S. Somebody ends of making some money off of me somewhere down the line. Farmington is doing a good job of collection. Some of my neighbors say they won't bother to separate recycling. It's not hard to do. Never knew when to have yard waste out. Always told different days. Nobody would come, had to call. City utilities too costly. Dakota County highest in area!!! 1. Other areas take other plastics such as peanut butter jars, margarine tubs, etc. You do not. 2. When people are putting their recycling out, I don't think it should be left on the curb because it wasn't the exact dimensions suggested. I've had that happen more than once - at least we were putting it out. Now will use the drop offs. The solid waste/garbage program has been outstanding in my 32 years as a resident of this City. G:\LLARSON\REPORTS\99RECSURY.doc Page 8 of 10 Farmington needs more clean up days!! FaFmingt~-iIlcreftsed in population-so much - we,need more days! I feel if your garbage can gets full- you should be able to put out a 40 gallon~whatever) size can to be picked up. Whether you charge for it or not - SOMETIMES you just have more garbage (example Christmas!! !) City of Farmington has a monopoly on solid waste. Would like to choose own hauler. Recycling works - too bad it can't be made "mandatorily friendly" . I would like more information about the three sizes of garbage containers and cardboard drop off cages. I would like to see more convenient drop off site for hazardous materials (gas, paint, car batteries, etc.) Maybe quarterly or biannual local site that we could drop off and somebody would come and pick up. Would like to see a small credit on city garbage bill for people who recycle at least twice a month to encourage other households to recycle. Even a few dollars would be a nice incentive. Overall City savings should increase with less solid waste, more recycling, especially valuable recyclables like aluminum which has value. If aluminum cans are recycled through the City shouldn't the resident receive a discount on the garbage program? You do receive money for those aluminum cans. I also think Farmington residents should be free to hire an outside garbage company. It shouldn't be mandatory that we have to use the Farmington program. Competition creates fair pricing. I do not feel that I should have to purchase plastic garbage bags because of the way Farmington chooses to do garbage pickup. This is wasteful (buying bags) and I firmly believe in recycling. Windy garbage pick up days are a mess! I live in a cul-de-sac and often get the brunt of garbage being blown in my yard. I do like the recycling program and a range of things that can be recycled curbside. Thank you. RE:#13 - Sometimes garbage is left in container. At our previous home garbage was picked up manually and we didn't have this problem. I asked for a new recycle container (our old one that came with the house was badly damaged and very small). My container arrived a couple weeks later. Pertaining to #12 the only thing I don't like about the recycling program is the very strict 2' x 2' cardboard box restriction. We get a couple boxes a week and have to spend a lot of time to comply with the 2' rule. (I realize we can drop them off somewhere and that the opening on the truck is only 2' big, but nonetheless it is still very annoying.) I would like to choose my own garbage pickup! Competition among companies brings down the price. It is not right that you have taken over this area and we have no right to choose! Would like to see a group yard waste containers for different areas of the city. G:\LLARSON\REPORTS\99RECSURV.doc '~ge 9-of 10 I feel the need once again to ask that the clean up day date be looked at this.-year,-as last year it was held on fishing opener. I guess I would be-1nterested in how much of a differencethis--makes on the use of this program since we are down to just once a year now. I realize there is a lot of work involved in this process for the clean up day, but in Minnesota it seems as opening fishing is a special holiday, and many families have out-of-town plans for that weekend. As you can see, I'm satisfied with what we do in the City, but for future reference just check dates for City clean ups. How about offering stackable containers for recyclables that don't take up so much room. Sometimes we can put items out for recycling - and they won't pick them up and will leave a note but we aren't sure why they weren't picked up. Yard waste disposal is inconvenient. Sometimes it's hard to get there. G:\LLARSONIREPORTS\99RECSURV,doc Page 10 of 10 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us // TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorize Assessment Agreement - Water Connection DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION The property at 1005 4th Street has been put up for sale and the property owner desires to have the property connected to City water service. DISCUSSION The property at 1005 4th Street was grand-fathered in regards to being connected to City water service at the time water service was made available. At this time, the property owner has requested connection to the City water system in conjunction with the sale of the property. Exhibit "B" of the attached assessment agreement outlines the various fees associated with connecting to the City water system. The property owner has indicated a desire to accomplish the connection prior to the sale of the property, as stipulated by the buyers of the property. However, the current property owner has also requested that the funds to pay the connection fees be made part of the real estate transaction. As a result, payment of the fees would be made after the water connection is made. It is the current property owner's responsibility to disclose the pending assessment to the title company handling the real estate transaction. Execution of the attached assessment agreement will guarantee payment of the connection fees while allowing the property owner to connect to the water system before the fees are paid, prior to the closing on the property. The property owner has indicated a willingness to pay a portion of the fees up front. At the time of that payment and execution of the agreement, the amount to be assessed will be inserted into the agreement. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the execution of the attached assessment agreement for water connection charges for the property at 1005 4th Street. Respectfully submitted, Iz{ fh ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Dorothy Byrne, 1005 4th Street ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT (Parcel 14-31001-130-03) THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made this day of 2000, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") with offices at 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota 55024, and DOROTHY BYRNE, a single person, whose address is 1005 Fourth Street, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 ("Owner"). Recitals: A. The Owner owns the real property located in Dakota County legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Subject Property"), also referred to as Tax Parcel 14-31001-13 0-03. B. The Subject Property shall be assessed costs, fees and charges associated with the provision of water service to the Subject Property. The connection of said water service benefits the Subject Property. The actual costs, fees and charges to be assessed against the Subject Property ("Assessments") are set forth on Exhibit "B". NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS SET FORTH HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Subject Property is hereby assessed by the City for the Assessments. The total Assessments are: $ The foregoing amount shall be assessed against the Subject Property over a five (5) year period accruing interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. The Assessments shall not exceed the amounts set forth on Exhibit "B". 2. The Assessments shall be deemed adopted on the date this Agreement is signed by the City. The Owner, by signing this Agreement, acknowledges that all procedural and substantive objections to the Assessment are hereby waived unconditionally, such waiver includes any rights of Owner, its successor or assign to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the Subject Property. The Owner further waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. g 429.081. 84076 1 CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald G. Ristow, Mayor By: John F. Erar, City Administrator Dorothy Byrne STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2000, by Gerald G. Ristow and John F. Erar, the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2000, by Dorothy Byrne, a single person. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Campbell Knutson, Professional Association Suite 317 13 80 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 AMP/cjh 84076 2 EXHIBIT" A" to ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Lot Thirteen (13), and the North Ten (10) feet of Lot Twelve (12), all in Block Three (3) of Green Way Addition "A", Dakota County, Minnesota. 84076 3 EXHIBIT "B" to ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT ASSESSMENTS Benefit Charge Reserve Capacity Connection Fee (WAC) Water Treatment Plant Fee Water Meter Water Connection Permit TOTAL 84076 4 $1,125.00 $ 615.00 $ 508.00 $ 250.00 $ 60.00 $2.558.00 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7h7 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~t (/ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorize Change Order - County Road 72 Project DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION Attached is a change order for additional work performed for the County Road 72 Project. DISCUSSION The various change order items as shown attached are split out below between the reconstruct portion of the project and the new construction portion of the project: Reconstruct Area No. Item Cost 1 Topsoil salvage 2 6" Residential driveway apron 3 8" Commercial driveway apron 7 Water main offset 9 Storm reroute (Int. ofCty. 72 and Hwy 3) 10 Storm Modifications (Trinity Care Center) 11 Storm Modifications (Hospital) 12 Remove and relocate hospital sign 13 Adjust existing hydrant 14 Parking lot modifications (River Valley Clinic) 15 Storm modifications (Vacant Lot) 16 2" sand import for sidewalk 18 B612 Curb & Gutter for Hospital Parking Lot Connection Total Reconstruct Area: $3,806.00 $2,674.30 $23,491.85 $3,229.50 $1,600.00 $1,522.02 $4,010.19 $1,847.19 $398.42 $3,891.28 $1,123.76 $584.30 $4,130.00 $52,308.81 The added items in the reconstruction area are generally due to additional grading necessary to match into existing conditions, field modifications to the storm sewer system to address parking lot and vacant lot drainage issues, and adjustment of utilities to address grade conflicts. Commercial driveway aprons were added for the properties on the south side of the road to stay consistent with other areas in the City. The relocation of the Hospital sign and the change for the curb at the Hospital parking lot connection were items requested by the Hospital. New Construction Area No. Item Cost Total for New Construction Area: $5,706.80 $8,624.70 $605.00 $9,163.00 $800.00 $876.46 $2,436.00 $798.00 $29,009.96 1 Topsoil salvage 4 Concrete valley gutter 5 6" PVC service (Hospital vacant lot) 6 5' Blackhill Spruce or Colorado Pine 8 Storm Modification (Drive A) 16 2" sand import for sidewalk 17 B412 Curb & Gutter for Aspen Ct & Birch Ct Transitions 19 Remove and Replace for extra pedestrian ramps The added items in the new construction area are generally due to additional grading necessary to match into existing conditions and additional curb and valley gutters necessary to address drainage and grade issues at the new street connections. Trees that had to be removed as part of the construction needed to be replaced. The Hospital requested a modified sewer service for their vacant lot adjacent to 12th Street. The City's share of these costs are 100% assessed to the benefiting properties (adjacent private development). BUDGET IMP ACT The total cost for the additional work performed as indicated by the attached change order is $81,318.77. The revised contract amount with the change order is $803,044.47. The original project budget for construction was $1,157,580. The change order amount is approximately 7% of the original project budget. As the revised construction amount is still significantly below the approved project budget, special assessments to benefiting properties will remain consistent with original project assessment estimates. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the attached change order to Arcon Construction Inc., In the amount of $81,318.77 for additional work on the County Road 72 Project. Respectfully submitted, ~Jn~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file . fl. Bonestroo e Rosene ~ Anderlik & . \J. Associates ngineers & Architects Owner: City of Farminl!ton, 325 Oak StFarminl!ton, MN, 55024-1358 Contractor: Ncon Construction Inc, 43425 Frontal!e Rd, Harris, MN, 55032 Bond Companv: General Accident Insurance Co. of America, 436 Walnut St Philadelphia, P A. 19105 Date January 18, 2000 Bond No: SB0055616 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 COUNTY ROAD 72 RECONSTRUCT BRA FILE NO. 141-98-800 Description of Work Additional work required to complete project. No. Contract Unit Total Item Unit Quantity Price Amount CHANGE ORDER NO.1 Topsoil Salvage CY 2162 $4.40 $9,512.80 6" Residential driveway apron SF 569 $4.70 $2,674.30 8" Commercial driveway apron SF 4391 $5.35 $23,491.85 Concrete valley gutter SF 1665 $5.18 $8,624.70 6" PVC service (Hospital vacant lot) LF 55 $11.00 $605.00 5' Blackhill Spruce or Colorado Pine EA 49 $187.00 $9,163.00 Watermain offset LS $3,229.50 $3,229.50 Storm Modification (Drive A) LS $800.00 $800.00 Storm reroute (Int. ofCty. 72 and Hwy 3) LS $1,600.00 $1,600.00 Storm Modifications (Trinity Care Center) LS $1,522.02 $1,522.02 Storm modifications (Hospital) LS $4,010.19 $4,010.19 Remove and relocate hospital sign LS $1,847.19 $1,847.19 Adjust existing hydrant EA $398.42 $398.42 Parking lot modifications (River Valley Clinic) LS $3,891.28 $3,891.28 Storm Modifications (Vacant Lot) LS $1,123.76 $1,123.76 2" sand import for sidewalk LS $1,460.76 $1,460.76 B412 Curb & Gutter for Aspen Ct & Birch Ct. Transition~ LF 174 $14.00 $2,436.00 8612 Curb & Gutter for Hospital Parking Lot Connection LF 295 $14.00 $4,130.00 Remove and Replace for extra pedestrian ramps LF 42 $19.00 $798.00 Total CHANGE ORDER NO.1: 581,318.77 Changeorder 1, xis 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Original Contract Amount This Change Order Revised Contract Amount (including this change order) $721,725.70 $81,318.77 $803,044.47 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Date: Approved by Contractor: ARCON CONSTRUCTION INC Approved by Owner: CITY OF FARMINGTON Date Date cc: Owner Contractor Bonding Company Bonestroo & Assoc. Changeorder J,xls City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7/} TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City AdministratorfJt- James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Consider Specifications and Autborize Advertisement for Bids - Truck Cbassis - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION Council approval for the plans and specifications and advertisement for bids for the Solid Waste truck chassis which was approved in the 2000 budget.. DISCUSSION Staff has prepared plans and specifications for the purchase of a Solid Waste truck chassis. The truck chassis will have equipment attached for the collection of recyclable materials. BUDGET IMPACT The 2000 budget includes $50,000 for the Solid Waste truck chassis. ACTION REOUESTED Consider the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement of bids for the purchase of a Solid Waste truck chassis. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~JJ( James Bell Parks and Recreation Director cc: Benno Klotz, Solid Waste Supervisor ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Sealed bids will be received by the City of Farmington, Minnesota, in the City Hall at 325 Oak Street until 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, March 14, 2000 at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud for the furnishing of all labor, materials and all else necessary for the following: Truck Chassis with gross weight of 18,000 to 21,500 lbs, Plans and specifications, proposal forms and contract documents may be seen at the office of the City Clerk, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota, 55024. Each bid shall be accompanied by a bidder's bond naming the City of Farmington as obligee, certified check payable to the Clerk of the City of Farmington, or a cash deposit equal to at least five percent (5%) of the amount of the bid, which shall be forfeited to the City in the event that the bidder fails to enter into a contract. The City Council reserves the right to retain the deposits of the three lowest bidders for a period not to exceed 90 days after the date and time set for the opening of the bids. No bids may be withdrawn for a period of ninety (90) days after the date and time set for the opening of bids. Payment for work will be by cash or check. Contractors desiring a copy of the plans and specifications and proposal forms may obtain them from the office of the City of Farmington Parks & Recreation Department. The City Council reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive irregularities and informalities therein and further reserves the right to award the contract in the best interests of the City. The bids will be awarded in the best interest ofthe City. James Bell Parks & Recreation Director To be published: Construction Bulletin: 2/18/00 & 2/25/00 Farmington Independent: 2/17/00 & 2/24/00 RESOLUTION NO. R -00 APPROVE SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS SOLID WASTE - TRUCK CHASSIS 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 7dt day of February, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution. WHEREAS, specifications have been prepared for the following proposed equipment: Truck Chassis ;and, WHEREAS, such plans and specifications are now before the Council for its consideration; and, WHEREAS, funding for the truck with Fully Automated Refuse Collection Body has been approved in the 2000 Budget. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. Said specifications are hereby approved. 2. The Parks and Recreation Director is authorized to insert in the Farmington Independent and Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for such equipment and that bids shall be received by the City until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 14, 2000, at which time they shall be publicly opened and read aloud. They will then be considered by the City Council. No bid shall be considered unless accompanied by a bid bond, certified check or cash deposit equal to at least five percent (S %) of the amount of the bid. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the Th day of February, 2000. Mayor Attested to the _ day of , 2000. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrat~~#t Joel Jamnik, City Attorney FROM: SUBJECT: Request to Re-institute Acquisition Proceedings for Highway 3 Frontage Road DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION At the City Council's December 3, 1999 meeting, I advised the Council to temporarily suspend right of way acquisition efforts regarding proposed improvements to the Highway 3 frontage road. DISCUSSION My request was based on several pending legal issues among the parties, including finalizing previous easement acquisitions affecting the Perkins sale and the proposed transfer of the Wausau parcel. Both of these issues have been resolved and it is my recommendation that the Council now direct our office and City staff to re-institute negotiations with the owners of these parcels, and to take other actions, including the use of eminent domain, to secure the proposed easements in a timely manner should negotiations fail. ACTION REOUESTED By motion authorize the City Attorney and City staff to re-institute acquisition proceedings for the Highway 3 Frontage Road, including negotiating with the affected property owners for a voluntary conveyance of the required road right-of-way easements and if that effort is unsuccessful the use of the City's powers of eminent domain. Respectfully submitted, c~z~~~ .;L, / ~#' e,...J "./ Joel Jamnik City Attorney City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ?5a..., TO: Mayor and Council Members City Administrato~ David L. Olson Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: Business Subsidy Policy DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted a new law which regulates business subsidies awarded after August 1, 1999. The law introduces new operating and reporting requirements for local units of government that provide business subsidies. DISCUSSION This new law mandates among other things, the adoption of specific policies and criteria for the awarding of business subsidies. A public hearing is then required prior to the adoption of the proposed policy and criteria. The law allows local units of government to exercise flexibility in determining these criteria, however certain issues are required to be addressed. There was a fair amount of concern expressed by cities and others involved with economic development in the State during the legislative session regarding this issue which is also typically referred to as the "corporate welfare" legislation. It appeared as though no legislation was going to be passed on this issue during the 1999 session until it appeared in the Conference Committee's Tax Bill on the last day of the session. There has been a considerable amount of discussion on this new law since it took effect on August 1 st of this year. While like many issues, the legislative intent may be worthwhile, translating this intent into law has created a number of challenges and practical difficulties for local units of government that are forced to implement it. Several organizations that represent cities and economic development entities have identified problems with specific provisions in the law adopted earlier this year and will be attempting to introduce a bill in the 2000 Legislative Session to address the problems that have been identified. However in the meantime, the City of Farmington will still be required to comply with the present law which includes the need to adopt a local criteria for business subsidies. It is quite possible that a project may be proposed prior to any changes being made to the current law. Staff and the HRA Board reviewed a number of sample policies that have been either proposed and/or adopted by other cities or HRAs and is recommending adoption of a model policy prepared by the law firm of Briggs and Morgan which represents a number of cities on economic development issues. This model policy represents a general approach to the legislative requirement but still maintains flexibility for the local unit of government on the awarding of business subsidies while still complying with the statute. This is the option in the opinion of staff would be the most preferred in that it still provides flexibility and the opportunity to review proposed projects on a case-by-case basis. The recommended policy does not contain specific minimum wage rates or base the amount of assistance to be provided on the total number of jobs being created or the amount of private investment in the proposed development. Unfortunately, if those type of specific criteria are incorporated into the policy, a project may be proposed that while a desirable project, falls just under the specific wage or assistance levels contained in the Policy. For this reason, it is recommended that the policy be kept general enough to allow flexibility at the local level in considering business subsidies on a case-by-case basis. BUDGET IMPACT As this policy deals with regulatory framework in awarding business subsidies, fiscal effects are nominal. ACTION REOUESTED Consider adoption of the Business Subsidy Policy as recommended by the HRA Board. Respectfully s~/ ---.. David L. Olson Community Development Director MINUTES HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR DECEMBER 13, 1999 1. Meeting called to order by Chairperson Ristow at 7:00PM. Members Present: Arey, Lamb, Matheson, Ristow. Members Absent: Cordes. Also Present: Director Olson, Attorney Darflinger. 2. Approve Agenda - MOTION by Arey second by Lamb to approve the agenda as presented. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consent Agenda - MOTION by Lamb second by Arey to approve the Consent agenda as presented. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Public Hearings - Business Subsidy Policy Director Olson reviewed the proposed policy that the Board preferred. The proposed policy is Option "AU which was prepared by Briggs and Morgan. The Director is requesting that the Board adopt the proposed Business Subsidy policy and forward a recommendation to the City Council for their adoption. Council Member Kevin Soderberg entered into discussion with the Director and Board. MOTION by Arey second by Matheson to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Arey second by Lamb to approve Option "AU as the Business Subsidy Policy that the Board would forward to the City Council for recommendation. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Member's Matheson and Ristow noted that Member Matheson was not at the November meeting and should have abstained from approving the Consent Agenda. Director Olson stated that the Board could reconsider the vote, pulling the minutes from the Consent Agenda. MOTION by Arey second by Lamb to reconsider the vote for the Consent Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Arey second by Lamb to pull and approve the November minutes from the Consent Agenda. VOTING FOR: Arey, Lamb, Ristow. ABSTAIN: Matheson. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Unfinished Business a. Industrial Park Expansion RFP - Consultant Proposals Director Olson indicated that the Board had authorized the solicitation ofRFP's at their November meeting. He noted that staff solicited RFP's from two consultants. One from Roger Guenette of Advance Resources and the other is Rusty Fifield of Ehlers and Associates. Mr. Guenette's company proposed an hourly rate of $100 not to exceed $2,500. Mr. Fifeld's firm proposed an hourly rate of$125 not to exceed $3,750. Member Ristow indicated that sometimes a different perspective can be beneficial and he felt that Mr. Fifields proposal should be considered. He stated he is not opposed to Mr. Guenette's proposal, he is only stating that Mr. Guenette has worked with Farmington in the past and company's perspectives can differ. MOTION by Arey second by Matheson to accept Ehlers and Associates proposals and to authorize the execution of the agreements. VOTING FOR: Arey, Matheson, Ristow. VOTING AGAINST: Lamb. MOTION CARRIED. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: HRA Chairman and Board City Administrator~ David L. Olson Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: Business Subsidy Policy DATE: December 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Board discussed several variations of a proposed Business Subsidy Policy to be considered for adoption by the City of Farmington. The Board authorized the scheduling of a public hearing at this meeting to consider the preferred proposed policy. DISCUSSION The attached proposed business policy was the version that the consensus of the Board felt was appropriate for adoption by the City of Farmington. This proposed policy preserves a certain amount of flexibility while still complying with the requirements as set forth in the new State law adopted during the last legislative session. The policy recommended for consideration by the Board was drafted by the law firm of Briggs and Morgan and has been adopted by a number of cities. It should also be pointed out that the City Council needs to hold a public hearing and adopt this proposed Business Subsidy Policy. BUDGET IMPACT There is no immediate or direct budget impact as a result of adopting this policy. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the proposed Business Subsidy Policy and forward a recommendation to the City Council for their subsequent adoption Respectfully submitted, ~ David L. Olson Community Development Director o;lr~ IJ Business Subsidy Policy " This Policy is adopted for purposes of the business subsidies act (the "Act"), which is Minnesota Statutes, Sections 1161.993 through 116J.995. Terms used in this Policy are intended to have the same meanings as used in the Act, and this Policy shall apply only with respect to subsidies granted under the Act if and to the extend required thereby. While it is recognized that the creation of good payingjobs is a desirable goal which benefits the community, it must also be recognized that not all projects assisted with subsidies derive their public purposes and importance solely by virtue of job creation. In addition, the imposition of high job creation requirements and high wage levels may be unrealistic and counter-productive in the face oflarger economic forces and the financial and competitive circumstances of an individual business. With respect to subsidiesl the determination of the number of jobs to be created and the wage levels thereof shall be guided by the following principles and criteria: . Each project shall be evaluated on a case by case basis, recognizing its importance and benefit to the community from all perspectives, including created or retained employment positions. . If a particular project does not involve the creation of jobs, but is nonetheless found to be worthy of support and subsidy, it may be approved without any specific job or wage goals, as may be permitted by applicable law. . In cases where the objective is the retention of existing jobs, the recipient of the subsidy shall be required to provide reasonably demonstrable evidence that the loss of those jobs is imminent. . The setting of wage and job goals must be sensitive to prevailing wage rates, local economic conditions, external economic forces over which neither the grantor nor the recipient of the subsidy has control, the individual financial resomces of the recipient and the competitive environment in which the recipient's business exists. . Because it is not possible to anticipate every type of project which may in its context and time present desirable commWlity building or preservation goals and objectives, the governing body must retain the right in its discretion to approve projects and subsidies which may vary from the principles and criteria of this Policy. Adopted by: Date of adoption: Date of public hearing: 1070590.1 Law guards private use of tax dollan('1 By Beth Fraser Il{~'''' SpeaJd-ng Out dies dedicate no less than 5 Per- , Minnesotans continue to argue cent of the subsidy to a program. over giving the Minnesota Twins encouraging housing oPPOrtuni-" J corporation millions of dollars to ty for at least five years. ,ties for their employees.' . build a new stadium. The new law also requires that Depending on the priorities of; .', However, this is just the most the public receive prior notifica- the sponsoring jurisdic?on,' .'; visible example of private busi- tion about local subsidies over ther~ are co~tles~ ,!p~ons for ness asking the government for a $100,00 and state subsidies over shapmg subsidy cntena handout In Minnesota, officials $500,000, and have a chance to A community could require at all levels of government regu- voice its opinion at a public that the number of jobs to be larly give corporations welfare, hearing. Final decisions must be created be proportionate to, the usually with little public atten- made by an elected body whose amount of corporate welfare tion. members can be held account- (one job for every $35,000 in sub- ' Fortunately, a law passed ear- able by voters. sidies is a benchmark for loans lier this year by the Minnesota The law strengthens the pay- backed ~y the U.S. Department- , Legislature significantly changes b k of Housmg and Urban Develop- how city and state governments ac requirements for corpora- ment). Or, a city could require can provide subsidies to corpo- tions that fail to meet their com- that a business provide health mitments to job creation and b fi 'b t to hild rations. As a result of years of wage goals. It also establishes care ene ts, contri u e c effort by citizens throughout the penalties for corporations and care costs or provide funds for state, Minnesota now has the retirement accounts. A regional nation's strongest law controlling local governments that fail to economic development authority the use of taxpayer dollars to report their progress toward could decide that it is important subsidize businesses. From now achieving the subsidy's goals. for the company to respect work- on, these subsidies must face a Currently, city councils, local ers' right to organize, not cause new level of public scrutiny and and regional economic develop- layoffs at other local businesses, accountability. ment authorities, county boards, or not have standing violations The new law requires that all port authorities, and housing '!ith the Environmental Protec- subsidies to private business and redevelopment authorities tion Agency. given out at the local or state across Minnesota are learning The possibilities are endless, level must meet strict criteria that they must establish legal but the results are likely to be designed to safeguard invest- criteria to evaluate all corporate quite limited if elected officials ments of public money. In the subsidy proposals. and economic development man- future, deals like the state's 1991 The law requires the criteria agers are left to make these deci- subsidy of Northwest Airlines or to include a wage policy govern- sions by themselves. Subsidy cri- St Paul's $101 million gift to ing the jobs that the company teria will only reflect a commu- Lawson Software will have to be intends to create. Therefore, we nity's values if its residents are evaluated in public and in a can insist that corporations engaged in the process of estab- whole new light. receiving a public subsidy pay lishing them. Proposals for business subsi- livable wages of over $16,450 a To make sure that the new law dies must now define how the year, which is still barely enough works as intended, we will have project benefits the public inter- to bring a family of four up to to make sure our elected repre- est. State and local government the poverty level. sentatives stay focused on the agencies must set standard' crite- The law also gives citizens an public good and require some- ria for evaluating all subsidy opportunity to define the type of thing tangible in return for its proposals. In addition, compa- corporate behavior they are will- citizens' money. nies receiving public money are ing to subsidize. For example, FITISeT is publk poIiey organiur for ' now required to make a commit- the city of Mankato is proposing the Minnesota Allionce for Progressive ment to remain in the communi- that businesses receiving subsi- Action. t City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /O~ TO: Mayor and Council Members, City Administrator~ (.,/' FROM: David L. Olson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Amendment - Silver Springs Zone Change Request February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION DATE: The applicant, Tim Giles, P.O. Box 51, Elko MN, has made application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone subject outlots within the Silver Springs 2nd Addition. The applicant proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan from the existing Low Density Residential to Business and High Density Residential and proposes to rezone the respective area from the current R-1 (Low Density Residential) zone to B-4 (Neighborhood Commercial) and R-3 (High Density Residential). DISCUSSION Mr. Giles is seeking to rezone property located at the northeast intersection of Pilot Knob Road and 190th Street between English Ave. The property, currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) is proposed to be rezoned to B-4 (Neighborhood Commercial) and R-3 (High Density Residential). The applicant proposes a professional office building within the commercial area and would like to construct a 3-unit townhome within the R-3 to serve as a transition to the future single-family homes. A copy of the report to the Planning Commission is attached. A portion of the property remained vacant during the platting of Silver Springs 2nd Addition due to the proposed reconstruction and extension of Pilot Knob Road, the realignment of 190th Street and the construction of English Ave as a through street to 190th Street. The realignment of the roadways and subsequent land swap with Dakota County resulted in the remaining property proposed for rezoning. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property to neighborhood commercial given the perceived difficulty of marketing the property for the construction of single-family homes. The proposed R-3 zone would allow for the construction of a 3-unit townhome that would serve as a transition into the single-family area. Though not part of the application to rezone, the applicant has agreed to plat a future outlot for a tot lot on the southeast comer of English Ave and 189th Street. The public hearing that was held at the December 14, 1999 Planning Commission meeting resulted in concerns being expressed by a number of neighborhood residents. These concerns included: · Increased traffic through neighborhood, primarily along English Ave, · Lack of traffic control, vehicle speeds, · Egress onto English Ave, design of English Ave, · Lack of sidewalks, pedestrian safety, · Diminished property values, · Need for park space, · Does not conform to the current Comprehensive Plan, · Vacant commercial exists along Pilot Knob Road north of the proposed site. Area residents also claimed that the rezoning violated the protective covenants of Silver Springs, in allowing a use other than single-family homes. The City Attorney informed staff that protective covenants are private restrictions agreed to by the developer and the property owners within the platted subdivision and the City can not legally take into consideration these private restrictions when making a determination in a land use decision. The Planning Commission continued the December 14, 1999 public hearing in order to have adequate time to consider the public testimony from residents of the area adjacent to the proposed rezoning. The Commission at the January 11,2000 meeting received some additional testimony and then closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of the requested comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. Reasons stated to support the motion included the fact that the pending reconstruction and realignment of this intersection did not allow for the Developer to properly plan the area and that the proposed B-4 and R-3 would provide a good buffer to the residential area. The motion passed on a 2-1 vote with Commissioners Larson and Johnson voting yes and Commissioner Rotty voting no. Commissioner Rotty stated he felt this comer of intersection was not unique when compared to the other comers of the intersection which all contain single family homes. He also indicated that the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan identified this area as low density residential. REQUESTED ACTION The Council should adopt findings of fact either supporting or rejecting the application to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and rezone the subject property located in the northeast comer of Pilot Knob Road and 190th Street from the existing R-1 (Low Density Residential) to B-4 (Neighborhood Commercial) and R-3 (High Density Residential). It should be mentioned that approval of an ordinance amendment requires a 4/5th vote of the Council. The findings of fact will be prepared and placed on the agenda for formal adoption on the February 22,2000 Council meeting. ReSpectfull?~ I L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Tim Giles CArvlPBELL KNUTSON Profe~~i( i[l.,d A~~\ 1ci: \ti\ 111 Attl,rne,::, at L,\\' January 13, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE Jl1el J. hunnik :\n,lre:l \. IcDc)\\'ell P,)ehler \ Llttht:,," K. Br,)kl" J"hn F. Kelh' Marthe"" J. F,' Ii \Lm:uerite tyj, \.IcC'lrtun Thomas J. Campbell ReIger N. KnutSl\!1 Thumas M. S((lrt Ellintt B. Kner;ch (65 L) 452-5000 Fax (651 \ 452-:;')-)2 ,j,!';I! /iCd1.'L,-i :n \r.L''':I,n,~n Mr. David Olson Community Development City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55024 Re: Applicability of Private Restrictive Covenants and Neighborhood Opposition in Land Use and Zoning Proceedings Dear Dave: You asked this office to address whether the existence of private covenants are relevant in public proceedings in regard to the property which is the subject of a land use or zoning application. The general rule throughout the nation is that the existence of provisions of any restrictive covenants is not relevant, and may not be considered, in public hearings or proceedings. Zoning restrictions and restrictions imposed by private covenants are independent controls upon the use'of land, the one imposed by the municipality for the public welfare, the other privately imposed for private benefit. Zoning restrictions and private covenants legally operate independently of one another. Courts generally hold that private covenants have nothing to do with the administration of zoning ordinances and that a municipality has no authority through zoning to abrogate or affect private covenants. If a property owner is otherwise entitled to have a zoning application granted, it should be granted, notwithstanding private covenants that would prohibit the proposed use. See Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, ~ 57.02 and cases cited therein. You also questioned the extent to which a city council may consider neighborhood opposition to a land use or zoning application. Although neighborhood sentiment may be taken into consideration in any zoning decision, it may not constitute the sole basis for granting or denying a given permit. Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865(Minn. 1979). A City may consider neighborhood opposition to proposed use in zoning proceeding, if opposition is based on concrete information (e.g. regarding traffic, noise, etc.). SuperAmerica GrouP. Inc.. a Div. of Ashland Oil. Inc. v. City of Little Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. App. 1995). I hope this letter adequately addresses your questions. If you have any additional questions regarding the foregoing, please contact me. Very truly yours, Campbell Knutson Professional Association Ba/ta-/JdL Andrea McDowell Poehler AMP Suite 317 . Eaganl...L:de Otftce Center · I 3:';C C, )IT' 'cHe Cenrer Cune · E,l'.;an. \ 1\J 55121 January 7, 2000 \fr. David Olson ::ity of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Silver Springs Rezoning Request Dear Dave: I am writing to follow up to the December Planning Commission meeting. You and I have talked several times about this point. I just want to clarify several points and, hopefully, broaden the idea of "good use of land." You know the details, so I will summarize my points: 1) The city believes a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because it is bordered by two busy roads. Please remember, the three other corner blocks that meet at this intersection are all residential. 2) The B-4 business has no access to the busy roads; the only access is in our neighborhood, on English A venue. 3) The current design of the B-4 business contains a large building with 9000 square feet, 6 imes the size of many homes in the area, and has included 53 parking spots. A small neighborhood business would never need this many parking places. Our fear is the potential reapplication to a B-3 or variance on the type of business eventually constructed in this site. I know you are well aware of the actuality of this happening. 4) As informed consumers, we researched and made decisions to invest in this neighborhood. We made these decisions knowing English Avenue would be extended to Akin Road and knowing Pilot Knob Road construction was inevitable. We also knew the lots on English A venue were zoned residential. 4) Traffic has become a major concern on English Avenue. The city snow plow always comes early to sand and plow the hill on English. A neighborhood child was hit and run over by a car even before the street was opened to Akin Road. The City Planning Commission and the city staff can not ignore the issue of public safety. In referring to Minnesota Statute 462, public safety, health, morals, and general welfare are the first four factors stated in the zoning procedure section. It reads as follows: Section 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subdivision 1: Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type Jf foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry ... Please reconsider your recommendation for a B-4 business in this location. I have worked hard to communicate with you and be honest about our concerns. I was not acquainted with ~he several audience participants who turned the meeting into negative accusations. I'm sure you understand why I am disappointed about your recommendation. But I do have faith in the process, and in your belief to make the best decision for the land in our neighborhood. As you might have guessed, I would plant trees, set aside the entire lot on the corner of 189th and English for a park, and add a stop sign at the intersection here. I do believe there may be some support in the neighborhood to buy the land. Please reconsider your recommendation. We are committed to the city of Farmington but it is important to me to receive your support on this issue. Respectfully ~ubmitted, ! J Ie K, Endersbe 5322 189th Street West Farmington, MN 55024 651.436.4366 January 7, 2000 Mr. Chaz Johnson %Farmington City Hall 325 Oak Street Farmington., Minnesota 55024 Re: Silver Springs Rezoning Request Dear Mr. Johnson, First of all we would like to say thank you. Last month's Silver Springs public hearing was long and very intense. Yet, you managed to patiently listen with an open-mind. You handled yourself very professionally and thoughtfully. The purpose of our letter is to reiterate our concern and request that you deny Mr. Giles rezoning request. Before purchasing our lot and building our home we took our responsibility to become infonned consumers seriously. We talked with Mr. Giles, the seller; our builder, Seasonal Builders; reviewed the subdivision maps available; and talked with City staff To the best of our knowledge we were purchasing in a residential neighborhood. We were made aware that Pilot Knob would be straightened, extended and expanded, as that has been indicated on available maps, told to us by City staff and was known to the residents in this area for many years. So, having done our homework, being comfortable with what we had learned about our neighborhood, in good faith we purchased our lot and built our home here. As you can imagine we are extremely concerned that now after we have made a significant investment of both time and money in our neighborhood and community the rules are being changed. Mr. Giles lots are presently zoned R-l. He, like we, knew that when he purchased the lots. We agree that he has every right to ask you to rezone these lots. However, we respectfully request that you deny the rezoning for anything other than residential. We would encourage you to continue to work as you have done recently in the approval of the Vennillion Grove (Rottlund Homes) schematic PUD and the proposed Murphy Farm (DR Horton) schematic PUD. Whereby, any zoning other than R-l in a residential sub-division is being clearly decided and stated up- front and disclosed to all potential buyers by the developerslbuilders in their marketing materials before folks purchase. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, A~~~~ Scott and Robin Hanson 18880 Elgin Ave Farmington., Minnesota 55024 Ardis Schaeffer 5395 190th Street West Farmington, MN I was not able to attend the meeting on Dec. 14th and I am not able to make it tonight due to work. I would like to address the planning commission with some questions on the B-4 (neighborhood business district). Was B-4 created for this parcel of land on 190th & English Avenue? If you recommend the B-4, you'll be making the decision without any knowledge of how it will affect the residents in the area. There is no comparable B-4 business district in Farmington. The old Dakota Electric building that was recently changed from R-l to B-4 does not compare to this situation. The residents in that area have sidewalks and alleys to access their homes, and it is already on one of the main streets of Farmington. I talked to the City Planner in Rosemount. They do not have any comparable business districts in their residential neighborhoods. I then went to Apple Valley and they have only one B-4 type of business that is similar in nature to our situation. At Cedar & County 38 there is a church and daycare. However, there are no residents in the neighborhood having a driveway sharing access to the street that these businesses use! A B-4 is designed to serve residents, and to be developed and operated in harmony with the neighborhood. Our neighborhood does not have sidewalks. I understand city staff believes traffic will not increase. I disagree. I believe the only safe way to reach this neighborhood business, is to drive your car, which will generate more traffic on an already too busy English Ave. I think the city planning commission should decline this rezoning application, leaving it an R-l. I don't want our neighborhood to be the test site for the city's newly created zoning district. Thank you for letting me voice my opinion. (~ ~~1 1/11/00 2. ~3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular January 11,2000 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Larson, Johnson Members Absent: Ley Also Present: Community Development Director Olson, Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz, Parks & Recreation Director Bell Approval of Minutes: None Rotty opened the continued public hearing for the Silver Springs rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment. Rotty asked if staff had any further information to present since the previous meeting. Community Development Director Olson presented additional staff information. Olson stated that staff conferred with the City Attorney to clarify issues on the protective covenants of the Silver Springs subdivision. Protective covenants, Olson stated, are private agreements between the homeowner and the developer that are attached to the subject platted property. Olson added that cities legally should not consider private covenants as a basis for land use decisions. Olson presented a copy of the correspondence between staff and the City Attorney. Olson also clarified other citizen questions that arose at the previous public hearing, including how citizen opposition effects proposed zoning changes. Olson explained that citizen opposition alone is not sufficient basis for a denial unless based on other definitive and objective land use concerns. Olson also explained the citizen question on how staff bases its' decisions for recommendation. Staff also explained the origin of the property and which portions of the land were apart of the Silver Springs 2nd Addition plat. Chair Rotty entered into record the written comments from Scott and Robin Hanson, 18880 Elgin Ave; Ardis Schaeffer, 5395 190th Street and Julie Endersbe, 5322 189th Street. Chair Rotty opened up for public comments and questions. Linda Storlie, 18887 Elgin Ave - Voiced concern about the amount of traffic that will be generated from the possible land uses and should be examined at some time. Julie Endersbe, 5322 189th Street - Referenced State Statute 462.357 concernmg authority of zoning. Also concerned by the size of the proposed building. Smick clarified that the building shown in the diagram is not considered in the rezoning of the property. Smick went on to clarify what would be permitted within the B-4 district. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 11, 2000 Steve Berdan, 5374 188th Street - Was the land part of the original purchase for the Silver Springs development and if not previously acquired how was it purchased after the realignment of I 90th Street and Pilot Knob Road? Tim Giles responded that he and the County "swapped" land, from the land he owned to the land the County needed for the realignment of the roads. No additional testimony was submitted. Rotty moved it to the table for questions and comments from the Commissioners. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Larson stated that because of the reconstruction and realignment of the intersection, that Mr. Giles did not have the ability to properly plan the area. It was added that the neighborhood commercial would make a good buffer to the residential area and would support a vote to rezone. Commissioner Johnson voiced concern over the design of the site, even though it is not considered as part of the proposed rezone. With that in mind, Commissioner Johnson would support the rezoning of the property. Chair Rotty stated he would be against the rezoning of the property because the property is not unique to the other three comers of that intersection that contain single-family homes, and believed residential could work on the site and cited the recently adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan supporting residential development. Chair Rotty requested a motion on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning of the property. Concerning the portion shown on the site plan as Commercial (B-4). MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution to: . Amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Commercial; and . Rezone the property from R-I (Low Density) to B-4 (Neighborhood Commercial) Larson, Johnson voted yes. Rotty voted no. MOTION CARRIED. Concerning the portion shown on the site plan as High Density (R-3). MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution to: . Amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential; and . Rezone the property from R-I (Low Density) to R-3 (High Density Residential) Larson, Johnson voted yes. Rotty voted no. MOTION CARRIED. Olson reminded the Commissioner and public that this item will go to the February 7th City Council meeting and no public hearing notice is required. Chair Rotty requested the Commission to take a one-minute intermission. The Commission agreed. 2 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 14, 1999 MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to grant a seven (7) foot variance to all placement of an accessory storage building three (3) feet from the principle s contingent upon: a) The applicant moving the structure to three (3) feet from the house withi IF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Commission Chair Rotty presented the conditional use c. to place an off-premise directional sign on City prop' presented the staff report explaining that e applicant is seeking the permit to allow 0 -premise directional signage for the C eron Woods project at a City well house site loc d at the northwest comer of Pi t Knob Road and Euclid Path. Schultz went on to stat that the Commission has gr ted similar permits for the Nelsen Hills Farm and Pine Ridge orest developments co ingent on approval of the City Water Board. Schultz explained th Water Board had revious agreements with the respective developers. Rotty requested if the applicant ha Wensco, Inc. replied that he did not h comments from the public. hing to add to the staff report. Tom Sand, anything to add. Rotty asked for questions or od Ct. - How fa will the sign be placed off of the road? Schultz responded that th sign would be placed a m imum of twenty (20) feet off the property line. Rotty asked if th were any more questions or comments fro the public. There were re no further questions or comments from the C mission at this time. MOTION Ley, second by Johnson to close the public hearin APIF, MOTION CARRI . MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve tll Conditional Use Permit ontingent upon: a) gnage may not be erected until permission is granted by the Water B rd; b The signs be installed as to not be easily toppled or stolen from the prope ) The signs meet all setback requirements. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Jfs. Chair Rotty opened the public hearing set for the Tim Giles application to rezone the property from R-l to R-3 and B-4. Planner Schultz presented the staff report. Schultz stated that the applicant is seeking the rezoning to allow for a professional commercial space on the comer of Pilot Knob Road and 190th Street and the R-3 to allow a three unit townhome to serve as a buffer between the commercial and the single-family homes. Schultz indicated that the developer would also dedicate a tot lot area, as requested by the Parks & Recreation Commission, at the time of platting the property along 189th Street. Schultz pointed out the outlots were a result of the redesign of the Pilot Knob Road and 190th Street area. Chair Rotty requested any additional comments from the applicant. He had none at this time. Rotty opened up for questions and comments from the public. 2 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 14, 1999 Linda Williamson, 18946 Englewood Court - Asked which lots are planned for duplexes. Planner Schultz explained which lots would be multi-family; future lot 4, block 1 IS proposed to be a three unit townhome and future lot I, block 2 would be a two-family. Linda Williamson also asked if the developer had an idea of what would be built on the B-4 property. Schultz replied that the developer would need to follow what is permitted within the zoning. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Giles of what his intentions were. Mr. Giles replied that it would be a professional office building, maybe a day care, chiropractic office, a beauty salon or similar small businesses. Joan Becker, 18835 English Ave. - Voiced concern of public and traffic safety along English Ave including, the steepness of English Ave, blind spots, lack of sidewalks/public areas, speed of traffic and the additional traffic a business would bring. Questioned how anybody could accept the rezoning when it is not harmonious with the neighborhood? Linda Storlie, 18887 Elgin Ave. - Voiced concern of accesses onto English Ave and number of parking stalls indicated on design plan; also voiced traffic concerns for the neighborhood as well as 190th Street and Pilot Knob Road. Patti Hemmingson, 19071 Enchanted Court - Stated that English Ave should not have been a through street and asked why the Planning staff recommended approval of rezoning petition. David Olson, Community Development Director, explained who sits on the Development Committee and how decisions are arrived at. Discussion pursued with the public on the process of reviewing rezoning applications. Julie Endersbe, 5322 189th Street W. - Stated her concern about traffic safety, lack of parks in the neighborhood and that staff would vote in favor of rezone. Added that the covenants do not allow business or multi-family housing. Mr. Giles responded that the covenants do not cover the outlots and the area where Pilot Knob Road and 190th St. were redesigned. Michelle Gildenzopf, 5434 189th Street W. - Voiced concern over the size and location of the proposed tot lot because of the amount of surrounding residents and traffic. Jim Meyers, 18893 Elite Court - Asked why the Commission would consider rezoning the property to commercial when commercial property sits vacant down the road (along Pilot Knob Road). Patti Hemmingson - Asked what type of traffic study would be prepared. David Olson responded that because the proposed development is relatively small, a study is not warranted. 3 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 14, 1999 Ken Chinn, 19066 Estate Ave. - Concerned that the rezone would depreciate his property. Stated that people should have been made aware of the possibility. Brien Walters, 18930 English Ave. - Voiced his opposition to the business district, concern of increased traffic. Julie Endersbe - Questioned if the developer considered residential on the property. Tim Giles responded that commercial is the most feasible for the site because the property is fronted by three roads. Julie Endersbe suggested that the surrounding residents purchase the property and has presented this idea to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Jim Bell responded that the Parks & Recreation Commission did not desire a neighborhood park as part of the original plat, but now request a tot lot. Karen McKinnley, 18810 English Ave - Voiced concern of increased traffic, safety of children and road design of English Ave. Presented pictures of lack of visibility along English Ave. The Planning Commission continued taking public testimony on the issue of the proposed rezoning. The following is a summary of issues and concerns of the surrounding residents: a) Concerns of additional traffic, lack of traffic control along English Ave and lack of sidewalks; b) Lack of parks within the neighborhood; c) No desire/need of commercial property when commercial property is available (on the 18400 block) along English Ave; d) Private covenants restrict anything but single-family residential. Chair Rotty requested comments from the Commission. Commissioner Larson expressed that his initial review favored the rezoning, but with public opposition there are issues that should be addressed between the developer and staff. Commissioner Ley stated that he doesn't believe the uses that would be permitted (within the B-4) commercial area would generate any more traffic than if the property were single-family homes. Ley pointed out the uses will differ between the subject property and the area north of the Super America store. Commissioner Johnson agreed with the comments of Commissioners' Ley and Larson and added his concern that the sketch drawing of the building and parking lot may have been misconstrued as being proposed by both the public and the Commission. Chair Rotty suggested that the Commission weigh over the information submitted by staff and the testimony given by the public before making a decision. The other Commissioners agreed to the suggestion. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 14, 1999 MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to January 11,2000. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Commission agreed to take a five-minute recess. Chair Rotty opened the public hearing for the application of the Vermillion Gro Planned Unit Development. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report on the Rottlund Homes oposal of ixed use Planned Unit Development. Smick indicated that the I22-acre evelopment inc es 97 units (on 41.8 acres) of single-family, 95 units (on 24.3 acres) arden homes, 148 un (on 21.1 acres) of Villa Townhomes and 3.5 acres of com mer al. xplained the proposed types and styles of homes a the type of residents ecting in each (Le., family, elderly, singles, c.). Chair Rotty asked if a Michael Noonan, Rottlund mes, responded that they ave reached an agreement on the Pettis property. Discussion pursued if it was pr ent to leave that area: 'n "limbo" between commercial and medium density. Plann Smick pointed out that similar split land use was permitted within Charles od due to uncertainty 0 the commercial market. Commissioners commente that surrounding residents shou be made aware of the future land uses of the si . Mr. Noonan stated that in previous velopments the future commercial areas wer fully disclosed with the new residents in which there was no opposition. ted any questions or comments from the public. Chad Hovla d, 4975 203rd Street W. - Asked if the peninsula area was dedicated p. rk space. Mr. N nan responded that the peninsula area, between the wetlands, is essent lly unbu' (fable due to the width and wetland setback requirements. Details of the type f par , being passive or active, will be worked out with City staff. arvey Briesacher, 4999 203rd Street W. - Asked ifthe wetlands were to become part of the park system and if water levels will be affected. 5 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission Michael Schultz f).fJ Associate Planner FROM: SUBJECT: Application to Amend Comprehensive Plan and Rezone - Silver Springs 3rd Addition DATE: December 14, 1999 INTRODUCTION Mr. Tim Giles, TC Construction,. has made an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the vacant property located at the northeast comer of 190th Street W. and Pilot Knob Road. Planning Division Review Applicant: Tim Giles 1608 W. Hwy 13 Burnsville, MN 55337 Attachments: 1. Rezone Application 2. Location Map 3. Section 10-3-2: Permitted and Conditional Uses . 4. Staff Memo dated Aprill~, 1999 5. . Planning Commission Journal Article on "Understanding Spot Zoning" Location of Property: Northeast comer of Pilot Knob Rd and 190th Street W. Size of the Property: 3.3 acres Current Land Use: Vacant/Undeveloped Current Zoning: R-l (Low Density Residential) Current Comprehensive Land Use: Low Density Area Currently Bounded by: Single-family residential to the north and east. Single-family residential also is located across from Pilot Knob Rd and 190th Street W. DISCUSSION Mr. Giles is seeking to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low-Density Residential to High-Density Residential and Business and also to rezone a portion of the property from R-l (Low-Density) to R-3 (High-Density) and B-4 (Neighborhood Business). The properties are currently vacant and are surrounded by single-family residential. A portion of the properties, Lot 5 Block 1, is surrounded by three streets (Pilot Knob Road, 190th St. W. and English Avenue) which is the determining factor for the developer to seek a business use in this location. The developer is proposing that Lot 4 Block 1 be amended and rezoned from Low- Density/R-l to High-Density/R-3. The developer proposes to construct a three-unit attached townhouse in this location, the land use would serve as a transition to the single- family residential to the north and the proposed business use to the south. The proposed parcel meets City requirements for lot size and width for a townhome within the R-3 zoning district. Staff would like to indicate that a two-family unit is permitted under a conditional use permit with a minimum lot size of 17,000 square feet. The developer is also proposing a two-family unit on Lot 1 Block 2, directly across the street from the proposed R-3 lot, maintaining the R-l (Low Density) zoning district (see attached Table 1 or Section 10-4- 2). Lots 1, 2 and 3 on Block 1 would remain as low density residential and R-l (Low- Density) zoning district. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code. Mr. Giles is currently proposing to rezone the area shown as Lot 5 Block 1 from R-l to B-4 (Neighborhood Business). The purpose of the B-4 zoning district is 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. During the creation of the B-4 (Neighborhood Business District), City staff determined that an appropriate location for the new district would be at the intersection of 190th Street and Pilot Knob Road. City staff was not in support of the original application to rezone the property to B-1 (Limited Business) which Planning Commission supported at the April 13, 1999 meeting. Staff determined that this location was not appropriate for the types of uses allowed in the B-1 zoning district. Staff does support the B-4 zoning district and the permitted uses on the proposed commercial property. Staff is recommending that this parcel be rezoned to B-4 (Neighborhood Business) to provide services to the neighborhood without causing major impacts to the adjacent neighborhood. Impacts such as; noise, noxious odors, reflections from bright lights associated with service stations, or increased traffic that could be generated from the types of uses permitted within a B-1 zoning district. Lot 2 Block 2, located along 189th Street and English Ave would be dedicated as park space during the platting of the property. The property would remain in the R-l zoning district and be used primarily as a tot lot; similar to the one established within the Troyhills development. This is a change from the original application where the park was located just south of the proposed park. ACTION REQUESTED Staff supports approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone of the property as described: 1) Lot 5 Block 1 of the proposed Silver Springs 3rd Addition from Low Density Residential/R-l (Low Density) to Business/B-4 (Neighborhood Business); 2) Lot 4 Block 1 of the proposed Silver Springs 3rd Addition from Low Density Residential/R-l (Low Density) to High Density/R-3 (High Denisty); 3) And that the remainder of the properties; Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2 Block 2 remain as Low Density Residential/R-l. Respectfully Submitted, ~ Michael Schultz Associate Planner cc: Tim Giles, TC Construction PETITION FOR REZONING I, the undersigned, am the fee O\\l1er of and hereby request t,hat the following described land: .::--.\'\u<:;-~'\ c::...'t""v..., ()L-,-t 1 v+) -.J be rezoned from: to: R-~ 13-4 ~ C-:3 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. '/JJt Signature /1- g-Y? 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 - / __ .~ . ----I ~"i~: -j-:73'7'"--' ... -....L..:: .... .- / ~~. _ _ t---.""~'" ,..... - -.j I 1..-"('..,. ,....,.,.- - - -t ~ . . .+.. ,.,,'L.n ,.i':.,. 'I -" ~ ; : ~r ~u i ... it~-~ t~ ~UI '_ , l; ~~ H. ll>;:g~ 1\l><:~I:~ :; i~-" -:..t .. Ii oQ_' ,~ ~ . - It-'' .. .' l'\~: ' .. f~ T II ~ .. , lV" ',J' --J d' t.t : ~ _ ' : : ~ / f' r .,..u I _ _ .,..__1 it I.. ~, i .:.....--- I 0 V--;---- AVJ:IlIUI: i 1'1& EAGUSlJ I V Ir A 1'':','\'L'l,'' _ ~ j_ _ 1J!ifJ_ _. ,._ ...... c.. ~.::;;<j .::_-==-."''': 1---1 Co) ~', ,. o(l( .~ I =><:l ,'" 1 -.11;, ';::."'J\) ~ I;: ~ I I cat ~J C)'i, ,= r) ~"ii />.1- ~, ~ ~'~ I POll ," ~:: C.I ~ ::..:'-0 . I, 'J ~ 1- I , I ~ I 1-.., ,....: I -.. I I I I I I I J I I -.:: :--- I I ~ i f '"\., I I I v I I ~ I I;;; I I ~ I. V, I Ii ~ I', ro, ";:::1 ".'--, I ;:: \'_, .", '1-. < ('. .....1 - :;'\.. I -.. -I .:;. .. I - I::;; I IS? \..., \ "". " ~... '- \ \ \{~ )\ oQ.l\l (, 'to ""'0-, '. \~ .. ./ -\',,: ~ 'j[\- "1 'co ... ~\~....... :;.- - !I: {" N ,. , \~ ~ . .J '. I !t ~l - i' IIlr: "r . ~{C~~C,\I f..':- - - ':~' ) ":;;. lilli', ---1- ~~~~ ' --~-_. : ~.,,~ till ~~- ill 1 "';~ ~:l~ /' ~".~:...: ... -;r..<' .' /' ,_ .,4~ :t'~ \ /' II I ~ ~I' /' I;: \ / I // I / : I /~ /. I , /.>, ! 1/'-" ... t. " _ 0 ..;' .... n I I,(::>'j .,. ,.~ \ '. :;:;.... />,. / . :/4'-::-/ I l 1111'1' -,-",-(,..." ...._ ,,_~_' C:"Q~" ~ ---!...~ II i'~ / ,,~ 1!t1r7~~i --lJ ../" ~ ~~- so 1- I~ ~ IS I INGLISH '!.I!. - --- --{- - , i i ~ - ~ S ' i+- BIU ! I Il;;;e t I ....i"'f '~ : ~ I >: I b~-l-:-J : /; :..~ I ~ : :.. L.L-.!__~! :, - ~ p' , I II ::1 : I I UI. 1 'di f-.. I :I:i i . al !,~I ~-1 I~ I !.d: ~ I ~I!J i'" I "I'~ r Ii H j:1 ,i i ~ ~ \ ;i 'I!!I ~ s ~ J.'.~f~"'L- (, I I ., 'I i ~ ~ I I. j' I. I IJ / III! Ii Il ~...' ! iJn!! II 1 ~ ill! ni ~~~ 1!1 pL~; 1"-8~~ ~~ . CJ) I:' gj 1,3 t":l '.. '"':l J:iI N ~I\" o h' "&] 1= N ::1: . en :: ::x: " t":l ,w t":l . ~ :> '~.'""-~~~:t;..o. \G, ~ \.'" -~ '6 UJ ~ ~ < trj ::0 ~, ~ ~ [J) ~ ::0 ~ Z ~ UJ o '" '" (; ): r- ( .:.. ~ ~ ... ." ~ N Z t:J o o ." < ~ ~ > t:J t:J ~ ~ ~ o Z l Property Location J~ I I I { T \ - - -..... ""0( -- - ~ ~ r ........ lip II ~ Z ~ 11' X H S. w QI --- . ~I I" ~ ...... ~ ,- V :- IYY - ~~ ~ r~ -- 'v }~ ~ 1: ;~I~ ST1IV ~ ~~" ~ f Subject ProlJerty --- """"--- 190 'H ~ T W ~ III \ { ~ \ \ ~ '- ~/_L........ 1 "~!t---- ~ I h \ ~Nri ~ - ~ ---- - """"" , n; - w - - ~ .... f: - \ \\ { .-l l 1 City of Farmington Zoning Map c=:::::> ~ ~ ~ Zoning Districts A-1 (Agriculture) A-2 (Agriculture Preserve) B-1 (Limited Business) B-2 (General Business) B-3 (Heavy Business) ~ ~ c=::> c=::> ~ C--.;::> Legend C-1 (Conservation) F-1 (Floodway) F-2 (Flood Fringe) F-3 (General Flood Plain) 1-1 (I ndustrial) PUD (Planned Unit Development) c~ c=::> c=::::.::> ~ R-1 (Low Density) R-2 (Medium Density) R-3 (High Density) R-4 (Mixed Code) I I ~, 60 \ \ \ / I .J' \ -Ii S 89'25'12" E <" l>~ . ~r ~,j, r -1 o · ,J-i . Ul k) ~~ ~ 0> , ... 10 I"- ...:;.,. ~, \ 1 rOo., I I>>~ Ll .0> 10,107 Sf ,.. \ t--:.... \ 126 ",~''''''f -..J, ~-~ ,.. i W ~.J'"f \ _ tOfo d, 2 !Xl --:.-t !f) \ "l-t "'-. , III 10,015 Sf 1O"l <J N' 0 r J.,. "ll>> \ Z '.J u/O I 010 121 ,- - t.i'i.n 1'- . I ~.O> L~ ..... \ \ ~-1- 01 \ 3 10 Ul !Xl 1\,129 Sf \ 117 ?rofO~ 60 I I ~,..~. \ 1 '. ~I 4 ~I 15,863 Sf \1 l "'. 110 ~"" ~ Q\ t: ~ \. l>:U r . . . ~~ '~u/ ..UlUl 0Iu/" -.. ' ("I' 0 ~~("I '0> \ 1 " \ o z o "':10 01;-' .~ &01 0.0 ~ I' /^--.-------- '(~---- ,---, ) '(';1; U 0~^ jAr)/ , / '1/ / / /.--" r-" c.> " \ \ \ '........) --- -----.-----.----- ------------~~<1.~ -:,--- -- IlJ.9'/'11 S'iRF'r,"j' iL)Yf) /~ , 65 <........ / ./-__.__ ;' .', ----.-----~- / I I . j,/') l.//I./ / 1/ 147 , j:g Park Z 10,000 Sf 147 !Xl 10 w oio 1010 "in NO ~b I I'D 10 z 2 0> 10 18,729 Sf ~j. 1 301 Outlot A 7,076 Sf ... 129 4Qn ,17 -..-;> 10-2-2 10-2-3 R-2 R-3 R-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 1-1 C-1 F-1 F-2 F-3 Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Code Residential Limited Business General Business Heavy Business Neighborhood Business Light Industrial Conservation Floodway Flood Fringe General Flood Plain (Ord. 086-177,3-17-1986; amd. Ord, 099-423, 3-1-1999) 10-2-3: ZONING DISTRICTS, PURPOSE: A-1 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-1 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 599 City of Farmington ~ 10-2-3 10-2-3 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) -:> 1-1 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-1 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-1 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 f100dway 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 1 OO-year flood but determined by approximate methods with no base flood elevations shown or flood hazard factors determined, It 599 City of Farmington 1. Two-family dwellings 2, Agricultural service 3. CommercIal recreation uses 4. Water recreation and storage 5, Public buildings 6, Public utility buildings 7, Kennels 8, Solar energy systems 9, Cemeteries 10, Mineral extraction 11, Equipment and mainte- nance storage 12. Feedlot 13. Accessory apartments 14, Public and parochial schools 15. Churches 16, Towers (Ord, 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd, Ord. 088-205, 8-15-1988; Ord. 093-298, 2-16-1993; Ord, 096-383, 11-18-1996) 10-3-2 Permitted Uses 12, Day care center (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord, 2-16-1993; Ord, 096-383.11-18-1996) (B) A-2 Agricultural Preserve District 1. Agriculture 2. Single-family dwellings 3. Public parks and playgrounds 4, Golf courses 5. Stables and riding academies 6. Drainage and irrigation systems 7. Specialized animal raising 8, Greenhouses and nurseries 9, Travel trailer and boat storage 10, Truck gardening 11, Seasonal produce stands 12. Day care center ? (C) R-1 Low Density District 1, Agriculture 2, Single-family dwelling 3, Public parks and playgrounds 4. Golf courses 5, Accessory storage buildings 6, Residential care facility serving 6 or fewer persons 597 City 0; Farmington , 0-3-2 Conditional Uses 13. Accessory apartments 14. Public and parochial schOOlS 15. Churches 16, Towers 088-205, 8-15-1988: Ord. 093-298. 1, Cemeteries 2. Nursing homes 3. Nonprofit recreational uses 4. Day care facility serving more than 14 persons 5, Hospitals and clinics 6, Public utility buildings 7. Public buildings , 0-3-2 Permitted Uses , 0-3-2 Conditional Uses 8. Water recreation and water storage 9. Solar energy systems 10. Double and multiple-family dwellings , 1. Planned unit developments 12. Greenhouses and nurseries 13. Townhouses - quad homes 14. Condominiums 15, Accessory apartments 16, Public and parochial schools 17. Churches 18. Congregate care facilities 19. Towers (Ord, 086-177. 3-17-1986; amd, Ord, 088-198. 2-1-1988: Ord. 091-246, 5-20-1991; Ord. 093-298, 2-16-1993: Ord. 094-335, 8-1-1994; Ord, 096-378, 8-19-1996; Ord, 096-383, , 1-18-' 996) 7. Day care facility serving 14 or fewer persons (0) R-2 Medium Density District 1. Agriculture 2. Single-family dwellings 3. Public parks and playgrounds 4. Accessory storage buildings 5. Residential care facility serving 6 or fewer persons 6, Day care facility serving 14 or fewer persons 1. Two-family dwellings 2, Multiple-family dwellings 3, Day care facility serving more than 14 persons 4, Solar energy systems 5, Planned unit developments 6. Boarding house 7, Water recreation and water storage 8, Hospitals and clinics 9, Nursing homes 10, Public utility buildings 11. Public buildings 12, Funeral homes 13, Cemeteries 14. Greenhouses 15, Townhouses - quad homes 16, Condominiums 17, Accessory apartments 18, Dental laboratories 19, Public and parochIal scnools City at" Farmmgron 597 10-3-2 Permitted Uses 10-3-2 Conditional Uses 20. Churcnes 21. Congregate care facilities 22. Towers (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd, Ord. 088-198, 2-1-1988: Ord. 091-246. 5-20-1991; Ord. 093-298. 2-16-1993: Ord. 094-335, 8-1-1994; Ord. 096-378,8-19-1996; Ord. 096-383.11-18-1996) ::;J (E) R-3 High Density District 1. Single-family dwellings 2. Two-family dwellings 3, Day care facility serving more than 16 persons 4. Planned unit developments 5. Public utility buildings 6, Public buildings 7. Solar energy systems 8, Hospitals and clinics 9, Nursing homes 10, Clubs 11. Accessory apartments 12. Public and parocnial schools 13, Churche~ 14, Funer;::,l homes 15, Congregate care facilities (Ord, 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd, Ord. 091-246. 5-20-1991; Ord. 093-298.2-16-1993; Ord, 094-335, 8-1-1994) 1, Multiple-family dwellings 2, Townhouses - quad homes 3, Public parks and playgrounds 4. Accessory storage buildings 5, Residential care facilities serving 7 through 16 persons 6, Day care facility serving 13 through 16 persons (F) R-4 Mixed Code District 1, Single-family dwellings (UBC) 2, Public parks and playgrounds 3, Accessory storage buildings 4. Residential care facility serving 6 or fewer persons 5, Day care facility serving 14 or fewer persons 597 City ot' FarmLngton 1. Two-family dwellings 2. Multiple-family dwellings 3. Planned unit developments 4. Townhouses - quad homes 5, Solar energy systems 6, Accessory apartments 7, Public utility buildings 8, Public buildings 9. Day care facility serving more than 16 oersons 10. Public and parochial schools 11, Churcnes ~ (J) 10-3-2 10-3-2 Permitted Uses Conditional Uses 12, Motor fuel stations, major 10, Retail business 11, Restaurants 12, Fast food establishments 13, Solar energy systems (Ord, 086-177, 3-17-1986) B-4 Neighborhood Business District 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- thru 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) 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) Permitted Uses Conditional Uses (K) 1-1 Light Industrial District 1, Research and testing labs 2. Offices 3. Supply yards 1, Manufacturing 2, Water recreation and water storage 899 City of Farmington TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Application to Amend Comprehensive Plan and Rezone - Silver Springs 3rt! Addition DATE: April 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION Mr. Tim Giles, TC Construction, has made an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the vacant property located at the northeast comer of I 90th Street W, and Pilot Knob Road, DISCUSSION Mr, Giles is seeking to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential and Business and also to rezone the property from R-l (Low- Density) to R-3 (High-Density) and B-1 (Limited Business). The properties are currently vacant and are surrounded by low-density single-family residential. A portion of the properties, Block 1 Lot 5, is surrounded by three streets (Pilot Knob Road, 190th St. W, and English Avenue) which is the determining factor for the developer to seek a business use in this location. City staff met with Mr. Giles on November 3, 1998 to discuss the proposed project. He proposed Block I Lot 4 be amended and rezoned from Low-DensitylR-1 to High-DensitylR-3, He proposes to construct a three-unit attached townhouse complex in this location to buffer the single-family residential to the north and the proposed business use to the south, The proposed parcel meets City requirements for lot size and lot width, During recent discussions with the Planning Commission concerning the creation of the B-4 (Neighborhood Business District), City staff determined that an appropriate location for the new district would be at the intersection of 190th Street and Pilot Knob Road, The purpose of the B-4 zoning district is 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. Mr. Giles is currently proposing to rezone from R-I to B-1 (Limited Business). The purpose of the B-1 zoning district is to provide areas along major thoroughfares for unified commercial centers oriented to serving automobile traffic. City staff has informed Mr, Giles that the staff would not recommend approval for rezoning the property to B-1, Staff has determined that this location is not appropriate for the types of uses allowed in the B-1 zoning district because the property will not be allowed to have access on Pilot Knob Road or 190th Street causing traffic problems, Staff is recommending that this parcel be rezoned to B-4 (see attached permitted and conditional uses) to provide services to the neighborhood without causing impacts to the adjacent neighborhood such as noise, noxious odors, reflections from bright lights associated with service stations, increased traffic generated from the types of uses permitted in the B-1 zoning district. Block 2 Lot 2 along 189th Street does not comply with the existing R-l single-family residential zoning requirements, The City requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. The proposed parcel contains 8,255 square feet and a lot width of 65 feet, requiring that the lot be re-evaluated by the developer for lot size and width since this lot would require a variance of 1,745 square feet. The land area directly to the rear of Block 2 Lots 1 & 2 is reserved for a City park, ACTION REQUESTED 1) Staff recommends approving the Comprehensive Plan amendment for Block 1 Lot 4 from Low-Density Residential to High-Density Residential and for Block 1 Lot 5 from Low- Density Residential to Business subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application, 2) Staff recommends approving the rezoning of Block 1 Lot 4 from R-l (Low-Density Residential) to R-3 (High-Density Residential), 3) Staff recommends the denial of the rezoning of Block 1 Lot 5 from R-l (Single-Family Residential) to B-1 (Limited Business), 4) Staff recommends that the developer re-evaluate the lot size and width to comply with City standards, Respectfully Submitted, Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Tim Giles, TC Construction ... i I I , I ; I ; I . I ""I /// en " / ~I ~ /./ ';:::-. .. .-----~. m I ~I ::II I- (II ~I I I ~: ~I ~ ~ E-.... C ;:! ~ I i I i ! I ; -.... (;j ~ ~ . ~ ("fj tS ~ I \ \ I>~ ~~: . (JI ~~O .... ..\.. to N~Y' ago \ 1>;0 r I I I -- ._<-1 ~(JI(JI (JI<-I~ .~. <-I' 0 __<-I ago z o ,,"-CO (JI;-' ..... 8lJ1 a ~ l - - - - - - - S 89"25'12" E ~ ..( 1 10,107 SF 126 (2../\ 2 10,015 SF 121 \ ~~\ lJI \ 3 (JI 1'&,129 SF \17 15,863 SF 110 \ 1 ff\ 0.0 o .. Ol " ~~ iO ~~ ~ ,.,.. ~ Ill,., ('I. o(.J z~ kj III IlO o PROPOSED SLOG 9,000 SF 120 60 60 ~ ~ ~ Sf) /Y/ IV ( <2iVu 1891'H STRE1E'T 206,~ " 65 ~ --I \ \ g/J \ I 4 \~: \J !'\ "'\ '\ ~"\ . Z "\' c;) '" t:. \ f' r^ \~.'" ~ \... "'- ~ ,op. "'- \\" \ "- ~ ' ~ O<~,p<'~ ~ \ ~~",,,, ~ .S' "'- ~~>J. "'J.~ , 0."00 , ~O.. , /> >-.( , L:.. ~'f' " oc? b. ~J;t:~ .'^- """'"s~''' 02> ~t?~ ". '-::::::o.2--.'<Y <B o?~ ,'<;"':" 0 ..', <I ,< ,,~ ~ ~ \" ',,- \ '" '-...... ...........\-... ,--.., , . " I . I ." i~ ~..l " 1 10,466 SF 2 8,255 SF 2 82 148 147 65 Park 301 490.47 N 89'54'03" W 190TH STREET SOUTH UNESW1/4-SW1/4StC. f3, T:114N, R. 20W- - - WEST I LoJ O~ III III "':in Np ~o 7. ........ "- 0; PCl Article: "Understanding Spot Zoning," by Robert C. Widner http://www.webcom.com/-pcj/articles/wid060.html Most planning commissioners have heard the impassioned cry that a particular rezoning decision will constitute an invalid "spot zoning." This allegation typically arises where the community is considering the rezoning of a single lot or small parcel of property held by a single owner and the rezoning will permit land uses not available to the adjacent property. Because spot zoning often focuses on the single parcel without considering the broader context, that is, the area and land uses surrounding the parcel, it is commonly considered the antithesis of planned zoning. While rezoning decisions that only affect a single parcel or small amount of land are most often the subject of spot zoning claims (as opposed to rezonings of larger areas), a locality can lawfully rezone a single parcel if its action is shown to be consistent with the community's land use policies. As I will discuss shortly, courts look to the community's comprehensive plan, or to other planning studies, in determining whether the rezoning is, in fact, consistent with local land use policies. Of course, whether a particular rezoning constitutes an unlawful spot zoning depends largely upon the facts surrounding the zoning decision and upon the judicial decisions of each state. However, courts commonly note that the underlying question is whether the zoning decision advances the health, safety, and welfare of the community. A zoning decision that merely provides for individual benefit without a relationship to public benefit cannot be legally supported, Where a particular zoning decision is not supported by a public pUfJ?ose, the zoning decision is arbitrary and may be subject to invalidation as unlawful spot zonmg, Although courts throughout the nation differ in their specific approaches when reviewing spot zoning claims, the majority consider: 1, the size of the parcel subject to rezoning; 2, the zoning both prior to and after the local government's decision; lof2 12/10/199910:59 AM PC] Article: "Understanding Spot Zoning," by Robert C. Widner http://www.webcom.coml-pcj/articles/wid060.html 3, the existing zoning and use of the adjacent properties; 4. the benefits and detriments to the landowner, neighboring property owners, and the community resulting from the rezoning; and 5. the relationship between the zoning change and the local government's stated land use policies and objectives. This last factor -- the relationship of the rezoning decision to the community's land use policies and objectives -- is perhaps the most important one, As a result, when a planning commission (or governing body) initially considers a rezoning request it should determine whether the request is consistent with the comprehensive or master plan, Many communities' zoning codes also require a separate planning study that examines the merits of the proposed rezoning, This further ensures that any rezoning is consistent with the community's land use objectives, and not a case of spot zoning. The bottom line is that courts will give considerable weight to evidence that the locality's rezoning decision reflects thoughtful consideration of planning factors. It should be noted that there is one situation where a rezoning decision that does not conform to the comprehensive plan may nevertheless be upheld, That is where there is evidence showing significant changes in the community since the adoption of the plan that would justify a rezoning of the property, This is especially true where a review of other factors, such as benefit to the community and the size of the rezoned parcel, indicate that the rezoning was not merely intended to confer a benefit to the property owner, Please note that this article is copyright protected by the Planning Commissioners Journal, You are welcome to download or print the article for your own personal use -- or to provide a link to this article from another Web site, For other use of the article, please contact the Planning Commissioners Journal. 20f2 12/10/199910:59 AM Silver Springs Residents' Comments Regarding Agenda Item 10. A. Silver Springs Zoning Change Request Farmington City Council Meeting February 7, 2000 Mayor Ristow and Members of the City Council, thank you for letting us speak to you, We appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns. As we indicated to several of you we have worked together to identify one person to speak, My name is Robin Hanson. I live in Silver Springs at 18880 Elgin Ave, I am representing the group opposed to the Silver Springs rezoning request. Collectively, we are united in our desire to keep this land zoned residential. My intent is for my comments, which I plan to limit to about 10 minutes, to be representative of our group's concerns, We are requesting that you deny the Silver Springs zoning change request. Our first exhibit is our signed petitions, There are a total of over /?:i:) signatures, representing citizens not only from our neighborhood, but also the other three comers at Pilot Knob and Akin Road, who are opposed to the rezoning request. We have many findings of fact which we believe provide solid reasons for you to deny this proposed rezoning: First, the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.,. Planning staff recommended the rezoning for the lots in question, even though the proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that the City Council approved on July 19, 1999. Please note the long history of decision-making regarding the land in the Silver Springs development. The initial vote, over 30 years ago, established this area as residential and each vote thereafter has maintained the residential zoning, April 21, 1969 - The City Council approved the ordinance as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan to designate the area as Residential Land Use. July 2, 1992 - The plat approved by the City Council for the Silver Springs Development designated R-1 housing. July 8, 29, 1998 - Approximately 18 months ago City Staff were involved in "Visioning Sessions" to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion at these meetings included keeping the vacant land in the Silver Springs development zoned R-1. July 19, 1999- Just six months ago, you, the City Council, approved the Comprehensive Plan that included a recommendation to keep the Silver Springs vacant land residential. This is the same plan that has been submitted to the Met Council for approval. Exhibit 11- Color copy of the Comprehensive Plan for the North Central District, Silver Springs R-1 zoning is maintained. Exhibit III-Black and White copy of the City of Farmington Map showing Zoning Districts, Created by City Planning Division, Last Revised 01/2000, Silver Springs area, as well as surrounding area, is zoned R-1, At last month's Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Rotty shared that the Silver Springs subdivision was carefully looked at when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, In his dissent he brought forth a very important point: Why would it now be appropriate to change the zoning of this particular subdivision of Silver Springs when those who carefully worked to establish the Comprehensive Plan discussed this area in detail, recommending that it remain an R-1 subdivision? One-half mile to the north of this site are existing and planned B-4 businesses. It is our understanding one-half mile south, also on Pilot Knob, the northeast comer of the Charleswood development is zoned B-4. Both of these commercial sites reflect specific strategies adopted by the City Council as part of the City's comprehensive land use plan, A commercial site was not planned for Silver Springs. We feel that the current and future neighborhood services at these sites will adequately address our needs and further support the Comprehensive Plan's vision to keep the majority of businesses downtown. Additionally, the request to rezone an area already surrounded by developed single family homes, (1317 residential lots within a square mile radius), is contradictory to one of the City's long-term strategies per the Comprehensive Plan to "Guide quality growth on the existing vacant parcels within the current boundaries of the City in a way that is compatible with the character and density of surrounding neighborhood districts" and approaches "spot zoning." Based on their remarks at recent Planning Commission meetings City Planning Staff believe a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because the land is bordered by three roads. Please remember, the three other comer blocks that meet at this intersection are zoned R-1 and fully developed with single family homes. City staff, however, have indicated that because the comer lot would have roads on three sides, that this is unique and it is therefore appropriate to rezone these lots, In fact, within 1/2 mile of this intersection there are 17 other residential lots that have roads on three sides of their lots. Exhibit IV- Map with 17 residential lots that have roads on three sides highlighted. So, in fact, this land is not unique at all. We also have been told the City Council made a decision as recent as the last two months regarding an attempt to rezone some land on Flagstaff Avenue. As part of your decision-making process you deferred to the City's Comprehensive Plan and voted to maintain the present zoning. Second, the proposed B-4 business location would only have a single access point, which would be on English Avenue, There have already been several serious and fatal accidents in the area, both on the highways and on English Ave, This is a dangerous and high traffic area, Each resident of English Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood can share their own experiences and first hand accounts from living near this street day in and day out. Changing the zoning for these parcels would only exacerbate the problems we face everyday, The City Council cannot ignore the issue of public safety. We believe you are legally required to consider public safety, In Minnesota Statute 462,537 under the procedures for plan effectuation, specifically zoning. Subdivision 1: the authority for zoning specifically refers to public safety as one of the first four factors to be considered in the zoning or regulating of the earth's surfaces. Exhibit V- Copy of the Minnesota Statue 462.537 Subdivision 1. Furthermore, one of the City's long-term strategies in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan for new traditional neighborhoods, which we believe we are , . talking about here, is to "Promote traffic calming in residential areas; reduce traffic speeds on local streets to state standards." Rezoning a portion of this area commercial will not serve to help the City meet one of its long-term goals, Rather than traffic calming we will have increased traffic congestion and speeds on local residential streets. If on the other hand you assume these vacant lots follow under the City's long- term strategies which are focused on purely existing neighborhoods, then you wouldn't proceed to rezone this either, because one of those specific strategies is to "Promote infill housing of high quality design that is compatible with the surrounding context and also preserves and contributes to the existing neighborhood character," Rezoning a portion of Silver Springs commercial would not serve to help the City achieve one of their long-term strategies regarding existing neighborhoods. Third, at the last Planning Commission only three of the five members were present to vote on this recommendation. The three present were not in agreement. The proposed rezoning received a split vote of 2 for and 1 against. Fourth, The developer contractually and verbally committed to the residents of Silver Springs the land we were purchasing and where we were building our homes would be a residential area, Exhibit VI -Copy of a signed covenant. Fifth, Zoning the property up to 8-4 would only benefit the developer, It would decrease the economic and aesthetic value of the properties in the surrounding area, Thank you for listening and responding to the many phone calls and emails you have received over the past couple of weeks, We appreciate your time and effort and the consideration you have shown us. In conclusion, we reiterate, that the rezoning of this land would reject the philosophy and development of the city's Comprehensive Plan, secondly it is in direct conflict with many of the City's long-term land use plans and strategies and thirdly the lots in question are not unique. We respectfully request that consistent with the City of Farmington's Comprehensive Plan, you, as our City Council, each vote to keep Silver Springs residential by voting "no" on the proposed Silver Springs zoning change request. ~~ ~ .. Silver Springs Residents' Comments ~elar"ing Agenda Item 10. A. Silver Springs Zoning Change Request Farmington City Council Meeting February 7, 2000 Mayor Ristow and Members of the City Council, thank you for letting us speak to you. We appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns. As we indicated to several of you we have worked together to identify one person to speak, My name is Robin Hanson. I live in Silver Springs at 18880 Elgin Ave. I am representing the group opposed to the Silver Springs rezoning request. Collectively, we are united in our desire to keep this land zoned residential. My intent is for my comments, which I plan to limit to about 10 minutes, to be representative of our group's concerns, We are requesting that you deny the Silver Springs zoning change request. Our first exhibit is our signed petitions, There are a total of over / 30 signatures, representing citizens not only from our neighborhood, but also the other three comers at Pilot Knob and Akin Road, who are opposed to the rezoning request. We have many findings of fact which we believ provide solid reasons for you to deny this proposed rezoning: ~ First, the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.., (J1~ '/~ W ~N~ /hla W -kut In #0 ~ --, 7J - ./k ~~~ ~~~ ~ //L.J~ ~ ~~ ....I;,,! ~Tb ~ . '-ir..M-77 " ,~&-..i'. a~ - ~~ -10 N..(/J~ ~ ~ 10 ~. Planning staff recommended the rezoning for the lots in question, even though the proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that the City Council approved on July 19. 1999. Please note the long history of decision-making regarding the land in the Silver Springs development. The initial vote, over 30 years ago. established this area as residential and each vote thereafter has maintained the residential zoning. April 21. 1969 - The City Council approved the ordinance as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan to designate the area as Residential Land Use, July 2, 1992 - The plat approved by the City Council for the Silver Springs Development designated R-1 housing. July 8, 29, 1998 - Approximately 18 months ago City Staff were involved in ''Visioning Sessions" to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion at these meetings included keeping the vacant land in the Silver Springs development zoned R-1, July 19, 1999 - Just six months ago, you, the City Council, approved the Comprehensive Plan that included a recommendation to keep the Silver Springs vacant land residential. This is the same plan that has been submitted to the Met Council for approval. C!ol'i-l Exhibit 11- ~r ~of the Comprehensive Plan for the North Central District. d~'t(~' Silver Springs R-1 zoning is maintained, I Exhibit III-eM.<~ J '. .. ......,~py of the City of Farmington Map showing Zoning Districts, Created by City Planning Division, Last Revised 01/2000. Silver /.. p Springs area, as well as surrounding area, is zoned R-1. .f: ~ At last month's Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Rotty shared that #' ~- the Silver Springs subdivision was carefully looked at when the Comprehensive ~ Plan was adopted. In his dissent he brought forth a very important point: Why ~ ,\W would it now be appropriate to change the zoning of this particular subdivision of '1\ ~ oj) Silver Springs when those who carefully worked to establish the Comprehensive " W Plan discussed this area in detail, recommending that it remain an R-1 "\ \~; subdivision? ~ ~NJI One-half mile to the north of this site are existing and planned 8-4 "\ l( . ~. businesses. It is our understanding one-half mile south, also on Pilot ~ \'\~ Knob, the northeast comer of the Charleswood development is zoned 8-4, 80th _ \. Y \l of these commercial sites reflect specific strategies adopted by the City Council ~ \ ,,'y.. as part of the City's comprehensive land use plan, A commercial site was not Y planned for Silver Springs. We feel that the current and future neighborhood services at these sites will adequately address our needs and further support the Comprehensive Plan's vision to keep the majority of businesses downtown. J.~ Additionally, the requ t rezone an area already surrounded by developed single family homes, ~~~~ residential lots within a square mile radius), is contradictory to one of the City's long-term strategies per the Comprehensive Plan to "Guide quality growth on the existing vacant parcels within the current boundaries of the City in a way that is compatible with the character and density of surrounding neighborhood districts" and approaches "spot zoning." Based on their remarks at recent Planning Commission meetings City Planning Staff believe a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because the land is bordered by three roads. Please remember, the three other comer blocks that meet at this intersection are zoned R-1 and fully developed with single family homes, City staff, however, have indicated that because the comer lot would have roads on three sides, that this is unique and it is therefore appropriate to rezone these lots, In fact, within 1/2 mile of this intersection there are 17 other residential lots that have roads on three sides of their lots. Exhibit IV- Map with 17 residential lots that have roads on three sides highlighted, So, in fact, this land is not unique at all. We also have been told the City Council' made a decision as recent as the last two months regarding an attempt to rezone some land on Flagstaff Avenue, As part of your decision-making process you deferred to the City's Comprehensive Plan and voted to maintain the present zoning, Second, the proposed B-4 business location would only have a single access point, which would be on English Avenue. There have already been several serious and fatal accidents in the area, both on the highway!C.and on English Ave, This is a dangerous and high traffic area, Each resident of English Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood can share their own experiences and first hand accounts from living near this street day in and day out. Changing the zoning for these parcels would only exacerbate the problems we face everyday. The City Council cannot ignore the issue of public safety, We believe you are legally required to consider public safety. In Minnesota Statute 462,537 under the procedures for plan effectuation, specifically zoning, Subdivision 1: the authority for zoning specifically refers to public safety as one of the first four factors to be considered in the zoning or regulating of the earth's surfaces. Exhibit V- Copy of the Minnesota Statue 462,537 Subdivision 1. Furthermore, one of the City's long-term strategies in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan for new traditional neighborhoods, which we believe we are talking about here, is to "Promote traffic calming in residential areas; reduce traffic speeds on local streets to state standards." Rezoning a portion of this area commercial will not serve to help the City meet one of its long-term goals. Rather than traffic calming we will have increased traffic congestion and speeds on local residential streets, If on the other hand you assume these vacant lots follow under the City's long- term strategies which are focused on purely existing neighborhoods, then you wouldn't proceed to rezone this either, because one of those specific strategies is to "Promote infill housing of high quality design that is compatible with the surrounding context and also preserves and contributes to the existing neighborhood character." Rezoning a portion of Silver Springs commercial would not serve to help the City achieve one of their long-term strategies regarding existing neighborhoods. Third, at the last Planning Commission only three of the five members were present to vote on this recommendation, The three present were not in agreement. The proposed rezoning received a split vote of 2 for and 1 against. Fourth, The developer contractually and verbally committed to the residents of Silver Springs the land we were purchasing and where we were building our homes would be a residential area. Exhibit VI -Copy of a signed covenant. Fifth, Zoning the property up to 8-4 would only benefit the developer. It would decrease the economic and aesthetic value of the properties in the surrounding area. Thank you for listening and responding to the many phone calls and emails you have received over the past couple of weeks. We appreciate your time and effort and the consideration you have shown us, In conclusion, we reiterate, that the rezoning of this land would reject the philosophy and development of the city's Comprehensive Plan, secondly it is in direct conflict with many of the City's long-term land use plans and strategies and thirdly the lots in question are not unique. We respectfully request that consistent with the City of Farmington's Comprehensive Plan, you, as our City Council, each vote to keep Silver Springs residential by voting "no" on the proposed Silver Springs zoning change request. i. _~ I..... MIJ 4~2 t7b*~> ==462.357 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subdivision 1. Authority for zoning~ For the purpose of promoting the public health, sa~y, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordInance regulate on the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation, conservation of shorelands, as defined in sections 103F.201 to 103F.221, access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems as defined in section 216C.06, flood control or other purposes, and may establish standards and procedures regulating such uses. To accomplish these purposes, official controls may include provision for purchase of development rights by the governing body in the form of conservation easements under chapter 84C in areas where the governing body considers preservation desirable and the transfer of development rights from those areas to areas the governing body considers more appropriate for development. No regulation may prohibit earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 2, relocated residential buildings, or manufactured homes built in conformance with sections 327.31 to 327.35 that comply with all other zoning ordinances promulgated pursuant to this section. The regulations may divide the surface, above surface, and subsurface areas of the municipality into districts or zones of suitable numbers, shape, and area. The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throughout such district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts. The ordinance embodying these regulations shall be known as the zoning ordinance and shall consist of text and maps. A city may by ordinance extend the application of its zoning regulations to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zoning regulations; provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zoning of land on its side of a line equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipalities unless a town or county in the affected area has adopted zoning regulations. Any city may thereafter enforce such regulations in the area to the same extent as if such property were situated within its corporate limits, until the county or town board adopts a comprehensive zoning regulation which includes the area. Subd. 1a. Certain zoning ordinances. A municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce a zoning ordinance that has the effect of altering the existing density, lot-size requirements, or manufactured home setback requirements in any manufactured home park constructed before January 1, 1995, if . . the manufactured home park, when constructed, complied with the then existing density, lot-size and setback requirements. Subd. lb. Conditional uses. A manufactured home park, as defined in section 327.14, subdivision 3, is a conditional use in a zoning district that allows the construction or placement of a building used or intended to be used by two or more families. Subd. 1c. Amortization prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce an ordinance providing for the elimination or termination of a use by amortization which use was lawful at the time of its inception. This subdivision does not apply to adults-only bookstores, adults-only theaters, or similar adults-only businesses, as defined by ordinance. Subd. 1d. Nuisance. Subdivision 1c does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance providing for the prevention or abatement of nuisances, as defined in section 561.01, or eliminating a use determined to be a public nuisance, as defined in section 617.81, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (9), without payment of compensation. Subd. 2. General requirements. At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the municipality, the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use plan, may prepare'a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the governing body with its recommendations for adoption. Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a two-thirds vote of all its members. The plan must provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the plan. Subd. 3. Public hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made. Subd. 4. Amendments. An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiated by the governing body, the planning agency, or by petition of affected property owners as defined in the zoning ordinance. An amendment not initiated by the planning agency shall be referred to the planning agency, if there is one, for study and report and may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received the recommendation of the planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the planning agency. Subd. 5. Amendment; certain cities of the first class. The provisions of this subdivision apply to cities of the first class, except a city of the first class in which a different process is provided through the operation of the city's home rule charter. In a city to which this subdivision applies, amendments to a zoning ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or any party purchasing any such contiguous property within one year preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body of any such city. The governing body of such city may, by a two-thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without such written consent whenever the planning commission or planning board of such city shall have made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less than 40 acres, within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the overall needs of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily newspaper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and recommendations in writing. Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be'may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Subd. 6a. Normal residential surroundings for handicapped. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. For purposes of subdivisions 6a through 9, "person" has the meaning given in section 245A.02, subdivision 11. Subd. 7. Permitted single family use. A state licensed residential facility or a housing with services establishment registered under chapter 144D serving six or fewer persons, a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons, and a group family day care facility licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445 to serve 14 or fewer children shall be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for the purposes of zoning, except that a residential facility whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses shall not be considered a permitted use. Subd. 8. Permitted multifamily use. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 7 or in any town, municipal or county zoning regulation as authorized by this subdivision, a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 through 16 .'" ;- persons or a licensed day care facility serving from 13 through 16 persons shall be considered a permitted multifamily residential use of property for purposes of zoning. A township, municipal or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or special use permit in order to assure proper maintenance and operation of a facility, provided that no conditions shall be imposed on the facility which are more restrictive than those imposed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the residential facility. Nothing herein shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential or day care facilities from single family zones if otherwise permitted by a local zoning regulation. HIST: 1965 c 670 s 7; 1969 c 259 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 379 s 4; 1973 c 539 s 1; 1973 c 559 s 1,2; 1975 c 60 s 2; 1978 c 786 s 14,15; Ex1979 c 2 s 42,43; 1981 c 356 s 248; 1982 c 490 s 2; 1982 c 507 s 22; 1984 c 617 s 6-8; 1985 c 62 s 3; 1985 c 194 s 23; 1986 c 444; 1987 c 333 s 22; 1989 c 82 s 2; 1990 c 391 art 8 s 47; 1990 c 568 art 2 s 66,67; 1994 c 473 s 3; 1995 c 224 s 95; 1997 c 113 s 20; 1997 c 200 art 4 s 5; 1997 c 202 art 4 s 11; 1997 c 216 s 138; 1999 c 96 s 3,4; 1999 c 211 s 1 \ ""', ~ \ - ,,) \ ~ < \..J _ <:'"') \ ,>' e~ ~' ~ r"" C ~ ,,-, :;; _~J.~ "",~- _ -f' Q(\ ~...: \ \ ,,,\' ~ '- b ~ cF' " ~" f^ -J " \. ---- \;'~\ ~ - ~... -J''\ \J~~ oQ Q...J ~ ~" '. January 20, 2000 Farmington City Council Members :ity Hall Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Silver Springs Rezoning Request Dear City Council Members We are writing to follow up to the January Planning Commission meeting where a split vote recommended a B-4 rezoning request for developer Tim Giles. We want to further clarify several issues discussed and request that you deny Mr. Giles' rezoning request. Please consider these important points: 1) The city believes a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because the land borders three busy roads. Please remember, the three other corner blocks that meet at this intersection are zoned R-l. City staff, however, has indicated that because the comer lot would have roads on three sides, that this is unique and it is therefore appropriate to rezone these lots. Of the three other corners at this intersection, the lots are fully developed and zoned R-1. In fact, within 1/ 2 mile of this intersection there are 17 other residential lots that have roads on three sides of their lots. So, this land is not unique at all. And it has been previously determined that an R-1 zoning in this situation is appropriate. ) The B-4 business has no access to the busier roads; the only access to the business is in our neighborhood, on English Avenue. Within a half mile of this business location there has been fatal or serious accidents, occurring on near or on English A venue. Two high school students were killed 150 feet from the lot. One young resident of English Avenue was hit and dragged by a car before the increased traffic from the 190th Street connection. An ARES student went down the hill too fast last summer and broke his leg when he ran into a car. Another adolescent was killed on 187th and Pilot Knob when he rode his bike in front of a car. This is a dangerous and high traffic area. We can not control the behavior and choices of children or those driving cars. However, the city can create zoning areas dedicated to residential homes, decreasing the chance of additional risk and traffic. 3) The current design of the B-4 business supplied by Mr. Giles in his rezoning request contains a large building with 9000 square feet, 6 times the size of many homes in the area, and has included 53 parking spots. A small neighborhood business would never need these many parking spots. Additionally, the request to rezone an area where the lot is already surrounded by developed single family homes, (1317 residential lots within a square mile radius), would approach "spot zoning" which is illegal. 4) Planning staff recommended the rezoning for the lots in question, even though the proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that the City Council approved on July 19, 1999. During that development process it was determined that there was othing unique about this land or its location to warrant it being rezoned in the near future ..rom its present R-1 zoning. The city has a long history of discussing the land in the Silver Springs development and voting to keep it zoned residential. \priI21, 1969 - The City Council approved the ordinance as part of the city's Comprehensive to designate the area as Residential Land Use. July 2/ 1992 - Platte approved by the City Council for the Silver Springs development to be R-1 housing July 8/ 29/ 1998 - City Staff involved in "Visioning Sessions" to develop the city's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion at these meetings included keeping the vacant land in the Silver Springs development zoned R-l. July 19/ 1999 - City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan that included a recommendation to keep the Silver Springs vacant land residential. One-half mile to the north of this site there are already existing and planned B-4 businesses. It is our understanding that to the south one-half mile, also on Pilot Knob, the northeast corner of the Charleswood development is zoned B-4. We feel that the current and future neighborhood services at these sites will adequately address our needs. 5) Public safety is a major concern on and near English A venue. The City Council can not ignore the issue of public safety. In referring to Minnesota Statute 462/ public safety, health, morals, and general welfare are the first four factors stated in the zoning procedure section. It reads as follows: ection 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subdivision 1: Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry .., It is imperative that the commission factor in the public health and safety of rezoning the lot as B-4. It is legislated that the planning commission, city council, and city staff consider the general welfare of the community who lives in this zoning location. Additionally, the city must look at the moral issues. The Silver Springs landowners signed a contract with Mr. Giles stating our neighborhood would be zoned and developed as residential lots. We believe the city is morally obligated to support the community beliefs on this issue. 6) Zoning the property up to B-4 would only benefit the developer Tim Giles. It would decrease the value of the properties surrounding it. This affects the people who live in the city of Farmington, the neighbors of Silver Springs, and those residents who live on the three adjacent corners. Mr. Giles does not live in Farmington. In fact, none of the Farmington city planning staff, who made the B-4 recommendation, live in Farmington. The rezoning of this property would adversely affect the residents connected to the property and only benefit one person, Mr. Giles. Te also have a valid concern that Mr. Giles may sell the land. If he sells the land, any rezoning lhe City Council approves, goes with the land to the new owner, along with the verbal promises Mr. Giles has made about how he would develop the land. , 7) We are concerned that Mayor Jerry Ristow may not be impartial in this matter. It is our " understanding that Mayor Ristow has had past business dealings with Tim Giles, the ....1eveloper requesting the rezoning. While we don't know if they are presently doing business )gether and he may not have a direct conflict of interest, we feel that Mayor Ristow may not be unbiased on this matter. We would respectfully request that he abstain from voting on this rezoning request. The Council is our only protection in this manner. Please support our request to deny Mr. Giles a rezoning of the land. Respectfully submitted, Residents of Farmington concerned with the Silver Springs Rezoning Request -~~-~~~------ -~~-~~~------- --L2J.d.e-_~L4!L___ _bjJJ-j_f9!-_Vi~t{_____ JJkK!:E~f!f3!___ Hoj)n"n ,4~v/ez ~-------------- -~-,JY~_ 11--- --- - -.,--- - /'iOs7 E",J,..."rJ cr: __ _____ /1057 Zi1dw11eJcf. . W~ (t(o 57 ~/J("/~c.. c::r: -----k;E~~~~~~ f90(P3 &NCHFW,EJj a: 4fr,_ _tbit:__ /QOfo3 fh('fay,fed(J .. ;ftJ'll EAltilil#r@ if Iq(){( f ~~~,.hl~J:t 1'l(J77_ ,-";JJI,ct M Name(s) (Please print) Address Okay to print name in newspaper? (initials) Contribution? (.,f) ~~ \ ~~'o~,~, '~1/~V( ~. Iff'Y S / b-,J4 C/ =z 1~)?51 ~VVL 10 l t:-VV'- d \/ . 1901.t p//~m'047 V /9(2R/RE~&t~ /qO~7 ~CJq/h.fe~ C? V it ~ u K M , ~ t)R f-P ~ if4 ;11~ V-- ~ V I (- t .' . January 20, 2000 Farmington City Council Members City Hall Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Silver Springs Rezoning Request Dear City Council Members We are writing to follow up to the January Planning Commission meeting where a split vote recommended a B-4 rezoning request for developer Tim Giles. We want to further clarify several issues discussed and request that you deny Mr. Giles' rezoning request. Please consider these important points: 1) The city believes a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because the land borders three busy roads. Please remember, the three other corner blocks that meet at this intersection are zoned R-l. City staff, however, has indicated that because the corner lot would have roads on three sides, that this is unique and it is therefore appropriate to rezone these lots. Of the three other corners at this intersection, the lots are fully developed and zoned R-1. In fact, within 1/2 mile of this intersection there are 17 other residential lots that have roads on three sides of their lots. So, this land is not unique at all. And it has been previously determined that an R-1 zoning in this situation is appropriate. ) The B-4 business has no access to the busier roads; the only access to the business is in our neighborhood, on English Avenue. Within a half mile of this business location there has been fatal or serious accidents, occurring on near or on English Avenue. Two high school students were killed 150 feet from the lot. One young resident of English A venue was hit and dragged by a car before the increased traffic from the 190th Street connection. An ARES student went down the hill too fast last summer and broke his leg when he ran into a car. Another adolescent was killed on 187th and Pilot Knob when he rode his bike in front of a car. This is a dangerous and high traffic area. We can not control the behavior and choices of children or those driving cars. However, the city can create zoning areas dedicated to residential homes, decreasing the chance of additional risk and traffic. 3) The current design of the B-4 business supplied by Mr. Giles in his rezoning request contains a large building with 9000 square feet, 6 times the size of many homes in the area, and has included 53 parking spots. A small neighborhood business would never need these many parking spots. Additionally, the request to rezone an area where the lot is already surrounded by developed single family homes, (1317 residential lots within a square mile radius), would approach "spot zoning" which is illegal. 4) Planning staff recommended the rezoning for the lots in question, even though the proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that the City Council approved on July 19, 1999. During that development process it was determined that there was othing unique about this land or its location to warrant it being rezoned in the near future rom its present R-l zoning. The city has a long history of discussing the land in the Silver Springs development and voting to keep it zoned residential. April 21, 1969 - The City Council approved the ordinance as part of the city's Comprehensive to designate the area as Residential Land Use. July 2, 1992 - Platte approved by the City Council for the Silver Springs development to be R-1 housing July 8, 29, 1998 - City Staff involved in "Visioning Sessions" to develop the city's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion at these meetings included keeping the vacant land in the Silver Springs development zoned R-l. July 19, 1999 - City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan that included a recommendation to keep the Silver Springs vacant land residential. One-half mile to the north of this site there are already existing and planned B-4 businesses. It is our understanding that to the south one-half mile, also on Pilot Knob, the northeast corner of the Charleswood development is zoned B-4. We feel that the current and future neighborhood services at these sites will adequately address our needs. 5) Public safety is a major concern on and near English A venue. The City Council can not ignore the issue of public safety. In referring to Minnesota Statute 462, public safety, health, morals, and general welfare are the first four factors stated in the zoning procedure section. It reads as follows: ection 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subdivision 1: Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry ... It is imperative that the commission factor in the public health and safety of rezoning the lot as B-4. It is legislated that the planning commission, city council, and city staff consider the general welfare of the community who lives in this zoning location. Additionally, the city must look at the moral issues. The Silver Springs landowners signed a contract with Mr. Giles stating our neighborhood would be zoned and developed as residential lots. We believe the city is morally obligated to support the community beliefs on this issue. 6) Zoning the property up to B-4 would only benefit the developer Tim Giles. It would decrease the value of the properties surrounding it. This affects the people who live in the city of Farmington, the neighbors of Silver Springs, and those residents who live on the three adjacent corners. Mr. Giles does not live in Farmington. In fact, none of the Farmington city planning staff, who made the B-4 recommendation, live in Farmington. The rezoning of this property would adversely affect the residents connected to the property and only benefit one person, Mr. Giles. ve also have a valid concern that Mr. Giles may sell the land. If he sells the land, any rezoning the City Council approves, goes with the land to the new owner, along with the verbal promises Mr. Giles has made about how he would develop the land. .. 7) We are concerned that Mayor Jerry Ristow may not be impartial in. this matter. It is our understanding that Mayor Ristow has had past business dealings with. Tim Giles, the developer requesting the rezoning. While we don't know if they are presently doing business ogether and he may not have a direct conflict of interest, we feel that Mayor Ristow may not be unbiased on this matter. We would respectfully request that he abstain from voting on this rezoning request. The Council is our only protection in this manner. Please support our request to deny Mr. Giles a rezoning of the land. Respectfully submitted, Residents of Farmington concerned with the Silver Springs Rezoning Request Name(s) (Please print) Address Contribution? (..[) Okay to print name in newspaper? (initials) .1. ~ --.--} i; I ; --~..~).:.~J}---Jj~ti~. ,~/-_--_- Js "~I ";.. .~;' f:; "'1/e<<..,_ t /lIv~~ , . -------r--~- . i , (' ..' /' .'._.j.::' v l 7"'':- - -~ ~~;;': 2i~ .::-~_~.: _ _ __ ~ / ,,/ J .. ~'i~!@:Jkl.~j:-L.::j~~~ :/ ~ _:lJ)'pdt__~~~_____ _1~1I~_f~~o~ Way __Ci1rD~i.0~_JVJ~~____-=~_ I,{/flb E-nc~ vV!7j ~ i-t ~~~___ ~er -~_-~-~______ /!/J L J:~.kov~"Lc/ ji~",K=-f!Jfl->..K,Z J1J.J.Lft>JL".~J CJ -.1;;...~ Z.~€.~~~d"L"-... ----. -.. --- /f7~? ~frddb'/ QL -~?~~'{ASlb 1f9~) ~{u-lszd(V- _'__~~l:2~~. )/1_ >i1~U6C -.iitJ:i11'.:J,r;:;d-cF"dtiJ-( ~ ~ ~ , ''''--.'-i-. ..J t/ f.. CLIff -:1/_l' (/ I.. /// / l:rw.;:,-'/t/,~Y ___ / g/w/1 E Ai~C(: v'-".) ?..JY ____ J ;/ / dL.iU ~_/ / it:- ~tIt .Ilh ! / I ~.l-f V I 1--- i' _ I ...'." "- '.,/ .1.0-- )"/1';' / 1 ".-- I /V(,..I.; L::..Ji,:"I( /1 v-<- j:/eC J I' "l 1-- , ''\ .J 'v l_ J- Z ____~~~L_~~~__~~_____ I (',,' [C , ,,' {_ T.~-.p 'f" \ ,....J.... L -' '''' 'I' " Ii'. c. J I'; Please support our request to deny Mr. Giles a rezoning of the land. Respectfully submitted, Residents of the Silver Springs Addition Name(s) Address _~!~_~____ fil~d1t~~~___________ :~J:1~it~~~_~~J::Y-___ _lB$_l~_~~~~irt~______ /hJi:;_i__~_4~___ J'i-'lXfL~__~_______ Muin--t~r--~'f-- JXJ.kq--~.Jg4-1L/i1l------- {(~~_~JRiJ_L~_I!!{LQ7LiLk-~- ~~QL\d-4--~-~~~~t.~6jt\t-- 5.3.?~__l~g~~_~'~.:L________ /. -;)/ 5~~f {~Ov~ StuJ - -~--~~ --------------------------- _~ ____ __ l1i~~~J;_~L~_~_________ Phone No. -y~]-~Q] L\los - rtbg 1/~~:~cr'il _tf6~-:8.~1{ 1~_~~_~!? !iW2.~LJQ_7 0 _~~~=_~jJ !:i?;.3_-dfAtf (:::H~9-=r:s~Ql( L{ ,,(:) l.{ ~oc., 'tG.l.:L5)7__ 4-3-=1lZ7 tf_~:_fL!_f 163-13~0 /-.2;1. - 60 January 20, 2000 . t' Farmington City Council Members :ity Hall Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Silver Springs Rezoning Request Dear City Council Members We are writing to follow up to the January Planning Commission meeting where a split vote recommended a B-4 rezoning request for developer Tim Giles. We want to further clarify several issues discussed and request that you deny Mr. Giles' rezoning request. Please consider these important points: 1) The city believes a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because the land borders three busy roads. Please remember, the three other corner blocks that meet at this intersection are zoned R-l. City staff, however, has indicated that because the comer lot would have roads on three sides, that this is unique and it is therefore appropriate to rezone these lots. Of the three other corners at this intersection, the lots are fully developed and zoned R-l. In fact, within 1/ 2 mile of this intersection there are 17 other residential lots that have roads on three sides of their lots. So, this land is not unique at all. And it has been previously determined that an R-1 zoning in this situation is appropriate. ) The B-4 business has no access to the busier roads; the only access to the business is in our neighborhood, on English A venue. Within a half mile of this business location there has been fatal or serious accidents, occurring on near or on English Avenue. Two high school students were killed 150 feet from the lot. One young resident of English A venue was hit and dragged by a car before the increased traffic from the 190th Street connection. An ARES student went down the hill too fast last summer and broke his leg when he ran into a car. Another adolescent was killed on 187th and Pilot Knob when he rode his bike in front of a car. This is a dangerous and high traffic area. We can not control the behavior and choices of children or those driving cars. However, the city can create zoning areas dedicated to residential homes, decreasing the chance of additional risk and traffic. 3) The current design of the B-4 business supplied by Mr. Giles in his rezoning request contains a large building with 9000 square feet, 6 times the size of many homes in the area, and has included 53 parking spots. A small neighborhood business would never need these many parking spots. Additionally, the request to rezone an area where the lot is already surrounded by developed single family homes, (1317 residential lots within a square mile radius), would approach "spot zoning" which is illegal. 4) Planning staff recommended the rezoning for the lots in question, even though the proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that the City Council approved on July 19, 1999. During that development process it was determined that there was othing unique about this land or its location to warrant it being rezoned in the near future ~rom its present R-1 zoning. r I'') \'1 ) l \ The city has a long history of discussing the land in the Silver Springs development and voting to keep it zoned residential. ~pril 21, 1969 - The City Council approved the ordinance as part of the city's Comprehensive to designate the area as Residential Land Use. July 2, 1992 - Platte approved by the City Council for the Silver Springs development to be R-1 housing July 8, 29, 1998 - City Staff involved in "Visioning Sessions" to develop the city's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion at these meetings included keeping the vacant land in the Silver Springs development zoned R-l. July 19, 1999 - City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan that lncluded a recommendation to keep the Silver Springs vacant land residential. One-half mile to the north of this site there are already existing and planned B-4 businesses. It is our understanding that to the south one-half mile, also on Pilot Knob, the northeast corner of the Charleswood development is zoned B-4. We feel that the current and future neighborhood services at these sites will adequately address our needs. 5) Public safety is a major concern on and near English Avenue. The City Council can not ignore the issue of public safety. In referring to Minnesota Statute 462, public safety, health, morals, and general welfare are the first four factors stated in the zoning procedure section. It reads as follows: ection 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subdivision 1: Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry .., It is imperative that the commission factor in the public health and safety of rezoning the lot as B-4. It is legislated that the planning commission, city council, and city staff consider the general welfare of the community who lives in this zoning location. Additionally, the city must look at the moral issues. The Silver Springs landowners signed a contract with Mr. Giles stating our neighborhood would be zoned and developed as residential lots. We believe the city is morally obligated to support the community beliefs on this issue. 6) Zoning the property up to B-4 would only benefit the developer Tim Giles. It would decrease the value of the properties surrounding it. This affects the people who live in the city of Farmington, the neighbors of Silver Springs, and those residents who live on the three adjacent corners. Mr. Giles does not live in Farmington. In fact, none of the Farmington city planning staff, who made the B-4 recommendation, live in Farmington. The rezoning of this property would adversely affect the residents connected to the property and only benefit one person, Mr. Giles. 'e also have a valid concern that Mr. Giles may sell the land. If he sells the land, any rezoning me City Council approves, goes with the land to the new owner, along with the verbal promises Mr. Giles has made about how he would develop the land. t 7) We are concerned that Mayor Jerry Ristow may not be impartial in this matter. It is our . understanding that Mayor Ristow has had past business dealings with Tim Giles, the , ..:Jeveloper requesting the rezoning. While we don't know if they are presently doing business 'gether and he may not have a direct conflict of interest, we feel that Mayor Ristow may not be unbiased on this matter. We would respectfully request that he abstain from voting on this rezoning request. The Council is our only protection in this manner. Please support our request to deny Mr. Giles a rezoning of the land. ... Respectfully submitted, Residents of Farmington concerned with the Silver Springs Rezoning Request Name(s) (Please print) -J!~k!."!"!Jt.--___ J ~B S'rj E ~ 6'1- 7.QiY'*-b\-.:.~-- 1 ~ Ii' 5'+ EM lot .e....ct ~ :W.~____ 1"1.035 G,J,~ llPa _ W' __ 1"70 'OS Cnj,,-,,,-iJ.~ /Q06S, ~ _1 /qOEE. , __~d,-~ 1'1091 GJehlA-v7l1D ~________ _____ /1o?3 €AC/JA/VI1!!}) ~ Q~aMt. 'U,LL!"JO 7 0 E:ncJiMl bd rN&- 7JJ&(JfiJ.1YJ __ '1L I Gj070-End>aryjKl evr j ~_~____ .) 001'1 tn ~~ c::+ f DM-~____ 'I ;;-!f~R_~\l~~D-FJ'{B~(H /90 15 ~ PlC Cl. 'rrgfJL_YflJ'!.~~1i~_~e!+ i'1D /5 K~~- \~\~~ 8 · Address Contribution? (.,f) ~ Okay to print name in newspaper? (initials) u/L 'v j -&L ~LJ f- ~ m 9MC ~ ~(Ap- v t/' Plt - January 20, 2000 t t Farmington City Council Members :ity Hall Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Silver Springs Rezoning Request Dear City Council Members We are writing to follow up to the January Planning Commission meeting where a split vote recommended a B-4 rezoning request for developer Tim Giles. We want to further clarify several issues discussed and request that you deny Mr. Giles' rezoning request. Please consider these important points: 1) The city believes a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because the land borders three busy roads. Please remember, the three other corner blocks that meet at this intersection are zoned R-l. City staff, however, has indicated that because the comer lot would have roads on three sides, that this is unique and it is therefore appropriate to rezone these lots. Of the three other corners at this intersection, the lots are fully developed and zoned R-l. In fact, within 1/ 2 mile of this intersection there are 17 other residential lots that have roads on three sides of their lots. So, this land is not unique at all. And it has been previously determined that an R-l zoning in this situation is appropriate. ) The B-4 business has no access to the busier roads; the only access to the business is in our neighborhood, on English A venue. Within a half mile of this business location there has been fatal or serious accidents, occurring on near or on English Avenue. Two high school students were killed 150 feet from the lot. One young resident of English A venue was hit and dragged by a car before the increased traffic from the 190th Street connection. An ARES student went down the hill too fast last summer and broke his leg when he ran into a car. Another adolescent was killed on 187th and Pilot Knob when he rode his bike in front of a car. This is a dangerous and high traffic area. We can not control the behavior and choices of children or those driving cars. However, the city can create zoning areas dedicated to residential homes, decreasing the chance of additional risk and traffic. 3) The current design of the B-4 business supplied by Mr. Giles in his rezoning request contains a large building with 9000 square feet, 6 times the size of many homes in the area, and has included 53 parking spots. A small neighborhood business would never need these many parking spots. Additionally, the request to rezone an area where the lot is already surrounded by developed single family homes, (1317 residential lots within a square mile radius), would approach "spot zoning" which is illegal. 4) Planning staff recommended the rezoning for the lots in question, even though the proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that the City Council approved on July 19, 1999. During that development process it was determined that there was >thing unique about this land or its location to warrant it being rezoned in the near future __om its present R-l zoning. The city has a long history of discussing the land in the Silver Springs development and ~ , voting to keep it zoned residential. ~pril21, 1969 - The City Council approved the ordinance as part of the city's Comprehensive to designate the area as Residential Land Use. July 2, 1992 - Platte approved by the City Council for the Silver Springs development to be R-1 housing July 8, 29, 1998 - City Staff involved in "Visioning Sessions" to develop the city's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion at these meetings included keeping the vacant land in the Silver Springs development zoned R-1. July 19, 1999 - City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan that included a recommendation to keep the Silver Springs vacant land residential. One-half mile to the north of this site there are already existing and planned B-4 businesses. It is our understanding that to the south one-half mile, also on Pilot Knob, the northeast corner of the Charleswood development is zoned B-4. We feel that the current and future neighborhood services at these sites will adequately address our needs. 5) Public safety is a major concern on and near English Avenue. The City Council can not ignore the issue of public safety. In referring to Minnesota Statute 462, public safety, health, morals, and general welfare are the first four factors stated in the zoning procedure section. It reads as follows: ection 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subdivision 1: Authority for zoning, For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry ... It is imperative that the commission factor in the public health and safety of rezoning the lot as B-4. It is legislated that the planning commission, city council, and city staff consider the general welfare of the community who lives in this zoning location. Additionally, the city must look at the moral issues. The Silver Springs landowners signed a contract with Mr. Giles stating our neighborhood would be zoned and developed as residential lots. We believe the city is morally obligated to support the community beliefs on this issue. 6) Zoning the property up to B-4 would only benefit the developer Tim Giles. It would decrease the value of the properties surrounding it. This affects the people who live in the city of Farmington, the neighbors of Silver Springs, and those residents who live on the three adjacent corners. Mr. Giles does not live in Farmington. In fact, none of the Farmington city planning staff, who made the B-4 recommendation, live in Farmington. The rezoning of this property would adversely affect the residents connected to the property and only benefit one person, Mr. Giles. Te also have a valid concern that Mr. Giles may sell the land. If he sells the land, any rezoning me City Council approves, goes with the land to the new owner, along with the verbal promises Mr. Giles has made about how he would develop the land. , 7) We are concerned that Mayor Jerry Ristow may not be impartial in this matter. It is our y understanding that Mayor Ristow has had past business dealings with Tim Giles, the . leveloper requesting the rezoning. While we don't know if they are presently doing business ogether and he may not have a direct conflict of interest, we feel that Mayor Ristow may not be unbiased on this matter. We would respectfully request that he abstain from voting on this rezoning request. The Council is our only protection in this manner. Please support our request to deny Mr. Giles a rezoning of the land. Respectfully submitted, ~~-J- ~ lJ /.... 12 J--./ ~ Residents of Farmington concerned with the Silver Springs Rezoning Request Name(s) (Please print) Address -~.~~'O~~__~~~ JRfl\ t"6"h'o~ tf:L --~~~~~-~~- 1S-l } \ tuA'6L Itj l,. f+:r/ --~~- ~I~ ~ __1ti2j1~!Y1\"0[L~~ \, ~ - _." _fikd1~_~__ Sr) I / F- )1-4..> T ~ ~_{ __ _~_____ 9tfV7.} 8~.rrW ~__ _ e_____ ~Z-7 JB7~jr-W. __~-c:1~--- 53tJJ/-/S1fIJ ~ ltJ. ~__d~___ 53&- /R7-f1;:fr(-(/~ -i;Jl&-/].JJv..U'..0..- ____ jg r 05 !iIf;~ O-/Jf . _jJ1a~~_rJV:!:j~~______ ) rg05 gr~k(2{X-. --------------------- j Contribution? / ~ Okay to print name in newspaper? ~ 1Lf, v' v I January 20, 2000 ,. , Farmington City Council Members 2ity Hall Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Silver Springs Rezoning Request Dear City Council Members We are writing to follow up to the January Planning Commission meeting where a split vote recommended a B-4 rezoning request for developer Tim Giles. We want to further clarify several issues discussed and request that you deny Mr. Giles' rezoning request. Please consider these important points: 1) The city believes a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because the land borders three busy roads. Please remember, the three other corner blocks that meet at this intersection are zoned R-l. City staff, however, has indicated that because the comer lot would have roads on three sides, that this is unique and it is therefore appropriate to rezone these lots. Of the three other corners at this intersection, the lots are fully developed and zoned R-l. In fact, within 1/2 mile of this intersection there are 17 other residential lots that have roads on three sides of their lots. So, this land is not unique at all. And it has been previously determined that an R-1 zoning in this situation is appropriate. ) The B-4 business has no access to the busier roads; the only access to the business is in our neighborhood, on English A venue. Within a half mile of this business location there has been fatal or serious accidents, occurring on near or on English A venue. Two high school students were killed 150 feet from the lot. One young resident of English Avenue was hit and dragged by a car before the increased traffic from the 190th Street connection. An ARES student went down the hill too fast last summer and broke his leg when he ran into a car. Another adolescent was killed on 187th and Pilot Knob when he rode his bike in front of a car. This is a dangerous and high traffic area. We can not control the behavior and choices of children or those driving cars. However, the city can create zoning areas dedicated to residential homes, decreasing the chance of additional risk and traffic. 3) The current design of the B-4 business supplied by Mr. Giles in his rezoning request contains a large building with 9000 square feet, 6 times the size of many homes in the area, and has included 53 parking spots. A small neighborhood business would never need these many parking spots. Additionally, the request to rezone an area where the lot is already surrounded by developed single family homes, (1317 residential lots within a square mile radius), would approach "spot zoning" which is illegal. 4) Planning staff recommended the rezoning for the lots in question, even though the proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that the City Council approved on July 19, 1999. During that development process it was determined that there was )thing unique about this land or its location to warrant it being rezoned in the near future __om its present R-1 zoning. ( "~..) The city has a long history of discussing the land in the Silver Springs development and J voting to keep it zoned residential. ~pril21, 1969 - The City Council approved the ordinance as part of the city's Comprehensive to designate the area as Residential Land Use. July 2, 1992 - Platte approved by the City Council for the Silver Springs development to be R-1 housing July 8, 29, 1998 - City Staff involved in "Visioning Sessions" to develop the city's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion at these meetings included keeping the vacant land in the Silver Springs development zoned R-l. July 19, 1999 - City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan that included a recommendation to keep the Silver Springs vacant land residential. One-half mile to the north of this site there are already existing and planned B-4 businesses. It is our understanding that to the south one-half mile, also on Pilot Knob, the northeast corner of the Charleswood development is zoned B-4. We feel that the current and future neighborhood services at these sites will adequately address our needs. 5) Public safety is a major concern on and near English A venue. The City Council can not ignore the issue of public safety. In referring to Minnesota Statute 462, public safety, health, morals, and general welfare are the first four factors stated in the zoning procedure section. It reads as follows: ~ction 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subdivision 1: Authority for zoning, For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry ... It is imperative that the commission factor in the public health and safety of rezoning the lot as B-4. It is legislated that the planning commission, city council, and city staff consider the general welfare of the community who lives in this zoning location. Additionally, the city must look at the moral issues. The Silver Springs landowners signed a contract with Mr. Giles stating our neighborhood would be zoned and developed as residential lots. We believe the city is morally obligated to support the community beliefs on this issue. 6) Zoning the property up to B-4 would only benefit the developer Tim Giles. It would decrease the value of the properties surrounding it. This affects the people who live in the city of Farmington, the neighbors of Silver Springs, and those residents who live on the three adjacent corners. Mr. Giles does not live in Farmington. In fact, none of the Farmington city planning staff, who made the B-4 recommendation, live in Farmington. The rezoning of this property would adversely affect the residents connected to the property and only benefit one person, Mr. Giles. e also have a valid concern that Mr. Giles may sell the land. If he sells the land, any rezoning me City Council approves, goes with the land to the new owner, along with the verbal promises Mr. Giles has made about how he would develop the land. ) 7) We are concerned that Mayor Jerry Ristow may not be impartial in this matter. It is our J understanding that Mayor Ristow has had past business dealings with Tim Giles, the developer requesting the rezoning. While we don't know if they are presently doing business ogether and he may not have a direct conflict of interest, we feel that Mayor Ristow may not be unbiased on this matter. We would respectfully request that he abstain from voting on this rezoning request. The Council is our only protection in this manner. Please support our request to deny Mr. Giles a rezoning of the land. Respectfully submitted, Residents of Farmington concerned with the Silver Springs Rezoning Request Name(s) (Please print) Address Contribution? (..[) Okay to print name in newspaper? (initials) ~ Cite gs-J 11- + Z2<Y&..f~1.0ffbnL__- rr9'iD ~_________ ___~ I '8QJ.f6 nq /, shAve. v ~~~g_~__ !rt:50C4jyJ57/1r/(> /J:~~1f~--- /?1gCJlmjhL;;4ve j(Jt~~*d______- ;qqtf, 5f. uJ C~~.~ _.Jl~~~~2L IP/]"\:\J- (,<,2~h ~~_____ /<{,"!-hc);./ ~ _~~'~~__~~~~'\_____ \~~~\ \;\\\~~~, c-\ 3~~~\~~,\-_____ \~,~\ "t~~~~c.\ ~ X-"- ~ ..... .. January 20, 2000 Farmington City Council Members :ity Hall Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Silver Springs Rezoning Request Dear City Council Members We are writing to follow up to the January Planning Commission meeting where a split vote recommended a B-4 rezoning request for developer Tim Giles. We want to further clarify several issues discussed and request that you deny Mr. Giles' rezoning request. Please consider these important points: 1) The city believes a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because the land borders three busy roads. Please remember, the three other corner blocks that meet at this intersection are zoned R-l. City staff, however, has indicated that because the corner lot would have roads on three sides, that this is unique and it is therefore appropriate to rezone these lots. Of the three other corners at this intersection, the lots are fully developed and zoned R-l. In fact, within 1/ 2 mile of this intersection there are 17 other residential lots that have roads on three sides of their lots. So, this land is not unique at all. And it has been previously determined that an R-l zoning in this situation is appropriate. :) The B-4 business has no access to the busier roads; the only access to the business is in our neighborhood, on English Avenue. Within a half mile of this business location there has been fatal or serious accidents, occurring on near or on English Avenue. Two high school students were killed 150 feet from the lot. One young resident of English Avenue was hit and dragged by a car before the increased traffic from the 190th Street connection. An ARES student went down the hill too fast last summer and broke his leg when he ran into a car. Another adolescent was killed on 187th and Pilot Knob when he rode his bike in front of a car. This is a dangerous and high traffic area. We can not control the behavior and choices of children or those driving cars. However, the city can create zoning areas dedicated to residential homes, decreasing the chance of additional risk and traffic. 3) The current design of the B-4 business supplied by Mr. Giles in his rezoning request contains a large building with 9000 square feet, 6 times the size of many homes in the area, and has included 53 parking spots. A small neighborhood business would never need these many parking spots. Additionally, the request to rezone an area where the lot is already surrounded by developed single family homes, (1317 residential lots within a square mile radius), would approach "spot zoning" which is illegal. 4) Planning staff recommended the rezoning for the lots in question, even though the proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that the City Council approved on July 19, 1999. During that development process it was determined that there was lothing unique about this land or its location to warrant it being rezoned in the near future from its present R-l zoning. \J -- --------...- -~ The city has a long history of discussing the land in the Silver Springs development and voting to keep it zoned residential. April 21, 1969 - The City Council approved the ordinance as part of the city's Comprehensive to designate the area as Residential Land Use. July 2, 1992 - Platte approved by the City Council for the Silver Springs development to be R-1 housing July 8, 29, 1998 - City Staff involved in "Visioning Sessions" to develop the city's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion at these meetings included keeping the vacant land in the Silver Springs development zoned R-l. July 19, 1999 - City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan that included a recommendation to keep the Silver Springs vacant land residential. One-half mile to the north of this site there are already existing and planned B-4 businesses. It is our understanding that to the south one-half mile, also on Pilot Knob, the northeast corner of the Charleswood development is zoned B-4. We feel that the current and future neighborhood services at these sites will adequately address our needs. 5) Public safety is a major concern on and near English Avenue. The City Council can not ignore the issue of public safety. In referring to Minnesota Statute 462, public safety, health, morals, and general welfare are the first four factors stated in the zoning procedure section. It reads as follows: Jection 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subdivision 1: Authority for zoning, For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry .., It is imperative that the commission factor in the public health and safety of rezoning the lot as B-4. It is legislated that the planning commission, city council, and city staff consider the general welfare of the community who lives in this zoning location. Additionally, the city must look at the moral issues. The Silver Springs landowners signed a contract with Mr. Giles stating our neighborhood would be zoned and developed as residential lots. We believe the city is morally obligated to support the community beliefs on this issue. 6) Zoning the property up to B-4 would only benefit the developer Tim Giles. It would decrease the value of the properties surrounding it. This affects the people who live in the city of Farmington, the neighbors of Silver Springs, and those residents who live on the three adjacent corners. Mr. Giles does not live in Farmington. In fact, none of the Farmington city planning staff, who made the B-4 recommendation, live in Farmington. The rezoning of this property would adversely affect the residents connected to the property and only benefit one person, Mr. Giles. Ve also have a valid concern that Mr. Giles may sell the land. If he sells the land, any rezoning the City Council approves, goes with the land to the new owner, along with the verbal promises Mr. Giles has made about how he would develop the land. . . \ 0-,,-., 7) Y'e are concerned that Mayor Jerry Ristow may not be impartial in this matter. It is our understanding that Mayor Ristow has had past business dealings with Tim Giles, the developer requesting the rezoning. While we don't know if they are presently doing business ogether and he may not have a direct conflict of interest, we feel that Mayor Ristow may not be unbiased on this matter. We would respectfully request that he abstain from voting on this rezoning request. The Council is our only protection in this manner. Please support our request to deny Mr. Giles a rezoning of the land. Respectfully submitted, Residents of Farmington concerned with the Silver Springs Rezoning Request Name(s) (Please print) newspaper? (initials) '.... I _~t~~. ______ r'V1. C "o@ r/J- Gee I( ~/ ~;~~~~~~------- ~-J?y~------ ~-- -----~-- C.... ~~ ,---., .-. ~~~ - - ----- I ~ 1) A I" d. vii ~'/UL '-~---- -. ------- Nlccle 1~1. 11~ -4. .V.A '7 h :tA-.:" _ .s..-d::"'-_I-"::-L _ _~ _ __ _ _ ____ r;~l!/ ,J. S', ,; s -t'"1 Address _fr~S-.1 e ,?!.S ~ /IJ63 E~~Y1L- _L ~ ~?::L__~~.Ii~h _1~ _1t681Q_~_ l~31L_~~Lfi~ / '36011 t~1/~ 1411(., _LL' 71 .E-I~ I{ j I., A v_". 1 cY7CoC> (~""j/'l~ .II V ,q ttX> tl61~ AJ C5: \~ ~ .fW--L ( l I C Contribution? ({) Okay to print name in ~e.$ / ;10-- ;~ ~ 'fA / ----- ,~ ";0 ~() rS- v v \ , ---- ,J c v- ~~S 1 E,S __ v___ .f/" r ~~~~~~ ~~~ j~) -- Yr.-5- VE,:> / -i~ ./'- ...-z., - ~ January 20, 2000 , Farmington City Council Members City Hall Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Silver Springs Rezoning Request Dear City Council Members We are writing to follow up to the January Planning Commission meeting where a split vote recommended a B-4 rezoning request for developer Tim Giles. We want to further clarify several issues discussed and request that you deny Mr. Giles' rezoning request. Please consider these important points: 1) The city believes a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because the land borders three busy roads. Please remember, the three other corner blocks that meet at this intersection are zoned R-l. City staff, however, has indicated that because the comer lot would have roads on three sides, that this is unique and it is therefore appropriate to rezone these lots. Of the three other corners at this intersection, the lots are fully developed and zoned R-l. In fact, within 1/ 2 mile of this intersection there are 17 other residential lots that have roads on three sides of their lots. So, this land is not unique at all. And it has been previously determined that an R-1 zoning in this situation is appropriate. 2) The B-4 business has no access to the busier roads; the only access to the business is in our neighborhood, on English Avenue. Within a half mile of this business location there has been fatal or serious accidents, occurring on near or on English Avenue. Two high school students were killed 150 feet from the lot. One young resident of English A venue was hit and dragged by a car before the increased traffic from the 190th Street connection. An ARES student went down the hill too fast last summer and broke his leg when he ran into a car. Another adolescent was killed on 187th and Pilot Knob when he rode his bike in front of a car. This is a dangerous and high traffic area. We can not control the behavior and choices of children or those driving cars. However, the city can create zoning areas dedicated to residential homes, decreasing the chance of additional risk and traffic. 3) The current design of the B-4 business supplied by Mr. Giles in his rezoning request contains a large building with 9000 square feet, 6 times the size of many homes in the area, and has included 53 parking spots. A small neighborhood business would never need these many parking spots. Additionally, the request to rezone an area where the lot is already surrounded by developed single family homes, (1317 residential lots within a square mile radius), would approach "spot zoning" which is illegal. 4) Planning staff recommended the rezoning for the lots in question, even though the proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that the City Council approved on July 19, 1999. During that development process it was determined that there was othing unique about this land or its location to warrant it being rezoned in the near future _rom its present R-1 zoning. 1'1 ~ The city has a long history of discussing the land in the Silver Springs development and voting to keep it zoned residential. \.pril 21, 1969 - The City Council approved the ordinance as part of the city's Comprehensive to designate the area as Residential Land Use. July 2, 1992 - Platte approved by the City Council for the Silver Springs development to be R-1 housing July 8, 29, 1998 - City Staff involved in "Visioning Sessions" to develop the city's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion at these meetings included keeping the vacant land in the Silver Springs development zoned R-l. July 19, 1999 - City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan that included a recommendation to keep the Silver Springs vacant land residential. One-half mile to the north of this site there are already existing and planned B-4 businesses. It is our understanding that to the south one-half mile, also on Pilot Knob, the northeast corner of the Charleswood development is zoned B-4. We feel that the current and future neighborhood services at these sites will adequately address our needs. 5) Public safety is a major concern on and near English A venue. The City Council can not ignore the issue of public safety. In referring to Minnesota Statute 462, public safety, health, morals, and general welfare are the first four factors stated in the zoning procedure section. It reads as follows: ection 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subdivision 1: Authority for zoning, For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry .., It is imperative that the commission factor in the public health and safety of rezoning the lot as B-4. It is legislated that the planning commission, city council, and city staff consider the general welfare of the community who lives in this zoning location. Additionally, the city must look at the moral issues. The Silver Springs landowners signed a contract with Mr. Giles stating our neighborhood would be zoned and developed as residential lots. We believe the city is morally obligated to support the community beliefs on this issue. 6) Zoning the property up to B-4 would only benefit the developer Tim Giles. It would decrease the value of the properties surrounding it. This affects the people who live in the city of Farmington, the neighbors of Silver Springs, and those residents who live on the three adjacent comers. Mr. Giles does not live in Farmington. In fact, none of the Farmington city planning staff, who made the B-4 recommendation, live in Farmington. The rezoning of this property would adversely affect the residents connected to the property and only benefit one person, Mr. Giles. 'e also have a valid concern that Mr. Giles may sell the land. If he sells the land, any rezoning me City Council approves, goes with the land to the new owner, along with the verbal promises Mr. Giles has made about how he would develop the land. , 7) We are concerned that Mayor Jerry Ristow may not be impartial in this matter. It is our understanding that Mayor Ristow has had past business dealings with Tim Giles, the developer requesting the rezoning. While we don't know if they are presently doing business ogether and he may not have a direct conflict of interest, we feel that Mayor Ristow may not be unbiased on this matter. We would respectfully request that he abstain from voting on this rezoning request. The Council is our only protection in this manner. Please support our request to deny Mr. Giles a rezoning of the land. Respectfully submitted, Residents of Farmington concerned with the Silver Springs Rezoning Request --~--- (t1l~~-------- -~~~~'f{~~--- _S~l:e_lg[ilI'______ ~ ______5~ 1/!7~ ~ vU Name(s) (Please print) J Address JjQgj- ~ A ~ Av-e- ! q /I & tl1 'jj; r; ~ {fl/~ /7/t,D ~Albt..-I,!,,# ~ /1/3 L [,){;/tJh It~ IflZU Etvtr4e># Ave /qJ31 &l(j h~' ~~) Iq{JfD E fJI1-/(1, IQo4-O Q/~ C:r S~c7~ /P/~~ J.h&/ W S40,-/ ( B~St~~.tw' l-.. 5>)~ ($1tls~ f))7S. / ~olj Sf. 5(1) ~ 1'lOw .5L Contribution? (..{) Okay to print name in newspaper? (initials) / _\CUV\ 1::;; ~ d ~p ~ rfJ:c- .. . January 20,2000 Farmington City Council Members :ity Hall Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Silver Springs Rezoning Request Dear City Council Members We are writing to follow up to the January Planning Commission meeting where a split vote recommended a B-4 rezoning request for developer Tim Giles. We want to further clarify several issues discussed and request that you deny Mr. Giles' rezoning request. Please consider these important points: 1) The city believes a B-4 business is "good use of the land" because the land borders three busy roads. Please remember, the three other corner blocks that meet at this intersection are zoned R-l. City staff, however, has indicated that because the corner lot would have roads on three sides, that this is unique and it is therefore appropriate to rezone these lots. Of the three other corners at this intersection, the lots are fully developed and zoned R-l. In fact, within 1/2 mile of this intersection there are 17 other residential lots that have roads on three sides of their lots. So, this land is not unique at all. And it has been previously determined that an R-l zoning in this situation is appropriate. ) The B-4 business has no access to the busier roads; the only access to the business is in our neighborhood, on English A venue. Within a half mile of this business location there has been fatal or serious accidents, occurring on near or on English A venue. Two high school students were killed 150 feet from the lot. One young resident of English A venue was hit and dragged by a car before the increased traffic from the 190th Street connection. An ARES student went down the hill too fast last summer and broke his leg when he ran into a car. Another adolescent was killed on 187th and Pilot Knob when he rode his bike in front of a car. This is a dangerous and high traffic area. We can not control the behavior and choices of children or those driving cars. However, the city can create zoning areas dedicated to residential homes, decreasing the chance of additional risk and traffic. 3) The current design of the B-4 business supplied by Mr. Giles in his rezoning request contains a large building with 9000 square feet, 6 times the size of many homes in the area, and has included 53 parking spots. A small neighborhood business would never need these many parking spots. Additionally, the request to rezone an area where the lot is already surrounded by developed single family homes, (1317 residential lots within a square mile radius), would approach "spot zoning" which is illegal. 4) Planning staff recommended the rezoning for the lots in question, even though the proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan that the City Council approved on July 19, 1999. During that development process it was determined that there was othing unique about this land or its location to warrant it being rezoned in the near future 'om its present R-l zoning. \ r. i \;(.1 ... . The city has a long history of discussing the land in the Silver Springs development and voting to keep it zoned residential. \pril21, 1969 - The City Council approved the ordinance as part of the city's Comprehensive to designate the area as Residential Land Use. July 2, 1992 - Platte approved by the City Council for the Silver Springs development to be R-1 housing July 8, 29, 1998 - City Staff involved in "Visioning Sessions" to develop the city's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion at these meetings included keeping the vacant land in the Silver Springs development zoned R-l. July 19, 1999 - City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan that included a recommendation to keep the Silver Springs vacant land residential. One-half mile to the north of this site there are already existing and planned B-4 businesses. It · is our understanding that to the south one-half mile, also on Pilot Knob, the northeast corner of the Charles wood development is zoned B-4. We feel that the current and future neighborhood services at these sites will adequately address our needs. 5) Public safety is a major concern on and near English Avenue. The City Council can not ignore the issue of public safety. In referring to Minnesota Statute 462, public safety, health, morals, and general welfare are the first four factors stated in the zoning procedure section. It reads as follows: ection 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subdivision 1: Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate the earth's surface, in the air space above the surface, and in subsurface areas, the location, height, width, bulk, type of foundation, number of stories, size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry .., It is imperative that the commission factor in the public health and safety of rezoning the lot as B-4. It is legislated that the planning commission, city council, and city staff consider the general welfare of the community who lives in this zoning location. Additionally, the city must look at the moral issues. The Silver Springs landowners signed a contract with Mr. Giles stating our neighborhood would be zoned and developed as residential lots. We believe the city is morally obligated to support the community beliefs on this issue. 6) Zoning the property up to B-4 would only benefit the developer Tim Giles. It would decrease the value of the properties surrounding it. This affects the people who live in the city of Farmington, the neighbors of Silver Springs, and those residents who live on the three adjacent corners. Mr. Giles does not live in Farmington. In fact, none of the Farmington city planning staff, who made the B-4 recommendation, live in Farmington. The rezoning of this property would adversely affect the residents connected to the property and only benefit one person, Mr. Giles. 'Ie also have a valid concern that Mr. Giles may sell the land. If he sells the land, any rezoning .he City Council approves, goes with the land to the new owner, along with the verbal promises Mr. Giles has made about how he would develop the land. . " 7) Wel are concerned that Mayor Jerry Ristow may not be impartial in this matter. It is our understanding that Mayor Ristow has had past business dealings with Tim Giles, the 1eveloper requesting the rezoning. While we don't know if they are presently doing business ogether and he may not have a direct conflict of interest, we feel that Mayor Ristow may not be unbiased on this matter. We would respectfully request that he abstain from voting on this rezoning request. The Council is our only protection in this manner. Please support our request to deny Mr. Giles a rezoning of the land. Respectfully submitted, Residents of Farmington concerned with the Silver Springs Rezoning Request Name(s) (Please print) Address :t?'~~_!Jl2b+~b'SiN__ ~3cLZ j~6~ -:S1..:Jg tt11Y.J~~_ ijllJllW j;JtiJjiT[S3JiLLffjlf/_~lL,^-I__ -SO Q.-S'_.:~ _ M{~-~ =n:JQ.(~n _5-l1.a5 1~4~ ,c) t LC) ,} ; . '! . (....j., /'! 1 " t... '. __W:...!j.+~~_~~L"::r-_2Jl1;;..1J ""}--{ 'L .J:.l. ''-:-2L (".... J)iOJt.L~liciL-.B-tJJ(Jt( 5&~_JL~\ _jil L\J _~~_(_I_______ ??W l\%th ~ u ,. .) ~ _'5_03 5_-<-i_' 1% /:~_. .', V.-- fi/ -L-~L.s""""':~--~~----- -'- u- _ - ,.. V NL€. '( -5 L-,~.\ Cl ~ I III ' i\ 5""/}'-r / X r;k.'f ,;,/; , . , f't,'i~~lf\~~~-- 0 -);>.. ";;I:~;<;L~ s1L "I\< )~~o? /,.~ '.., . ~ ~;E:~~~iJ:Z~~~ Stf!L711~~ ~&::tmc&Lth..~ S~~_18g'fk5~lL) m:~1ivHfL~ 5lfflJ~ \ /l 10 I J Contribution? (../) Okay to print name in newspaper? (initials) --~- ~ ""7 --J.~ /......;.--- v \/ ry\ ~. ----- .:> __L___ V ----- tlt-- ~- 1?~ ------ ~~ v' V' v JI ~ V' V -11-- s:ttr- 5!f4 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 106 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator~ Lee Smick, AICP f"IO Planning Coordinatory--' FROM: SUBJECT: Murphy Farm Schematic PUD DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION D R Horton and Arcon Development Inc., in a joint venture, propose to develop approximately 210 acres east of Pilot Knob Road, south of the proposed Vermillion Grove subdivision, west of the Pine Knoll subdivision and north of Middle Creek and the Farmington Industrial Park. The developers propose single and multi-family housing within the development. The developer proposes the R-3 PUD zoning due to the variety of land uses within the development. The Schematic PUD plan establishes the underlying zoning and location for each of the different land uses within the development. DISCUSSION City staff requests that the City Council review the proposed land uses designated on the Tamarack Ridge Schematic PUD plan. Road layouts will be subject to approval at the platting stage of the approval process. Site Characteristics Site topography is rolling except for lower elevations in the central and eastern portions of the site where the wetland and drainage areas are located, The drainage patterns generally funnel to the large wetland and ponding areas on the site with the. two southerly wetlands and pond draining towards the south. The northerly wetland drains towards the east and south near the Pine Knoll subdivision. The Pine Knoll subdivision generally sits on higher ground than the adjacent proposed townhouse development to the west. Therefore, Pine Knoll residents will view the rooflines of the townhouses towards the west. The wetlands identified on the site fall into two separate classifications. The northern and south- central wetlands directly south of the Pine Knoll subdivision encompass 11 acres and are classified as protect wetlands. The southeastern wetland encompassing 6 acres is classified as manage 1 and the central wetland area encompassing 2 acres is identified as a pond boundary for a 100-year storm event thereby not identified as a wetland. The protect wetland classification requires that structures shall not be placed within a minimum of 85 feet. These wetlands exist in a largely unaltered state and have special and unusual qualities that call for a high level of protection. Manage 1 wetland classifications require that structures shall not be placed within a minimum of 40 feet of the wetland. Manage 1 wetlands have plant communities that exist largely in an unaltered state but have a moderate floral diversion compared to the protect wetland, The FEMA floodplain for Middle Creek is identified on the existing conditions map submitted by the developer. The floodplain encompasses a large portion of the southern boundary. The floodplain will be further delineated in the environmental assessment worksheet. An environmental assessment worksheet is required for this project and will address possible impacts that the development may have on the wetlands, floodplain and forested areas of the property . Proposed Land Use The 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update submitted to the Metropolitan Council on July 28, 1999 showed this area with medium-density residential on the west along Pilot Knob Road, natural open space on the east and south and low-density residential making up the remaining portion of the property. The development proposes the following gross densities: Housing Type Proposed Density City Requirement Land Use Designation Single-Family 2.0 du/ac 1 to 3,5 du/ac Low-Density Executive Single-Family 1.4 du/ac 2,5 to 5,5 du/ac Low -Density Villa Units 8-10 du/ac 5.5 to 14.0 du/ac Medium-Density Townhomes 4-6 du/ac 5.5 to 14.0 du/ac Medium-Density The proposed gross densities correlate to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. The overall density of the Murphy Farm PUD is proposed at 3.2 units per acre, Proposed Development The development proposes 451 housing units constructed on approximately 210 acres. The proposed land uses are as follows: Land Use Acres Number of Units Single-Family 67 acres 137 units Executive Single-Family 18 acres 28 units Multi-Family 54 acres 288 units Park 43 acres N/A Wetland 30 acres N/A Water access is located at the newly constructed City water tower and needs to be accessed from Vermillion Grove north of the site. Sewer is available from the newly installed Middle Creek 2 sanitary sewer line along the southern portion of the property. A 100-foot wide gas line easement runs north and south through the western portion of the site, No structures may be located within the easement. DR Horton! Arcon Development has recently negotiated with Genstar Land Company to acquire approximately 35 acres at the southwestern comer of the site along CSAH 31. An additional public hearing for schematic PUD approval for the 35-acres will be held on February 23, 2000 before the Planning Commission, This area is potentially proposed for medium-density townhouse development along with open space, however, this portion of the property will not be a part of the City Council's review ofthe Murphy Farm Schematic PUD. Phasing o/the Development The developer is proposing to develop the Murphy Farm PUD in phases over a 4 to 5 year period, The developer proposes construction to begin in the summer of 2000 after approvals have been granted for the project. Housing Characteristics The developer proposes two different product types available at all times during the development of the property. A total of 163 single-family lots will be developed along with 136 townhouse units and 152 villa units. Single-family housing prices are proposed to range from $180-250,000 while the executive single-family prices are proposed from $250-350,000, The proposed width for the single-family lots is between 75 to 85 feet and the executive single-family lots are between 85 and 90 feet. The townhouse product is proposed as 4-6 unit buildings with one-level. Some of the townhouses will be constructed as slab on grade, however, there will be basements or walkouts depending on the topography and soils, The townhouse price is proposed between $150- 220,000. The villa unit is proposed at $110-125,000 and are two-story, 8-unit buildings, Population Projections The developer has estimated that at total build-out the population of the Murphy Farm PUD will be near 1,730 persons. Of those residing in Murphy Farm, there will be 287 children and 1,443 adults, These projections are based 3,5 people per single-family household, representing approximately 1.5 children per single-family household. Additionally, the townhouse units were based on 2.1 people per unit and 0.2 children per unit. The villas were approximated at 1.8 people per unit and 0.1 children per unit. Proposed Transportation System The Schematic PUD Plan shows three accesses from the subject property and three potential accesses after land acquisition issues are addressed on two of the roadways, The first access is 203rd Street to the west that connects to Pilot Knob Road and is proposed with a 70-foot right- of-way. This roadway is shown as a future east/west minor collector on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan, A majority of the traffic is expected to enter and leave the property from this access, thereby requiring a left turn lane on Pilot Knob Road into the development. 3 The second access connects to the north through the proposed Vermillion Grove development. This access is also considered a north/south minor collector running the length of the site with a jog along 203rd Street in the northeastern portion of the site, This roadway is also proposed with a 70-foot right-of-way width. The third access is on 203rd Street to the east through the Pine Knoll development. However, this access has a right-of-way encroachment issue that needs to be addressed, The fourth access that is known is the proposed cul-de-sac roadway from Akin Road into the executive single-family home area. Negotiations with property owners on both sides of the roadway have been finalized through lot reconfigurations, The final access from the property includes the north/south minor collector at the southern property line. This roadway is delineated as a minor collector on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan and shows a connection with 208th Street in the Farmington Industrial Park. A potential access from the site to the west includes the roadway proposed through the property recently acquired by DR Horton! Arcon Development. As stated above, a second public hearing for this portion of the schematic PUD will take place on February 23, 2000 with the Planning Commission, Roadways associated with the multi-family areas will be private streets and will be maintained by a homeowners association. Proposed Right-of- Way and Street Width Changes - Meeting December 8, 1999 At a meeting on December 8, 1999 with the developer, staff was made aware of a request by the developer to propose a 50-foot right-of-way and a 30-foot back to back street on all interior public streets within the single-family area on the west side of the Murphy Farm PUD, Currently, City standards for local streets require a 60-foot right-of-way with a 32-foot wide street. This request was submitted in writing on December 8, 1999 and is attached for review. Additionally, the developer proposes a 25-foot front yard setback (current Code requirements are 20 feet) and the addition of a 5-foot sidewalk along one side of all interior streets within this area. With the reduction in street width from 34 feet to 30 feet, the developer proposes to restrict parking to one side of the street in this area on the opposite side of where the sidewalk is located. The developer has proposed these changes in order to reduce traffic speeds within the single- family area and create a pedestrian-friendly environment with additional area devoted to landscaping and green space in the front yards of the single-family homes, City staff is continuing to review the developer's request and additional meetings will be scheduled to discuss the proposal before the platting process moves forward, Park & Recreation Issues The developer proposes a 2-acre park area on the northern boundary of the site that will be shared with the Vermillion Grove subdivision to the north. Additional parks have been identified along the southern property line within the FEMA floodplain. At this time, staff 4 recommends that park siting issues be delayed until the environmental assessment worksheet is completed to determine if the proposed park land along the southern boundary of the site is outside of the identified FEMA floodplain. Land Acquisition Issues At the January 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners recommended approval of the Murphy Farm Schematic PUD to rezone the property to R-3 PUD with the exception of the Wilson property. The Steve Wilson property (5200 W. 203rd Street) lies in the north-central portion of the site and consists of 4 acres, The property is not part of the Murphy Farm Schematic PUD approval and remains R-l. The remaining issue is the Daniel McCarthy property (5014 W, 203rd Street) located south of an easement proposed for the continuation of 203rd Street and east of the Murphy Farm PUD. Currently, the McCarthy's access their property from a gravel road that was installed shortly after an access easement was acquired in 1971 to access the 4-acre farmstead to the west (which is currently owned by the Wilson's). The 80-foot wide easement runs from the west line of the Pine Knoll subdivision (where the roadway pavement ends on 203rd Street) 55,65 feet and then turns northwesterly for a length of 107.42 feet until it turns mostly towards the west a distance of 638.50 feet to the eastern property line of the 4-acre site (see attached documents), Within the 55.65 feet of the easement, Daniel McCarthy to the south and Harvey Briesacher (4999 W, 203rd Street) to the north of 203rd Street access their properties, As shown on the survey, it is apparent that within the 107.42-foot length of the easement that Daniel McCarthy's well and a portion of this home encroach upon the 80-foot access easement delineated in 1971. Therefore, because 203rd Street is shown on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan as an east-west collector and the street is needed to serve the Murphy Farm development, the access easement is crucial to the development of the City's transportation system and the service of the development. At this time, discussions between the developer and Daniel McCarthy are continuing to determine if DR Horton! Arcon Development can acquire the property to resolve the easement encroachment and provide an access on the south side of the McCarthy property for 204th Street. The developer is required to document his efforts in trying to negotiate an agreement with the McCarthy's before the City is approached to resolve the right-of-way encroachment. This is consistent with past practices on these types of situations. Neighborhood Meeting - December 9, 1999 The developer held a neighborhood meeting at the Farmington City Hall on December 9, 1999 to discuss the proposed development. Concerns raised at the meeting included the maintaining of vegetation on the site particularly where the single-family homes are proposed on the property and parkland issues. Overall, the project was well received by the notified residents in attendance, 5 ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance approving the Murphy Farm Schematic PUD rezoning the property from R-I to R-3 PUD excluding the Wilson property and contingent on the resolution of the McCarthy easement encroachment issue, Respectfully submitted, ~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: D R Horton, Don Patton Arcon Development, Larry Frank 6 ORDINANCE NO, CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE FARMINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE, REZONING DR HORTON/ARCON DEVELOPMENT, INC. 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-l to R-3 PUD, 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 _ day of Farmington, , 2000, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: 66074 PARCEL A . . That. port, 'of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 114" Range 20, Dakota 'County, Minnesota, described as follows: 'Commencing att.he northwest corner of. said .',' Section 25; thence SOO.16'2,7"W, ,along the west, line of said Northwest Quarter, fJ. distance of 329.28 feet to 0 .line tho!: is parallel to end J29.02feet southerly ,of, as ' ..' mea,sured p,erpendicula". to, the north line of ;said Northwest Quartor;, thence 'S88030'03"E ,', along said parallel line, a dIstance of 276.17 feet to the conter line of 'Dokota' County Rood Right of Way' Map ,-No. 195, and the point ,of beginning of the parcel ,'to be, described; ,thence. continuing 588030'03"E, along said parallel line. a-distance ' of 1982.34 feet :to '0 line that' Is parallel' with and 386.96 feet westerly of, as measured perpendicular to, the, east line' of said Northwest Quarter:: thenc'e S00023'23"W, '. . .' along'soid parallel line; 0 distance of 994.74 feet: thence'S64006'37"E a'.distance of . 107,.42 feet to 0, line that is parallel with and 290.00 feet westerly of, 'os measured' . perpendicular to, 'saldoast lIne of the Northwest Quarter; thence SOo023'23"W, ".. ,,' 'along said parallel line,' a distance of.G58.49 feet to a line that Is 'perpendicular to sold east line and ~'whos'e eoster:y o:-nd is 2068.5 feet southerly of said northeast corner of the .. , North,west Quarter; thence, 589036\37"E. olang, soidperpendlcular line, o. distance. of .290.00 ,'feet ,to . sold Mst line of the Norti-Jwest Quarter; ~hence SOO.23'23"W, along . ", .' said, east line o'f. the l~orthwest Quarter; 0 distance';:!of 516.38 feet to the southeast corner 'of said .Northwe'sl Qucrter: thence. S8903::rOS"W. along the south line .of ,sold , ' Northwest Quarter, a distance .of 2490.28 feet to the center line o(said Dakota County Poa'd Right of Way ~i;:)~No.195;, ;thence'NOOi9'27.'.'E, alongsaid~centerline;of,. " Dokota County Roed F~ight: 'of ,WayiMop,N6:195.' a'.dlstance of 1.39.92 'feet: thence, ' deflecting to"the'right, a!6ng'saidcenter line .of Dakota County Road Right of Way Map .. No: 195.... on. 'a tangeni::al. curve concave to the east having a central angle of.' " ,05'56'38"',. a radius of 7639,44 feel and 0 length of, 79:':.~2 feet; thence NQ6013'OS"E, 010119 saii center line of Doko~o County Rood Right of Way Map No. 195;; 0 distcnce ('If 41:5~8o f3et; thence deflecting to the !eft, olong said center line of Dakota County Road F~lqht of Way t./.ap No. 195,. on o. tonqentl.J! c,Jrve cont.:avc to the west havim; .0 Cl'?ntrGi (mgle of OsoSS'.35", a radius, oJ 7e..39.~.4 feet ane! a length of :, 792.44 feet: thence ~;OO'16':27"E. along said center line of Dakota County Road Right of Way ~icp No. 1~5,. o. distance.of 204.2.8 feet to the point of beginning. " EXCEPTING therefrom, that part of the .South, 140. 'acres o.f sold. Northwest Quarter, . descrIbed os follows: Sommencing at the northeast corner 'of ~,aid,NorthwestQuarter; . thence' $00023'23" W. along the east line' of said. Northwest Quarter, a distance of' , " '1518.5 feet; thence westerly. at 0 deflection angle to the riqht of 86015'00" a distance . of. 55,65 fee~; t"'lence northwesterly ata deflection angle to the right of 2901.5"00" c distance of 'r,78.10 fr..~t; thence. westerly at a deflection aogleta the left of 24.15'00" -a distance of 6.38.50 feet to the actual, point of beginning; thence southerly at 0 deflection -angle to' ,the left of SO'OO'OO" 0 distance of 315,00 feet; thence westerly. at 0 .. deflection angle to the right of 90.CO'OO" a distance of 375.00 feet; thence northerly at a der!ection angle "..0 the right of 90.00'00 a distance .of 4G5.00 .feet; thence easterly at c ceflp.ction angle to ~he righ t of 90000'00" a distance of 375.00- feet; . thence ~outher~y at c deflection cngfe to thB right of 90.00'00 a distance of 150.00 feet to :he Do;nt of i)eq~:1ni.,g, Containirq 110.Ct4. acr!)s, mort'> or less. Containirq 106.81 CCr?S, mor,'" or less, witr.ou: rood < H H ~ H iJ:: ~ ~ .-.......,. " PARCEL 8-'Z. That- port of the Southwest Quor:er of the SOt,.j~:;ec~: Q'....'cr~~:; .J..': Sect~o"': 251 To\':rs~1~ 1: t" Ran.oe ZO, Dckota County, V:nn.esota,descr:be::' as :OlJws: Eeg:r,'.,? c~ the .,o~t"'ec~t corner .:;J7 said Southwest C:.Jarter of t.,e Southeast Qucrter; thence S::::;':" ": "::. c;e:"!,;, ~'''1e ec"'': :ine. of. said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter,. c distance of 60.00 feet :0 tl'le no!"th line of the s::Juth 600.00 feet of the north 660.00 ~eet of said Southwest Quarter of the ~ :'l'c!"ecs~ Ow,,:'-:e": 'j, er.:e S2g'3" 27"W, C;C~q 30'C: north line of the.south SOO~OO 'e( .;: t!->e "o-:'"':.~:.:C 'ee':, (: C:S:C'1CE: 0: "'-J.CO feet to :he west line of the e.asr 4000 feet ,..' -~:c <:c' ';.,."..~. Cl"cr."r 0: .;-'(> <:"'.......,.-t Ou,.,..+..... >1-,.."",-> C" 'ofl~" " f ,.., ~..":l . cd- .'j_" ~r ~.~~ .... :"~~,'-'~. f: f"- .~'.:.~~'" --~~.::.:-,..~._;- ~~'l '."-'-- -,000, ,6 E.. a,on'cJ ~a,c we_.. I.ne. ..,_ eC's, ..,,,Q..e., c C,s__.,ce ~, ~'...:).51 ,ee.., thence S81'07'ZS"W Q di~tc!'1ce of 4 g..C,2 feet; thence SS1'35' '?,S"W 0 d'"tc'1ce Of 38,79 feet; thence-S83?57'Z4"W c 'jistonceof 29.48 feet; thef1ce N61'56'CS"W 0 distance. ofZ9.01 fee':;. thence S7:: 2S'13"W a disto:1ce of 47.59 .feet; thence S19'S9'Z1"Wa distance of .39,93 fe-::t; thence S82'52'3S"W c distcnceof 27.S1 feet; thenc~ N41.49'47"W c dista'1c: of 43.50 feet; thence N8T30'41"W 0 distance .of .39.Z8 feet; therce N6J'26'33"W a distance of 11 0.6io. feet; thence N77'14' 48"W 0 distance.. o~ 92.73 :p.ct;thence S69'27'01"W a distcnce of 58.31 feet; thence N71'34"5"W a distcnc':! of 61.,..75, feet; thence S83'39' 43"W a distance of 30,90 fee:; .hence N5::'CS'2'''W 0 distance .of 42.65 fee:; thence N6T19'34"W c distance of 123.90.eet; ~hence NoT3S'39"W 0 distcnce of 107,59 feet; t"'ence S7"~ g'OS"W a.:istcnce of 70.35 feet; thence N8Z'29'27"W o distance Of ,6,Z8 feet to 0 lIne trot is pcrallel to end 330.00 feet eester!y of, es measured perpendicu!c~ to, the we::: tine of scid So:.:t~west Quorter of theSouthec~t Quarter; thence NOC'23'2C"E, alon~ so'd poro'lei line, c distcnce of 513.<8 feet to .. the north line of soid So:.;:hwest C'Jcrter of the. Southecst Quorter; thence N8S-31 t27n~t al.:Jng sc:Id :1':)i::-:lii1E, c c!isto0.ce of i ee1. 78' feet ":0 ~ne point O.T beginning, <: E-i H i="l H ::I:l >::: ~ Con:aining 12.54 acres, more 0'" :ess. I hereby cerffy :~ot this survey. p!on. 0" repor: Vies prepared by me or under my dIrect supervisio!" ond the: f om 0 d1,,;ly Registered t.cnd Surveyor un.:er thp. L.ow~ O"r the State of Minr>eso~o(l.. -/ /V)"'k Y~~-J!:l -;;::....-~ ~.' - Dote ...:.?:JJLC/_JXYl ~eg. \10. 8~ "-0 ~ PARCEL B-1 The Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the west 23.95 acres of the Northwest Quarter. (Jf the Southeast Quarter of Section 25. Township ':14, Range :/0,. Dakota. County. Minnesota. EXCEPJ the' South 50,00 feet ,of the West 330,00 feet of said Northwest Quarter. of the Southeast Quarter, Containing 63.42 acres.. ' i horebycertify that this survey. plan. or. " report was prepared by me or under my direct . sup(;(vit>ion and thet I am G dUlY Registered Land Surveyor.' under tha laws of the Stott:: Ol~' ;r~::sotG.<\ ' ) '\hf(J .. h'( 1-__' ~~1-:::jJl!L::?~-r;--:7"'AV. - mYte tl"/>>O/l I t;Jcfj ... . Reg. No. 8140 , :<X: E-l H !Xl H ::I:: ::< ~ ., NARRATIVE FOR MURPHY FARM P.U.D. The Murphy Farm P.UD. is a proposed residential development in the City of Farmington on approximately 210 acres. The development proposes approximately 451 residential units on the property. The proposal offers a variety of residential housing products, ranging from 'villa' units at a density of approximately 8-10 DU/ Acre, 'townhouse' units at a density of 4-6 DU/ Acre, single family lots at a density of approximately 2 DU/Acre and executive single family lots at a density of approximately 1.4 DU/Acre. Of the 210 acres, approximately 73 will be maintained as permanent open space. The overall density of Murphy Farm P.U.D. is 3.2 units per acre, The Murphy Farm P.UD. site is characterized by rolling topography, scattered deciduous woodlots, three major wetland complexes and a long, flat draw running north and south through the west ~ of the site, This draw contains a narrow drainage ditch that provides an outlet for the northerly wetland south to a main east/west ditch (Middle Creek) that runs along the south boundary of the Murphy property. These physical characteristics, topography, vegetation and wetlands, provide a natural separation and buffer between the different product types proposed withing the Murphy Farm P.UD. The property is currently under the ownership of Mr. Bernard Murphy and will be purchased from Mr. Murphy by a Joint Venture ofD. R. Horton and Arcon Development, Inc. The ultimate ownership of the property within the Murphy Farm P.UD. will be a combination of individual homeowners, homeowners associations and the City of Farmington. Maintenance of all the land within the P.U.D. will also be the responsibility of these three entities. Along with the variety of housing types proposed, the development will retain three significant wetland complexes on-site, create a combination wetland/pond/open space corridor (approximately 14 acres) and designate additional open space/park areas (273=. acres) within the site (totaling 73 acres). There are several:scattered deciduous woodlot areas on-site, and the site plan was developed to retain as many of these areas as possible through unit type and location. The primary access to Murphy Farm P.UD. will be offCSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road). There will be an east/west neighborhood collector street through the north ~ of the site and a north/south neighborhood collector allowing connections to the properties north and south of the development. Additionally, there will be internal neighborhood streets within Murphy Farm P.UD. and a direct access to Akin Road for the executive single family lots on the east side of the property. Sanitary sewer is presently on-site and water main will be brought south along Pilot Knob Road from the new Farmington water tower site. The development will be responsible for storm water detention on-site following the City of Farmington Surface Water Management Plan (1997). Public utilities; electricity, natural gas, telephone and cable T. V. will be provided to the development by the appropriate utility companies, The Murphy Farm P.UD. will be developed in phases over a 4-5 year period. The proposal will call for a minimum of two different product types available at all times during the development process, The development plan calls for approximately 163 single-family lots to be developed. The anticipated population breakdown for typical single family residential is 3.5 people per household, representing approximately 1.5 children per single family home. The anticipated population breakdown for the approximate 136 townhouse units is 2.1 people per townhouse and 0.2 children per unit. The anticipated population breakdown for the approximate 152 villa units is 1.8 people per villa unit and 0.1 children per unit. These totals result in approximately 287 children and 1,443 adults in the estimated 451 households residing in the Murphy Farm P.U.D. r Vl llJ ~ :' _,.' '~ I >- -I:t . L -' ,- ,-' - W lLi" l,.T l I ~ u '1 r:L~ -1. I '^ -.: 1 tJ:-' '::"~ I ~' >- ,.0-:ili h -:5 l I ^_ __ _ ~ ' \ 203'';' COURT' ~~ ~)~-w L L JIJ I' ,0 ,\ - - r-- ~ II ,-- , 0 \ ' · i ," 1- - c_ - It . ' I r0 -, / ~\ \\ ,_ -< I' --i~ tLL-_L\i Y:~~~~ I ,,'990l- __ \ \ ~ 1 i' --- ---=-' I: ' --.h 1 . I _ f ~ \ 0 I > I"r'l-~-~ r.:::::l ~ ,'''> '....'-J I IM4IJONlda~!i'\s'; II fl U \ 15 : \1 2]; ~il~d\ ,#;s:><~ J_../), , :r \.EI~~E I '-:- ',I ,I ,~*' I .-t .~)AWD J~ifAl'f~' ~~. '>-.. .' t- !Ll! ^.~ri'i:..r~igo$, : '" ' ~o 11~/ ,I r 1 '~ l" 110N~ 3N'd 10 ~u, - ;~, O~' <'_' I L ~ 01'" ., ISON' ,~ ~~ / ~_, J '" 0' ;'28 ~ " b I ';l! ..... ~i - C:l , ~ .... u' !'l 0 t-AP/ ~~ M.6rE.,r'l.ooS~ ji ~~ . ._'_ s,1 /~ __L.8~9 ::] /...../f ..'- --- , / :.' I ,:tI-..) I './f (..: /J' n <' f ,~ I (. ' I . '- I' - 3; R I' r-...-. f"i 01 ~~ COol 0:)' ~~ I ~ u ,0 .. 'Q6. r" . . .~: . . , . .' . - . . .. ..- ,:' ~o(;o, ",,;,0 _ . b,eU e,'- ~ ... ~ .,\.(~'O10, <::P ,00 ~o' . I 'O~' 'Voe.. _~ 9J. . ' . '" -- . I " .......e(\\ - - <f'.o"!>e\" -- . ,,(\e v ..... - - o,~e'~. - ~ - - , ,cy,'" ____ ~ ~, S'6]. ~~ ' 0\)(0\ /' ,/ ...... :;--'01 ~.\ . - ~o' /" ~ ~ "" ~ ~ "" ---- ---- ~ ~ ~",,,. . /" ---- ~. <s.---- ' ' ---- ~ o 'co' ____ /' 'l-<1; <6~" ,~ ~ --- \C,/ ./ <r)~j ,\ ,/ , _.",,'/ >/1~"'/'/ . Z /-'I ""'1" ~ J --.J ./ ,/,,11. ,/ /7 /"" ./ . ....../ /'~1.';j Q:1~'- / l...J/1 ,._ b.tt/ ..r-.J OO.,c.;' ---'''-- -/ ~ ~ y . /".;- ISl~'i:';~' .-..-- /" /" /"//" \. ) . . h.. I'~ .,/ ,/ . - - - _/ / /' ,/ / J-- --. ~ \{'j' " ~ ( 1 FROM \lHU} o vv ! t : ULJ,/ i:.i 1. 1 t :UU/I"V. q.LOUq.:;i';;~:::l p 2 1. "_~."'~.~..:~:~!._~~_-'..::,;~.-;;,:_:',...:.,~,..~_~-_.~___:,- > .... :'- 'J_' -~" '~~-.'. ~,: ~'... . . - ~< -- - .. -....- . .', '-.' . '-,.-" .",. ','.., '.' ,,;..'_:,:-,:,:.,~~~,:,.~-;'..~.-'\~-;;,'.',._~:"....-'...-~.,:~.-,..:;._.~".,.:,_:-..".~':';".:'.::;.!..).~-,:-:,-~::_"..,'_:.":' :....-...., :,:,<.:':'" 2~{;~:'~:'" . .~. . ~'nWCA'rIai.; ,;.' .. .. --...-" . .'",,'.. .:. >< -~.', 'j.~_:'.>~,;;-"",--,"~:~,.'. .., ->;- k~~~.~.::_.. : -:- . r .:.:. . '-";" '-,-. ..: -. :. :-.-.-.: -':: " ':~::('>'/-:- - -,l",:<:"- - :-<- . ~!il\:,:~:A;!,,:,"~''''i~';'f'~ ~~~.~~~. . , 1971, by Harvey ~...$?::. Briesaeh~r B.nd 'Ir13Br1esa(:h~ri hU5"osnd .a~ci' Wife,- Harold tlAttson 'and-Florence _ltit- . .~":""..~. - . . . . .' . :>~:.:.~~ :",. . . . . ' . _ '.. _'WI1liESriy 'nlatthe said Gra~tor$ do hereby,dedicate forpub11c :',7.~,~:'-,\~::;:'_.' ....'. -:. - . -. -.'~:', . . - ". . - - .-.. - ,:-,,:-~:,,,~(,'-"-~:r:.:ever: au. -the ~cts'a:l<1 pelrc:cls. of ~and,lyins 4nd beir.g in the'village' or .. ", '":~'. '. ~~.,:. .. . . . . .. .." . ..._,':.. .. . - " . =-:.::/::.-:' ':':ton, 'co~ty :or'::D8~~1 State -of,M1rme.s'!ta,..des~r1bed, as rOllo~5, to-witi: :...:.... - -. ." :'" - ..~~ . -_:~son,)l.uS~nd and \Ii~e, Loran Mhe:- and Eloise Asher, husba:1d and vii'el .1!ernnrd __ l-turpl:l=t' oed E~i2,8beth ~urphy, hus.b8Ild and wire,.' fled Roo:an Wendland and Ruth 'tlend- lsnd, ~usb:l.ndCl!d -:.1fe, ~re!1fter referred to as Gr3nto:-s, all of the Village 01' """ .' "-' . ~. . Fa~1ngton,- countyC'''.!Dt1kota,. state of M1nnesotB. . . .,....,. i , use, for- ~rmiDg- . . .' : .. Forty .(4.0i" re~t o~ e1~~~ Il1de or a line loCated. 11:: the North- " west ,~uarte.r (mr~) .of.Sect1on ~nty:':r1ve (25), TOVllship One : -'.:Hl.J!l#~d FoUrteen No~h.(1l4N),~Range T<Je:1ty-W~ct (2m), De.koUl. . '. : ..J:ountiYJ :41nncsotaJ des.cdbi:d asi'ollovs, to-vit: cor.:r:enci:lg at . ,the Nort1-.t;~st (liE), cor.ner o! the lforthwest Quarter U;-,;~) of . Seeti'o:l~.;e:1'ty-~ve (25), "vtence South 'along thc La~t line of . said}fo;t~~est ~UQr~:" (1i',Jt) a dist:1nce o~ 1515.5 :,'ce't "tIlolch 1::- ,thepoin4;o~ "beginni:1sof the atores31d. HOt!j thence wc::terly IS"; lldetlc~ti~n snslecto th~ rig,ht of 86015' a d1st:l:lcC 0:: 55. 65 feet;t..'lc::lCC llor-:.~';c:;t.e!':!.:r a, ~ c.e:,!ec:'t.ion anele to the riS!lt o~ 29.015',B distance of 473.1 feet; thence Wes:~rlY ~& a de- flc!ctlon 8nslc. ~o t~e:lp.n or~lto15' .. a.ilSt4n~c: or" 038., ft!et; and. there.' tc:-ndnating, ~ Forty (loOt) i"cet OD e1t:~e:: side ~ a li~ loc:.\tcd in t~c iio=t.h- en!it '~unrter (l'-::~-) of' S~c':.ion T"Jentj'-:"1ve (25), ,!:::-,tn:;;~:.? O:i~ ~~undred TOu:"-:;er.'m-No:ti~ (l.l:':iL :1tlnce To':Q:lt:/ '.;cst (2<...".;) ~l',GUi CO"J.:"..ty 1 ~':'~::1CSO~~ 1 de-~c=i:~:.!. 0 5 ~/.:11.r...~s J -:0-".-": ~: cC"_-=cnc~:t:j ~ to -:hc lfOl't~~:e:;t (;;',.;) C:::-:io:':' 0: -::.c.: ::<':'t.:."!c::'; ~,~:'':.''!:' ~!:=:.::) ~~' S!1ii!..&:c~:.o:-, '.:-.'~!~4::~'-!1 \';: (c~:, t.~.~r:C~ SO-.:-::o. l.!.lcn~ t!:e i:'~:;'l'. lbc 0.:: ~;1~ !:.:.:,~;:,.!-:lS~ ~~:;''l=-:;e= (::Z':j ~1i"...,,-n'':,;; 0:' 1;L~.5 ~'~C!:, '..:,.ic:~ . 15 '":.!:e ~c:t~l ~i~,: c~ b~:....i::r:~n',. of t:-:e :1.ro~~.:hli~ :.~::c; t~'C~~t-: E=!~t.'~",,"'~t' u- :\ c.i'Cl...........-oI...- :'''''''J''-ln -:0 ":".iIi' 1..'....... 0." .",.,~IL.: I .., ". _v,1,-. -..-.t" _ ...._...."'4'. ......(.......J v...." ....... - .J *' ..v. ::'"'-.. ..."ho~o s'!id. li:1c i:t~~i..Fects :':".~ .J~~.. ;..i::t: ~: COU::~j' ::-.-::..;-:1 ::0. .:~.. . 115 ~hl:;'C "r,~r=il\:lti~~. .' "." . ......: " t~"d.iS !~lT?STr.{Giojf ~"'!er1Z0?, '!'::t: .... c- . .". ,,-.., I ',; .:-' <:.::J~Q:' ..u.c~ .~.t7l.~"<...",:,,' unuersi~cj, hn~c hcrc~~J :J.:r. :.~.c-::" ..~.......' .........-- C'~ ~ ,....,- _..I..L.. 9, /;(1' :' =-~_'-'.~ ,:;~-?!..,<0..~- _:",;.:; f:;:":..-..:~.::(.;;-..':.':" Q P /).. /../-- . .~ \....J.r./'_I. " 7i~C'''n~c'' '/., u~;:,t.J -1/ -fLUll~'J.,{"'V ,1.....<.1 _.. ~ l.._v.......l... .A,;.r vI/. 'A.d~ ~ G,f~J a~/u?/v/ ----- 1:.101.1;f~ ,'\~;:!t::' ~ ~~~::~/~,.~:~:;B~i 11t1U/ I. o UV j J ; U 1/0 1. 11 :VU/'J~U. qLOUq~~~~l p ......-.._.. ~"..: -.~. ... ':= J:f~;~::.~$#~'~t~' - .- . . /) . i .t/' ft ' , ,/1 -1"J--:!/() (7/,;.-j :?YU4-.I?a ; _.!l. v.emila.)(I * *-* * ., .' ........ ... ~. - . : '". ~.' -:~?~1f~ ':. . ... e':- :\.;~5H.~-~':", .......... . ....r"-.:.' t. _ .;;.'. .. . .-.... .:.~.~ ;:.- .....-. - , 1971, before ~, a NJtory ::t -, ~ .~., aPd,1'or.:' said County ~~rsonallY appr'..11red H.a::-vey B:,ie~cher S:'1d Iris ... ..... .,;. ..', "OJ' ......... . - '_"~' _ .": ...~ . .. '. !-:.a.ttsO:l.end r:'creuce' Y~tt:;OI:, n'"ls'bsnd 30C ~fe. -"#;. . . ::liZ3bet~ :~urphy !re same as.thei:- free nct ~O~ ;ieed~ ..~.~...;~:..<..'t'::: .. . ...~.:.." . .:,-.' ". .-: _~:~~ : .,. '';'_.-::,'' '.: ,.-,.:;~/~~:t.-:~;;el?:; ..-.~ -. : .t:::!;).t~~~v. ___,~~,.~~.....o..." _.--: ..f-"-,.--- . . . -- -4--:~>;:{:::.j~ \ " :: ~,:-;~~~~..~~-~::._:..~:r-:':i-~.:~-:~..:,i.~./t.;,~,~.'~t .~;~;$~i~~~~:~:. - , \ ~ ~..' .. ..'~1l.l~~,'-. .- .'~. . . .."\.. ~ .f".~ .. ~'..r._;' . ~~~~.', . " i.01' ..- -- ~1Js..-': . '.' ". ~, . "'\....>.:;:. .~> . r l:, .. ..:;.. .....;. .~.. ":;~~.~~;:~~~:~_;:.~' ....,: -:, !~f'~~'.~:,' ;'; ....~;.:;<(".::.. .:.', .. ~: .:" '. ....;:........ '." -. ;' ,BndS on .,. ..- -... ::.:.::....":;.. '.. -:- :...-,,:..... ..,....... 1..~..~:'~ ~.y,l. .:__~._--~ '~~.:'~#i-'? .".~" ,..?'g.-L"',J..:i~~ ..._"'!-t"I/:\.~"-'~: ."';' !". -~ ,.'~- .. -.", ...~:. ..._- '. ~ -," " 'r-.:~-" J ,. . . ....\.~~...: ~~-:".;l.~~ ~.'- ~.~ ~i'.;;'~~;-;:~"-,,-:~ '," : ~!f:~~f~ :>: ..':: .... ..,..t'..:c.....: - '. .:......:..::...:.:.. . .~..:.::...~-}~.. ::;.".;." .... I i A ~ /;L_..:~~ .O~-.l I W 0 ) --' II <( <0 0 '~ I!!!!I III @ Ii III :II I!!!!I ! ~ ,.. I :II 0 L{) 0~ 0~ I zO zu -<( 0 - <(. Oen N I- OenL{) :::!f- z :::!f-N ;> :JW 0 >-w :JW l!l enUJ 1-:::; en(/) -w I =,l/l I- 1-<( Z ::>w 0 >-w 1-:::; -w ...... =,l/l 1-<( ~ ::>w I"') ~ 0 I't. III ~ '" ~ 3: - . 3:. i 00",," (:7l 00 0 (:7l ~ o::(Q1"') o::L{) r') i 0 I"') l- I z I (:) >-w 1-:::; -w I- =,l/l Ii z 1-_. >-w ::>w 0 1-:::; 0~ C)~ ;j~ Zu II zO 1-<( - <(. -<( 0 ::>w OenL{) 'J Oen N :::!f-N iJ :::!f- :Jw l!) :Jw en(/) en(/) 0 It I Ih Ii' fl' Iii Vi~Vj ^Hd~nVi ~UI~ O~~ , i= :J ~ =!Ci= 2 ~ ~ ~ ... ~ CI i= -z~ I:l a F= a Di ~!~ ~c-l..; <( t- .0 :;EO(/) o:::=,W <( . z l.J..o..z >-u:::: It- .. a..<(Z o:::~o :Jwt- ~I0 UZ (/)~ 0::: <( l.J.. -i~ i-~ --;i- Y~i"'I' f!h~~ 2uH U~n c:c::c::::: 2a2:ilX =i; !..g l=f I" ilii;~ e~2~1 ~~~i~ t:t:t:~- 222ii " ....aa i ~= ! - : ~~ ... ...... 2~ :ili t: ..iii" ::t:::;~ -I Ii; i ~ i .~; --AI :z ~! a I i i! - o _~!d;i~ si ~ z ~digi;fi~!; W .~u_..~.t _.r~ () ......!~!l w i ~'f ? 6 '" : :' {\ i E ~ ; 1 Q .. ~ ~ J ' 'I (l \. -- J 111 i i iiliij \ 1 ! I ! 5 i · .., a i i ~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us IO~ TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrat~e. Lee Smick, AICP N 0 Planning Coordinator \)^ FROM: SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of Ordinance - Tamarack Ridge Schematic PUD DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION James Development Company proposes to develop approximately 58 acres east of Trunk Highway 3, south of County Road 66, west ofthe Prairie Waterway and Cambodia Avenue and north of 208th and 209th Streets in eastern Farmington, The developers propose single and multi-family residential within the development and a commercial site along TH 3, The developer proposes the R-3 PUD zoning due to the variety of land uses within the development, The Schematic PUD plan establishes the underlying zoning and location for each of the different land uses within the development. DISCUSSION The City Council should review the proposed land uses designated on the Tamarack Ridge Schematic PUD plan, Road layouts will be subject to approval at the platting stage of the approval process. Site Characteristics . The property is currently zoned A-I, Streets surround the property on the north, south and west. Empire Township surrounds the property on the east, north and south with single-family residential on the west and south and open space on the north and east. The Prairie Waterway is located on the east side of the property within the City limits of Farmington, Site topography is generally flat with an occasional inundation of standing water at the northwest comer of the site, No floodplain or wetland exists on the property, The Prairie Waterway to the east of the property is designated as a greenway corridor, however, no wetland designation has been granted for this area, Proposed Land Use The 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update submitted to the Metropolitan Council on July 28, 1999 showed this area with commercial along Trunk Highway 3, medium-density residential east of the commercial area and south of CR 66 and single-family residential along the eastern portion of the property, The proposal for Tamarack Ridge complies with 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update, which is currently under review by the Metropolitan Council. The schematic PUD plan proposes the following gross densities: Housing Type Proposed Density City Requirement Land Use Designation Single-Family 3.0 du/ac I to 3.5 du/ac Low-Density Carriage Homes 9.1 du/ac 5,5 to 14,0 du/ac Medium-Density Townhomes 8.2 du/ac 5.5 to 14.0 du/ac Medium-Density The proposed gross densities correlate to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. The overall residential density of the Tamarack Ridge Schematic PUD is proposed at 4,0 units per acre. Proposed Development The development proposes 233 housing units constructed on approximately 58 acres, The land uses are as follows: Land Use Total Acres Number of Units Single-Family 23.3 acres 71 dwelling units Carriage Homes 14.2 acres 130 dwelling units Townhomes 3.9 acres 32 dwelling units Commercial 5.8 acres N/A Park 2.8 acres N/A Water availability is located within the Trunk Highway 3 right-of-way along the east side of the roadway. However, the water service terminates at the American Legion, approximately 620 feet from the Tamarack Ridge development. Therefore, the developer would be required to extend the water line to serve the development. City sewer currently exists within the eastern portion of the site. Storm water ponds are shown throughout the site. The most recent revision shows a storm water pond on the northern side of CR 66 within Empire Township, The developer has been in contact with the property owner to the north and they are willing to file an annexation petition to be included within the City of Farmington. Further calculations concerning this pond's size and function will be required during the preliminary plat stage, Commercial Area The original schematic PUD showed a 3 A-acre pond directly to the east of the commercial area and to the south of CR 66, With the recent plan revision showing a pond located to the north of CR 66, the original 3.4-acre pond has been reduced to its current proposed size of 0,6 acres, Therefore, with the reduction of the pond area, the commercial area has expanded by 1,8 acres creating a total of 5,8 acres of commercial land use. The Developer discussed the possibility of enlarging the commercial area at the Planning Commission on January 11, 2000 to allow for a daycare facility. 2 Phasing of the Development James Development Company will develop the single-family residential property, The Developer proposes 71 single-family lots averaging 9,500 square feet in size for each lot. The Developer proposes that the single-family homes will be constructed in 2002 and will be at full build-out by 2004-2006, A large percentage of the lots will accommodate split-entry homes because of the high water table, however, the Developer proposes full-basement homes on as many lots as possible. The housing prices may range from $120,000 to $IS0,000, The Carriage Homes will be developed by Centex and will consist of 130 two-story condominiums in S-unit buildings and will be part of a homeowner's association, The Developer anticipates that first-time homebuyers will purchase most of the homes, The projected population for the condominiums will be between IS5 to 220 people. The Carriage Homes will begin construction within 1 to 2 years of the project's approval. The Farmington Family Townhome project will be constructed by Jim Deanovic of Farmington Family Housing Limited Partnership. The project will consist of 32 one-level rental units on 4 to 5 acres in the southwestern portion of the site. The Developer proposes between 2 and 3 bedroom units with an attached garage, These units are considered to be affordable to persons at 60% of the median income for Dakota County, This will translate to rents ranging from $6S0 to $790. The Developer proposes the Farmington Family Townhomes to be developed within the first year of the approval by the City, The Developer proposes the commercial area to be constructed between 3 to 5 years, The Developer will pursue the development of the commercial area upon the connection of CR 66 and 20Sth Street to the west. Possible uses within the commercial area include a gas station, dry cleaner, insurance office, etc. along with a day care within the 5.S-acre site. Further discussions concerning the commercial uses on the site will commence when the Developer plats the property . Transportation Issues The development proposes five accesses from the property including three along the south side to 20Sth and 209th Streets and two accesses to County Road 66 on the north, An additional access to the south will be determined at the platting stage for the commercial property, The development proposes both public and private streets, whereby the private streets will be located in the multi-family areas and will be maintained by a homeowners association. Construction of 208th and 209th Streets At this time, the City has stated that 20Sth and 209th Streets should be paved, However, a determination of whether the street should be a rural section or a standard City street has not been finalized, The Engineering Division will review the need to require "L" intersections along Cantata and Cambodia Avenues, These issues will be reviewed at the platting stage of the approval process. 3 Park Issues The developer proposes a 2,8-acre park area on the southern portion of the property along 209th Street. The park is required to be large enough to allow for a ballfield and play structure, The pond shown at the northern portion of the park may need to be reduced due to the need for enough parkland to hold the ballfield and play structure. The park dedication requirement is 12.5% of the total acreage and will be dedicated by the developer through land, fees and/or trail construction. Neighborhood Meeting - January 6, 2000 The Developer held a neighborhood meeting at the Farmington City Hall on January 6, 2000 to discuss the proposed development. Overall, the project was well received by the notified residents in attendance, ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance approving the Tamarack Ridge Schematic PUD rezoning the property from A-I to R-3 PUD, Respectfully SUbmitled'i/ r;:t: ~L~/ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: James Development Company, Jim Ostenson 4 ORDINANCE NO, CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE FARMINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE, REZONING JAMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 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 A-I to R - 3 PUD, 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 _ day of Farmington. , 2000, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: 66074 - I~-~l-l~~~ e:~/AM r~UM PIONEER ENGINEERING 681 9488 P.3 APPLICATIOB FOR POD - PLAIDIBD tJJII% DEVELOPM:ICH Date: Fee: ~. 2 Name 7/1/tJl1tl/tK /)6e Location East of Hi h'W'a 3. West of Cambodia Ave. and South of C. S .A. H. 66 Zoning District(s) A-I !fames & Addresses of All OwDe'rs: James DeveloDm@ut Company 7ROR r.r~p~~idi~ r.iTrl~. ~uit~ 110 Bloomineton. HN 55435 Principal Contact Jim Ostenson ~elepboDe (612)9~1-7805 Ifames & Addresses of Property OWDers wltJd.Jl 350 Feet Aya11able from OD Project Data Land Use !rotal Ac:res Single Family Multi Family Retail Office Institutional Parks Wetland ,t:. 0 12.8 !& 1 () 00 0.00 3 v 0:00 Dell sit" Residential UDits/Acre 4.6 parkiD.CJ Sing-Ie Family Multi Family Retail Office Institutional 80 Off. Street ~284 t547 Fnrur~ D@~i~n 0.00 0.00 PHASIIfG See Attached Narrative 10-21-1999 8:57AM FROM PIONEER ENGINEERING 681 9488 P_4 POPut.A~IOll CBARACTBRISTICS See Attached Narrative Sc:hemati.c Plan Fee: Action by Planning Commission Ac:tioD ~y City COunci.l Public Hearing Date Approval Date Recommended Revisions Public Hearing Date Public Hearinq Date Recommended Revisions Comments: Comments: Preliminary POD Plac Approval Date Comments: Fee Approval Date Comments: Prelim1nary Pla~ Fee: Approval Date Comments: Approval Date Comments: Final Plan Approval Approval Date Comments: Approval Date Comments: Certlfica~iOD: I hereby certify that I am the applicant named herein and that all information qiven above, including exhibits submitted, is in all respects true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and that if the application is approved, the future use of~he property will conform to the plans contained he in. I am the ~Owner, ____Lessee, _Purchaser, Agent. M ~I . TO: Lee Smik, AICP Planning Coordinator FROM: Brad Schmoll Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Plan Review of [Tamarack Ridge] Schematic PUD. DATE: January 7, 2000 After reviewing the plan that was submitted, I have noted the following: All streets, roads and cul-de-sacs in the single family development currently meet the minimum requirement of the Uniform Fire Code as it relates to Fire Department Access, However the multi-family developments don't meet the minimum requirements, The Uniform Fire Code Article 9, section [902.2.2.2,6] requires that all Dead End access roads be provided with an adequate turning radius for Fire Apparatus when the dead end is in excess of [150] feet. Therefore, all access roads that currently exceed the 150-foot requirement in both multi-family developments must meet the minimum requirements of the code. The current plan doesn't indicate the width of private roads or streets in the multi-family developments, The Uniform Fire Code Article 9, section [902.2.2.1] requires that all roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Therefore, all roads in both multi-family developments must meet the minimum requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and any local ordinances. I would also suggest and strongly recommend that the city of Farmington require at least two separate means of access to all multi-family developments, The Uniform Fire Code Article 9, section [902,2.1] requires more than one fire apparatus access road when the Authority having Jurisdiction determines that access by a single road might become impaired by vehicle congestion, conditions of terrain, climate conditions or other emergency factors that could limit access to that development. The plan that was submitted didn't provide information relating to fire hydrant locations; therefore, it will be required to provide additional plans prior to construction. ~C'~~ Brad C Schmoll Farmington Fire Marshal J ames Development Company James l. Ostenson President 7808 Creekridge Circle, Suite 310 Bloomington, Minnesota 55439 (612) 941-7805 Fax (612) 941-7853 DATE: October 26, 1999 TO: City of Farmington FROM: Jim Ostenson For Lexington-Eagan Limited Partnership RE: Tamarack Ridge P.U.D Request We are pleased to present to the City of Farmington our request for a P.U.D.for Tamarack Ridge which includes mixed use housing, neighborhood commercial, neighborhood park, and a storm water pond. This is a 65-acre parcel, located at intersection of Highway 3 and County Road 66. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The property is generally flat, tillable land with a very slight change in elevation from east to west. This property is surrounded by roads on all four sides.CHighway 3, County Road 66, Cambodia, and 209th Street on the south) and single' family homes on the south side, which are located in Empire Township. Adjacent to the single family homes on the east is a cemetery. PROPOSED LAND USES 1. Multi-Family A) Farmington Family Townhouses This would be the first phaseof multi-family on approximately 5 acres, containing 32 units that are to be built by James Deanovic of Farmington Family Housing Limited Partnership, in conjunction with Dakota County Department of Housing and Urban Development Committee. The Farmington Family Townhouse project will be a rental townhouse complex that consists of 32 affordable units. The exterior character of the project would be similar to the for-sale townhouse units in Dakota County, with vinyl siding, asphalt shingles and attached garages. The site will provide surface parking for guests. The site will include a small playground and will be well landscaped with berms for privacy and will include an underground sprinkler system. The mix of units would be split evenly between 2 and 3 bedroom units. Each unit would include a spacious living area, which would include a living room, dining room, and kitchen in a great room feel. The typical appliances are included. The units will have gas forced air heating and individual central air conditioning. - continued - City of Fannil1gton P.U.O.R~uest October 26; 1999 Page 2. Residentsfllust ~avea verifiableandpasitive ,rental histary, in additian to. tlpasitive credit check, and background check with nacriminal.record for each adult applicant. In.. every hausehald. .This is. fairly standard'in rTlas1; rental markets. We would. expect two children per hauseholdwithQne being school age. B)Centex ~rriageHa01es The 120 cardtlge hames .are~Q.story CQndOmirliuRls.in 8-unit buildin~s. Extferiar .eleyatians. utilize maintenance"fr~ materials", A. hameowners associatianis respopsibleJar allexteriar main~nanGe andl~wncar~. The typical buyer is a single, t;>ersonund,erthe age af40withanannual sal~ry af $31,000 to. $60,000 purchasing their first. hame.Based on acQJal.. buyers af the product in ather neighborhOods, we would ptojecta tatal population ofbetwee,n 165 to 200; people, with the majority being adult singles<and,cal,Jples be.tween the agesaf 20 and 40 yearsafage. We wauldprojectthatthere wa.uld be betweenaneand four familiesirrthe neighborhOQd,' with a tatal.of between. 4 and .10 school agecLchildren . and ~tWeen6 and 12 presehool children. . .. . . .. . 2. Single Family Harnes Wepraposeta develap 71 single family lats that flre intended to average 9,500 square feet in size. Because of the water table, these>lo~will be. designed to. , accommodatesplit~entry homesinttle $120,000 to $180,000 range. We wauld ..af'lticipate.th~t~ch home would contain 2 adults and average 1 child. .3; Gomrnercia,l. ... .... . . . .. .. We are requesting nelghbQrhood commercial zaning an aurproperty which . wauld include acanveni.ence stare with gas pumps and a small centercantainlng . businesses Jcx:ated to serve the neighborhood, such asa dry'deaners, dentist, insurance 'agency,beautysalan, etc.. Ifyauflave any questions ar need any additianal infarmatianregarding aur request, plea;se contact me. Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter. . .' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator Dave Olson, Community Development Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: Jerry Auge, Jr., Civil Engineer I David Sanocki, Engineering Division SUBJECT: Tamarack Ridge PUD DATE: Jannuary 5, 2000 Engineering staff has reviewed the schematic P,U,D, plans that were submitted on November 9, 1999, for the above referenced project. The following are engineering comments that require further discussions with the developer: GENERAL . All residential streets shall be designed to ensure a horizontal sight distance of not less than 200'. The minimum design speed for residential streets shall be 30 MPH unless otherwise approved by the City for residential streets, The minimum design speed for collector streets is 40 MPH unless otherwise approved by the City, . Soil boring and ground water monitoring reports need to be submitted. Soils reports shall include recommended soil correction for the street sections, . All residential streets shall be 60-foot right-of-way and collectors shall be 70' right- of-way with sidewalk along one side at a minimum per City code. · Approval of the schematic PUD does not constitute final approval of the interior street layouts and access points. Interior streets will be reviewed in detail at the platting phase of the project. Minimize dead end streets by providing additional access or connections, Water mains in cul-de-sac or dead end streets shall be looped into the main system. . Easements for all utilities shall be provided per City requirements. Confine utilities wherever possible to streets for optimum accessibility, Tamarack Ridge PUD Page 2 . It is recommended that the improvement of 2091h Street. Cantata Avenue West and 2081h Street to paved streets per City requirements be a condition of the future plat, SANITARY SEWER . Sanitary sewer for the development shall be connected into the north/south trunk main located toward the middle of the development. WATER MAIN . Water service to the development is dependent on the Trunk Hwy 3 water main improvement project that is proposed to be constructed in 2000, The project would extend twelve-inch trunk water main from the VFW along TH 3 to the north along the east side ofHwy 3 and a sixteen-inch water main from the Glenview Townhomes and Bristol Square developments to the north. A sixteen-inch trunk water main is required to be extended north through the development (See City of Farmington water Supply and Distribution Plan). All water main shall be looped into the water distribution system. STORM SEWER . Trunk Storm Sewer ponding and plpmg shall be located at the northeast and northwest corner of the Development. . All storm ponds and storm systems shall have regulated outlet control structures. All storm facilities shall be designed in accordance to the City of Farmington Storm Water Management Plan. . It is staff s understanding that the Developer is exploring the option of locating a portion of the westerly pond north of CR 66, which could modify the configurations of the multi-family and park areas. Staffs initial review suggests that relocating a portion of the pond to the north is probably viable from a design standpoint. 3~al~ >lOV~V"Vl i i ~UI~ ~!l: ~r=2 ~~:) ~o~ III " ~ ! l 5 i . ; 2 ~dH j j ~ \ f I I I -z ~! I ~ I ';e-tt'i -... -~ _,,_ I . -:1SJM -]1116\'1 i "'1OO81'lV:l -",- .---.,: ----;Mi:- \ - _- _~..- -&v~""""">>r:,,,__:=::iii-;~ " Ii " '- <t: I- W .0 00U1 a .W -::)Z a:::n,:Z ~U:E U_ <{I- A a:::<{Z <t::E~ :EWe:" <t:IZ I-U- U1:E a::: <t: lL. r i I,i I I' It' I 1..1 . rl I I 11111' r' If I ! III Iii III II! I II!n!, ,~I:j! ! 'f"f,.rlll.l "I f.. f I' /' '" Itl I j'!'!,! Hi jI. ~ i i~!!l:1 il! fin I i 1.lff';I, JII' lIii I i Ill, I , ~/1f I I j-----., ('30\'" :rlVON3ddKl) ~ 'ON ......MHOIH lINl1liI. 31.ns , '1 ~ : i I! 1- I ~ ~S~i .~ II.. I ILl!''' r f ~ t ~ 1I ~ I ~ ~ t~ ~ n~iH ...'.. ~~ .. a::: _ , ..__4.<( .... _. / i a:.+i I r..... \ \ '\ \ \ '\ .- III 3::111 .U ili. ~Ig g~ !. ;j!!.~ ~illl:i i; ;i lH.i; l!l!u ~~n tt:l:1: ::lllil~ EiZ s.- ;i .,~'" Sf!; I;;; t:t :I:IlI I I ~___I , , .\~\ ,,\\l\..\ u \' '~1O \.- ... I B~. iJ~g-- \ : ~~~1~: '" \ ,,,,J ,"""Lii~, "i;t~il-\ '\ f ~ ty ',~ \ ~ \ \ " \~\' '-~::~~::~~{: .->\ '\ \, \ " 'I ~"___".______' .'" '''\ \ \ ~ \ \, ",,'" '''. I -- ~ .~!L~1. 1= -', .\", \ lV'I:J~rn'lO~--, ',,_ \ I!H '\ I ',I ..: 'I \ I ' (-;: c- co :z ~ ! . i I ~ '" ~ i >= 4: g ~ ... ~ 0 a: ts 4: ~ ~ ... i ~ ~ ... o <Il ~ ~ a. ci :;; ,,; u >= 4: 3 i!~ X !.J f: I I j I , I t J it J ;J I... 11 I~ I... n, -I~ <Il I! i!: II. III =I~ fl! J iii I "' r I li~; ii-I; :1 . . .., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ct.farmington.mn.us /oJ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Lee M, Mann, P,E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Ash Street Feasibility Report - Update DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION In the fall of 1999; the City Council of Farmington directed staff to coordinate with Castle Rock Township in producing an updated feasibility report regarding the Ash Street project. DISCUSSION The fieldwork necessary to produce the report was completed in December of 1999, The City's engineering consultant and staff have commenced work on the report. A coordination meeting was held with a representative of Castle Rock's engineering consultant on January 20. Further coordination with Castle Rock's engineer will be on-going. It is anticipated that a draft report will be ready to be brought to the City Council at the first Council meeting ~n April. BUDGET IMPACT None, ACTION REQUESTED For information only, Respectfully submitted, A--m~ Lee M. Mann, P ,E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us IOe-. TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Consider Resolution Adopting Dakota County/Cities 2000 Legislative Positions DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION The Dakota County/City Manager's Group has been working on the development of a legislative position paper for the 2000 Legislative Session, along with a more strategically focused approach to ensure that County and City positions are taken into consideration by our legislative representatives. DISCUSSION In review of past legislative sessions, Dakota County and the cities of Dakota County have expressed concern that county and city positions on a range of important issues are not being taken into consideration by legislative representatives. For example, issues include the repeal of state sales tax on government purchases, transportation funding, state aids, levy limits, state mandates and housing. In the past, the Dakota County League of Governments attempted to meet with and educate legislators on substantially similar local government concerns with limited success. This effort has been discontinued in light of disagreement over whether this approach has been meaningful and productive. In review of viable alternatives, a new approach has been discussed and approved by Dakota County/City Managers/Administrator Group relative to more effectively communicating, publicizing and monitoring local government legislative issues. This approach includes 1) the formulation and adoption of legislative positions by resolution of each local government jurisdiction; 2) the transmittal of Council resolutions and the accompanying legislative position papers to the City's legislative representatives, League of MN Cities and the Governor's Office; 3) publicizing legislative positions in the local City newsletter and website in an attempt to educate and involve citizens at the grassroots level by urging them to contact their legislative representatives; 4) the monitoring of how each legislator votes on these issues during the upcoming session, with the possibility of issuing a City Council "report card" on each legislator relative to their formally recorded support of local government. Finally, the City would then meet with the legislators on an annual or bi-annual basis to again review their record on the issues and build legislative support for local government issues. Each local government jurisdiction is free to decide for themselves the extent and manner of dialogue they will pursue with their legislative delegation. Senior County and City administrative staff from each jurisdiction has approved the attached legislative issues in terms of forwarding this information to their governing bodies for formal approval, ACTION REOUESTED Consider adoption of the attached resolution and 2000 Dakota County legislative positions. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DAKOTA COUNTY CITY AND COUNTY MANAGERS RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ISSUES FOR THE 2000 SESSION WHEREAS, Dakota County's City and County Managers / Administrators have an eleven year history of successful collaborations on wide range of important issues affecting local governance; and WHEREAS, these successful partnerships have benefited the citizens of Dakota County in providing cost- effective, high quality government services such as geographic information systems which support local decision-making and the sharing of essential criminal justice data between multiple jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, working together on legislative issues of common concern for local governments in Dakota County is a natural outgrowth of these ongoing collaborative efforts; and WHEREAS, Dakota County, as the State's third most populous county, is expected to add nearly 105,000 people by 2020, and will consequently be faced with a variety of social and economic challenges associated with an ever increasingly diverse and aging population; and WHEREAS, changes to existing law as may be considered by the State Legislature has a profound impact on local government services in the areas of taxes and revenues, cost of local government services, transportation funding, housing and state mandates; and WHEREAS, the commonality of interests between Dakota County and Cities in Dakota County suggest that a unified approach in legislative advocacy is essential to ensure that the needs of our current and future residents are met at the local level. NOW, mEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the City of Farmington hereby supports the 2000 Dakota County/Cities Legislative Position Paper and respectfully requests legislative support from their legislators in Dakota County in the upcoming legislative session. BE IT FURmER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Governor Jesse Ventura, and the Dakota County legislative delegation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City's legislative positions be communicated to the citizens of Farmington by all appropriate means. Adopted by the Farmington City Council this _day of 2000. Mayor ATTEST: Dakota County City and County Managers/Administrators Legislative Issues History of collaboration: Dakota County's city and county managers have met monthly for the past 11 years to work on matters of mutual concern. This collaboration has resulted in successful partnerships to share Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and criminal justice data, Working together on legislative issues of common concern for local governments in Dakota County is a natural outgrowth of the ongoing collaborative efforts of the city managers and county administrator. Background: As the State's third most populous county. the cities and county share a diverse population faced with social and economic challenges as we enter the 21 st century, Although the county's rate of growth is expected to slow over the next 25 years, Dakota County will add nearly 140,000 people between 1995 and 2020; only Hennepin County will add more people, The cities of Farmington, Rosemount and Lakeville will continue to lead this growth, more than doubling in population by 2020, Growth will permeate all aspects of life in Dakota County and its cities, Demographically, the County's profile in 2020 indicates that the senior population will more than double and racial and ethnic diversity will continue to change the face of the County, Congestion on county and city roadways will dramatically increase and commuting times will double without significant action on commuting alternatives, The City Managers and County Administrator of Dakota County have joined together to support the following policies and positions during the 2000 Legislative Session, THE ISSUES TAX AND REVENUE SYSTEM A strong and stable state tax system that provides adequate revenues without placing unacceptable burdens on City and County property taxes is essential. The current reliance on the property tax for funding County services is excessive, Service and funding responsibilities must be aligned, with state revenues directed to funding the delivery of state mandated services, City and county property taxes should provide for the delivery of services over which local elected officials have policy controls. 1. State Aids . HACA. Reductions in the Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) should not occur, unless reductions are part of a dollar-for dollar assumption of previous County expenditures by the State. . LGA Local Government (LGA) is a necessary, state-raised resource to supplement local property taxes, and avoid increasing reliance on property tax levies, The need to create an equitable funding distribution formula is important to the long-term viability of this state aid. . Other Aids, Criminal Justice, Community Corrections, Community Health and Community Social Services Aids should be increased, The gap between the County share of these program costs and the state share has widened, shifting costs to the County property tax levy, It is appropriate to link these increases to a measure of need for the aids, . Property Tax Administration, The property tax administration reimbursement for counties should become permanent. . Financing Reforms Financing reforms should continue, with priorities for continuing reforms in the funding of courts and income maintenance, Dakota County will monitor the development of plans for state assumption of court administration costs and evaluate the report of the Conference of Chief Judges to the Legislature (December, 2000), particularly with respect to definitions of costs to be assumed by the State of Minnesota and the timetable for the statewide assumption of court administration costs, 2. Levy Limits The Legislature should remove levy limits on local governments. The Dakota County experience under which the County and many cities have levied at less than the legislatively imposed limit in recent years demonstrates that such limits are not necessary to control spending, Looking ahead, low inflation rates and slowing population growth coupled with rising health care costs and program caseloads will make it increasingly difficult to maintain current services within the current levy limits, 3. Reverse Referendum Dakota County Cities and County Managers/Administrators oppose the imposition of a "reverse referendum- requirement. These requirements are unnecessary and unworkable, and undermine the basic precepts of representative democracy, 4. Limited Market Value The City and County managers strongly oppose further extension of artificial limits in valuing property at market for property taxation purposes, Limiting market value increases on existing property to a non-market index or set rate will cause various property tax system problems, Similar properties will be taxed differently if new or sold and improvements will be discouraged, The market, not a legislatively mandated one, should be the primary determinant in the assignment of housing values for property taxation purposes, SALES TAX ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES Dakota County and the Cities of Dakota County support full exemption from Minnesota Sales Tax on all purchases by local government. We believe that the state sales tax on local government is essentially a State imposed property tax, As the Legislature contemplates methods for property tax relief, elimination of this sales tax on local government would achieve two objectives, First, elimination of the sales tax on local government purchases would reduce the property tax burden on residential and commercial property owners who actually pay this tax as a "pass through" from local government. And secondly, preserving local government accountability for levies it actually imposes and uses for its own purposes versus acting as a collection arm for a disguised state government tax, It is estimated that state sales tax on local government purchases continues to be a tax burden on local property tax payers costing approximately $80 million in 2000 and $93 million in 2001, In addition, as there was no increase in state aids to cities and counties when the sales tax was imposed, there should be no corresponding reductions in state aids upon its repeal. Accordingly, this exemption must not be coupled with any reductions in Local Government Aid or HACA. STATE MANDATES The business community, state government and local governments have a mutual interest in reforming state mandates on local governments, Businesses pay a disproportionate share of the cost of any unfunded mandate because of the structure of Minnesota's property tax, Furthermore, their tax expense may exceed the direct benefit of mandated services, Local governments' efforts to minimize tax increases and provide services in the most cost-effective manner are frequently frustrated by state demands for a specific service and/or administrative procedure, The state seldom provides sufficient state aid to finance the service or procedure that it has mandated, including the cost of administration. The State of Minnesota relies heavily on the property tax for funding services for children and families, corrections, courts, and other public services. Because of the state's paramount interest in and control over these services, state revenue is more appropriate than the property tax for funding these services, Between 75% and 80% of the services delivered by the County are mandated by the state, but only 25% to 30% of the County's budget comes from state or other intergovernmental revenue, In 2000, state and other intergovernmental revenue will account for only 26% of the Dakota County operating budget. Additional mandates and costs should not be imposed on Dakota County or its cities without sufficient financial assistance to implement these mandates from the State of Minnesota, Specifically, no new mandates should be imposed on local government pending the completion and evaluation of the analysis being conducted by the Office of Legislative Auditor of state mandates, Above all else, the goal of mandate reform should be to insure that when state policy makers make a decision triggering a local expense, that they provide a means for financing that expense other than letting it fall by default on the local property tax, Linking the decision to provide a service with the responsibility to pay for that service is the only real way to assure accountability. In addition to mandate accountability, reform should achieve the following objectives: · Receal: Obsolete mandates should be repealed · Focus On Results: When imposed, new mandates should focus on results as opposed to process, Mandates should specify a desired outcome giving local governments flexibility to achieve that result in the most cost-effective manner, instead of dictating administrative process, Over time, existing mandates should be revised accordingly, · State Aid: State aid to finance mandates should be tied to the marginal cost of achieving a specific outcome. The state must accept the responsibility to fund the mandates it requires, · Fiscal Notes And Evaluation: The 1997 legislation requiring fiscal notes for all proposed mandates should be implemented in full, without exception and expanded to cover existing mandates, To improve the assessment of legislation that has the potential to impose unfunded mandates on local governments, the local impact note process should be strengthened, Specifically: The authority to request the preparation of a local impact note should be broadened to include requests of a Chair of a standing committee to which a bill is referred and the Chair of the House Ways and Means or the Senate Finance Committee. (Minnesota Statutes. Section 3,987 now provides for requests to be made by the Chair or Ranking Minority member of either the House or the Senate Tax Committee,) . . The local impact note process must be a priority within the Department of Finance, To facilitate the role of the Department in this process. adequate funding for this purpose should be provided to the Department and a reporting accountability for the process should be established with the Legislature, Where a local impact note has been requested, the budget/finance division or the tax committee to which the bill is referred should not be permitted to act on the measure if the local impact note has not been received and distributed in advance of the hearing, . TRANSPORTATION POLICY 1. County State Aid Highway Distribution Formula Equity should be restored to the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) distribution formula, More equitable results when measure by per capita. per vehicle mile, or per vehicle registered distributions should be pursued. 2. Transit The creation of a separate. dedicated source of funds for transit and related transit needs should be created, 3. Transitways A continued state commitment to the development of transit ways should be pursued. including the Hiawatha Corridor project with a terminus in northern Dakota County and its longer-term linkage to a Cedar Avenue Transit Way, 4. Commuter Rail Development Commuter rail development consistent with the findings of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's studies, should be evaluated further. This includes the potential development of commuter rail lines serving Dakota County's western and eastern borders, HOUSING Dakota County and its cities are encouraged by the efforts of the legislature regarding the production and preservation of affordable housing, The state of Minnesota should continue as a partner with local government in addressing hou~ing issues ~n our communities, In the spirit of thiS partnership: Cities should be acknowledged as the unit of government primarily responsible for the authority to regulate location. size, amount and type of housing within their boundaries, The state of Minnesota should encourage more affordable housing by providing financing assistance and incentives, including but not limited to sales tax exemptions for construction materials, Increased state funding for these incentives should not reduce existing programs, The Legislature should ex~and stat~, e~rts to provide resources for hOUSing. rehabilitation ~nd continue to increase funding the hOUSing preservation program for federally subsidized housing that could be converted to market rate housing. . . . ... ......-,:,.' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: John. F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: February 7, 2000 It is requested that the February 7, 2000 agenda be amended as follows: PETITIONS, REQUESTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS 10 (F) Consider Resolution - Retain Local Authority to Negotiate Award and Regulate Cable Television Franchises It is recommended that adoption of this resolution be tabled due to new information. Respectfully submitted, VL J F.Erar ity Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Consider Resolution - Retain Local Authority to Negotiate Award and Regulate Cable Television DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION Recent legislative information brought to the City's attention on this issue suggests that the City Council should table the resolution. DISCUSSION At the League of Minnesota Cities Legislative Conference held on Thursday, February 3, 2000, Assistant Commissioner of Commerce Tony Mendoza indicated that a number of changes to the Governor's telecommunications restructuring plan are currently being contemplated. Consequently, issues raised by MACT A that were included in the Council Agenda are expected to be addressed in the next several weeks, It appears that these issues are attracting considerable debate by both cities and companies that would be affected by the state's plans. In addition, League staff suggested that with respect to Senator Kelly's efforts on telecommunications restructuring that it was highly doubtful that any meaningful changes would take place this legislative session. It would appear that cities should continue to monitor developments during the session prior to adoption of any official City position on telecommunications restructuring. Given the rapid developments associated with this public policy issue, my office will continue to monitor these issues closely and report any new developments to Council. ACTION REOUESTED Council is respectfully requested to delay any action on the adoption of the resolution regarding telecommunications restructuring. file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /O-f TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Consider Resolution - Retaining Local Authority to Negotiate, Award and Regulate Cable TV Franchises DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION The Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators, (MACTA) is a group of city officials and staff, organized to speak on behalf of cities on a variety of telecommunications issues. MACT A was formed to proactively address issues that impact cable television and franchise development. MACT A has evolved into an advocacy organization to help shape the rapidly changing telecommunications landscape as it affects cities. MACT A also is a state chapter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. MACT A is requesting that cities consider the adoption of a resolution objecting to state efforts to diminish the authority of the local government to negotiate, award and regulate cable franchises, and calling for local government involvement in any telecommunications restructuring plans that would affect existing regulatory controls. DISCUSSION MACT A's Legislative goals generally focus on the following: . Ensure local governments have a voice and a place at the policy-making table. . Serve as a resource of accurate information for public officials when they are making policy decisions in telecommunications. . Work creatively with all those involved to resolve issues facing the telecommunications industry. . Create a level playing field, treating all service and technology providers in an equitable, non-discriminatory manner while insuring compensation for public rights-of-way and the provision of PEG access. Attached, please find additional information from MACT A on advocated local government positions regarding Telecommunications Restructuring. Under two separate legislative plans, local government authority to negotiate, award and regulate cable television franchises would be significantly altered. Under Senator Steven Kelly's (DFL) legislative proposal, cities would be impacted in the following ways. . Elimination of Local Franchising Authority . The elimination and termination of existing Franchising contracts . Combine Cable and Telephone Regulation . Loss of Public-Educational-Government (PEG) funding for cities, and instead commit these revenues into a Universal Service Fund . Loss of Local Franchise Fees, and instead provide for rebates based on resident census and subject to state approval of local budgeting on telecom activities Under Governor Ventura's proposal, labeled the "Big Plan" by the Ventura administration, there are 19 recommendations of which the majority would significantly diminish local government authority. They include: . Cable Franchising and review of Franchise Transfers given to Minnesota Public Utility Commission (MPUC) . Cities would have to submit local budgets on PEG fee expenditures to MPUC for approval . MPUC would have authority to reduce number of public channels and return them to cable companies . $1,000,000 per year of local PEG fees dedicated to statewide multi-media campaign to promote PEG access programming (funding would come from local PEG fees) . State regulatory costs would come from existing City franchising fees, and consequently would reduce City franchise revenues, eliminate local regulation and expand state bureaucracies. The use of local franchising fees to support state regulatory action would be completely at the state's discretion. . There are some beneficial aspects of the Governor's proposal to cities, but, in general, changes as proposed would negatively impact local authority Both proposals suggest a number of negative implications for local government control and regulation of cable television services, as well as expanding telecommunication services yet to be provided. BUDGET IMPACT The potential loss of franchise fees and PEG fees will reduce existing special revenue streams thereby threatening City plans for on-going local government programming activities. Presently, City public communication efforts are funded entirely through this source of telecommunications revenues and support a variety of related service activities. For example, funding for audio-visual services to support the telecasting of public meetings will be underwritten by cable franchise revenues and PEG fees. ACTION REOUESTED Consider adoption of the attached resolution supporting local authority to negotiate, award and regulate cable television franchising agreements. RespectfuT~ I~Em ~; rdministrator Attachments RESOLUTION NO. R_ -00 RETAIN LOCAL AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE AWARD AND REGULATE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCmSES Pmsuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 7th day of February 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has been granted the legal authority to negotiate, award and regulate cable television franchises under both federal statute Title 6 and Minnesota State statute Chapter 238; and, WHEREAS, the City of Farmington accepted the responsibility that comes with the awarding of the cable television franchise, including ensuring that the cable company meets the identified needs of the community such as community television and institutional networks and by serving as a local resource to resolving customer service issues and customer complaints; and, WHEREAS, state legislation has been proposed that would repeal Chapter 238 and revoke the City's authority to award a cable television franchise, eliminate the City as a local resource to its citizens for resolving customer service issues and customer complaints, and remove the City's ability to receive direct support for community television and other provisions that meet community needs; and, WHEREAS, it has not been demonstrated that local governments' role in cable franchising impedes in any manner the ability of cable and telecommunications companies to build infrastructure or to offer full and competitive services; and, WHEREAS, while the City of Farmington acknowledges the regulatory challenge of addressing the convergence of voice, video and data services, local governments are essential to any legislative discourse in this area and must retain authority to ensure continued local support for its community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the City of Farmington must retain its authority to define and meet local community telecommunications needs through the franchising of companies that provide cable television services or otherwise and that it further asserts its Constitutional rights to retain its local authority to enter into contracts to serve its community; 2. That any plan for telecommunications restructuring in Minnesota should continue to provide the City of Farmington with stable and undiminished funding, through franchise fees, in- kind services and grants for community television (PEG access) and institutional networks, in order to meet local telecommunications service needs and interests; 3. That any plan for telecommunications restructuring in Minnesota should be consistent with federal law; and, 4. That any plan for telecommunication restructuring in Minnesota should expressly provide authority for local governments to build and operate their own telecommunications networks to provide their citizens with advanced and competitive telecommunications services. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of February 2000. Mayor Attested to the day of 2000. City Administrator SEAL mg~~g Rosewood Office Plaza 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300N Roseville, MN 55113-4036 MINNESOTE ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADMINISTRATORS THE MiNNESOTA CHAPTER OF NA TOAIT HE NATIONAL AsSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS ANO AoVISORS Telephone Fax: E-mail: Website: (651) 635-0306 (651) 635-0307 oei@mn.state.net www.mtn.org/-macta MACT A Telecommunications Restructuring Position 1. MN telecommunications restructuring should retain local authority to define and meet local community telecommunications needs. MA CT A is opposed to any telecommunications restructuring that does not maintain sufficient local control and authority through franchising or otherwise, to allow local government units to define and meet local community telecommunications service needs and interests, including the provision of com- munity television channels and services (PEG access) and institutional networks. MACT A supports the establishment of consistent minimum standards for the provision of cable televi- sion service in the areas of customer service, network capacity and performance, community television (PEG access) alld institutional networks so that cities in Greater Minnesota can receive an equivalent level of cable television service as cities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 2. Restructuring should continue to provide stable and undiminished funding at the local level to meet local telecommunications service needs and interests. MACT A is opposed to any telecommunications restructuring legislation that would eliminate, reduce, or shift existing cable television services revenues collected at the local level to the state. These revenues include franchise fees, in- kind services, and grants for community television (pEG access) and institutional networks. These existing revenues are used to fund defined community telecommunications service needs and interests, including the provision of community television services (pEG access) and institutional networks. Implementation recommendations for Positions 1 and 2: a. Leave existing cable television franchises in place to be enforced at the local level until they expire. Those cities with existing cable television franchises may opt at any time to have the MPUC assume authority for enforcement of their franchises. Leaving existing cable television franchises in place will ensure the survival of community television (PEG access) because franchise fees, commitments for in-kind services (i.e., commu- nity channels, institututional networks and free cable drops at public facilities), and grants for community television (PEG access) and institututional network support would then not be disturbed. MACTA Telecommunications Restructuring Position Page 2. b. Cities who are in the 3-year cable franchise renewal window at the time legislation goes into effect may continue to negotiate the renewal of and enforce their franchise or they may request that the MPUC negotiate a cable television franchise on their behalf. Any renewed cable television franchise must be based on identified community needs. Any rules for cable television franchising that are adopted by the MPUC should be consistent with current federal law. 3. Restructuring should be consistent with federal law. MA CT A supports legislation to codify portions of the federal cable television law so that uniform stan- dards will apply consistently throughout the State of Minnesota. 4. Restructuring should expressly provide authority for local governments to build and oper- ate their own telecommunications networks to provide their citizens with advanced and com- petitive telecommunicaiions services. MACTA supports telecommunications legislation that expressly authorizes and empowers local govern- ments in building and operating their own telecommunications infrastructure to meet community-based needs and interests, including economic development, telemedicine, and education. Rec Dated: January 28, 2000 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us /O-.J TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Gambling Event Permit - Waiver of Fees DATE: February 7,2000 INTRODUCTION The Dakota Valley Arts Council is requesting a Gambling Event Permit for a TV raftle to be held at the Farmington Eagles Club. DISCUSSION Per State Statute 349.166 and pertinent City Code, a Gambling Permit must be issued by the City for this type of event. The DV AC is requesting the City's permit fee of $1 00 be waived as it is the state's policy to waive their fees when the total market value of the raffle items does not exceed $750 per year. Attached is a letter received from the DV AC explaining their request. The City Attorney has reviewed the application and the attached resolution approving the request. BUDGET IMPACT Funding was not anticipated, therefore there will be no budget impact. ACTION REOUESTED Consider waiving the fees and adopting the attached Resolution granting a Gambling Event Permit to the Dakota Valley Arts Council at the Farmington Eagle's Club, 200 3rd Street, on March 23, 2000. Respectfully submitted, ~I C::;)-L .. o.--u2-~ ~~..) , ~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager RESOLUTION NO. R -00 APPROVING A MINNESOT A LAWFUL GAMBLING EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR DAKOTA VALLEY ARTS COUNCIL Pmsuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 7th day of February 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, pmsuant to M.S. 349.166 and the Farmington City Code, the City Council must approve all gambling activities within the City; and, WHEREAS, Dakota Valley Arts Council has submitted an apflication for a Gambling Event Permit to be conducted at the Farmington Eagle's Club, 200 3r Street, for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling Event Permit for Dakota Valley Arts Council to be conducted at the Farmington Eagle's Club, 200 3rd Street is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 7th day of February 2000. Mayor Attested to the day of 2000. City Administrator SEAL 2000 Board of Directors: Carolyn Pafke Presiden Sandra Tharaldson Vice President Diane Sowieja Treasurer Nancy Salinas Secretary GelT)' Drewry Communications Mona Ostroot Membership Tom Kaldunski Heart of the Beast Project Coordinator 11 n of DVAC: to encourace arts creativity, skills, public exposure, and appreciation of all art forms. ?:)ttkottt Vttllel( A'ltg (!,OUhcil 508 \lhitd Stteet ;fatmin'jton, /I1innesota, 55024 January 21. 2000 Farmington City Council City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Mn. 55024 Dear Council Members: The Dakota Valley Arts Council is planning to raffle a $250 television set at a get-together at the Eagle's Club in March for a fund-raiser. This raffle is being conducted to earn money for community betterment through the arts. This is the first raffle we have ever done. In contacting the state, they advised checking with city regulations as well. We did this because we want to operate in a legal manner. The state is waiving fees because the total market value of the raffle items does not exceed $750 per year. This is a chance drawing by donation. We understand a $100 fee is required by the city of Farmington, and request that it be waived because it is almost half again as much as the raffle item itself. It seems excessive for the amount we are investing. On behalf of all the small organizations in the city, we sugest a change in city raffle ordinances so that waivers similar to the State of Minnesota can be made by the City of Farmington. This will encourage people to operate under your ordinances and bring equity to small fund-raising efforts. Sincerely, e~t- {~~~ Cji2;kZde~t D. S" T ~ lane oWleJa, reasurer City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us //a, TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Authorize Request for Proposal- AudioNisual System DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION Staff is seeking authorization to solicit Requests for Proposal (RFP) for audio/visual design services, equipment recommendation and installation of Multi-Media presentation and telecast system for the City Council Chambers. Mark Moore, Cable Coordinator for the Cities of Apple Valley, Farmington and Rosemount will be introduced to Council at this evening's meeting. DISCUSSION As a result of the Cable Franchise Agreement, the City has telecommunications funds that may be used for capital equipment acquisitions and physical enhancements to the Council Chambers for purposes relating to the public telecast of government programming. This RFP will seek out vendors to provide services for the design review of an audio visual system as required for cable telecasting. In addition, the City will begin construction of the master control room that will be located in the Council chamber entryway. Mr. Moore will be available at the meeting to answer any questions regarding the audio/visual system. BUDGET IMPACT The costs associated with this project are eligible expenditures ofthe previously received grant. As there will be a variety of system options available, a budget will be established within the parameters of available funding. ACTION REOUESTED Authorize the transmittal of a Request for Proposal for the design review, acquisition of equipment and installation of an AudioNisual system in Council Chambers, and further to authorize the advertisement calling for competitive bids. Respectfully submitted, c~g~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager MULTI-MEDIA PRESENTATION AND TELECAST SYSTEM: DESIGN REVIEW, EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, AND INSTALLATION REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL City of Farmington State of Minnesota For Use in Public Meetings Presentations and Telecasts. February 7, 2000 GENERAL INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS Purpose The purpose of this Request For Proposal (RFP) is to provide interested firms with sufficient information to prepare and submit qualifications for consideration by the City of Farmington, Minnesota, to provide design review, equipment, and installations as required for multi-media presentations and cable telecasting. The meetings to be telecast will take place in the existing Council Chambers of the Farmington City Hall at 325 Oak Street. Issuine: Office This RFP is issued by the City of Farmington Administrative Department, Farmington, Minnesota. Questions regarding this RFP may be directed to Mr. Mark Moore, Cable Coordinator, telephone number (612) 953-2502. Proiect Statement The City of Farmington proposes an audio visual system as required for cable telecasting and multi-media presentations, which may be adequate to be used at another location should Council Chambers be moved to a larger facility at some future date. Services Required The proposal submitted will be requested to provide the following basic services: 1. Consult with staff to review the included design, equipment list, projected method of operation, and budget. 2. Consult with staff to review and analyze the new system encompassing areas of audiovisual presentation and telecast systems. 3. Develop an outline of proposed new systems. Review the proposed systems with the owner prior to proceeding with the detailed specifications. 4. Develop an estimate of the probable costs associated with the system purchase, installation, and documentation, including work scope. 5. Provide product and equipment demonstrations and inspection as requested. Reiection of Proposals The City of Farmington reserves the right to reject all proposals received as a result of this RFP, or to negotiate separately with any other source what so ever in any manner necessary to serve it's best interest. This RFP is issued for information and planning purposes only. The City of Farmington does not intend to award a contract solely on the basis of responses to this request, or otherwise pay, for the information, solicited, or obtained, prior to the execution of a Contract. Addenda to the RFP Included with this RFP is the system design Block Diagram, Equipment List, and Meeting Room and Control Room Floor Plan. In the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, an Addenda will be provided to all parties who have received the base RFP. Response Date and Receivine: Office To be considered, five (5) copies of the proposal must be submitted to the issuing office on or before March 13,2000 at 4:30 p.m. Fax responses will not be accepted. The following information must be submitted in the order and format presented below. If you would like to submit information which is not required, please include it as item 5. 1. Company background information . Name of Firm . Location of principal and branch offices . Length of time in business . Firm ownership structure 2. Experience . List projects in which the firm and individuals have served as an audio visual consultant during the past three years. For each project list: a. Project name and address b. Year started and completed c. Type of project d. Actual cost e. Owner 3. Fees . Identify the fees. Separate the fees for the design review, equipment, and installation costs. 4. Approach . Based upon information contained in this Request for Proposal, prepare a preliminary work plan identifying the specific tasks necessary to accomplish the objectives. . Detail, in a simple and straightforward manner, the outcome proposed. 5. Schedule . Include a schedule for completion. Projected Television Equipment List Farmington City Hall VIDEO Sources: . Four (4) Color Television Cameras with Genlock capability. . Option of one (1) additional camera for use in a static wide shot. . Four (4) PanlTilt systems for cameras. . One (1) Camera Control System for zoom, focus, pan, and tilt; with preset capability. . One (1) Document Camera: either an overhead mounted, or a copy-stand configuration - To Be Determined. . One (1) Pentium class computer for character generation with a Genlock capable video card - TBD. . Character Generatorffitles and Graphics software for CG computer - TBD. . One (1) LCD ComputerNideo Projector. . One (1) RGB to NTSC Scan Converter with Genlock capability. . One (1) VHSIS-VHS Videocassette PlayerlRecorder. . One (1) Time Base CorrectorlFrame Synchronizer with Genlock capability. Signal Distribution: . One (1) Production Switcher with the following capabilities - eight (8) video inputs, Key inputs, Sync or Blackburst output, additional TBD. . Two (2) S- VHS Videocassette RecorderlPlayers. . One (1) Program Monitor - 9". . One (1) Preview Monitor - 9". . Two (2) Quad-Four Black & White Monitors. . Distribution Amplifiers to four video destinations and seven sync destinations - TBD. . One (1) Television TunerlMonitor for cable telecast verification. . Rack Furniture and hardware - one or two bay TBD (for Master Control). AUDIO . Eight (8) to ten (10) Microphones with stands and/or mounting bases (for CC meeting room reinforcement). . One (12) twelve channel Automixer (for CC meeting room reinforcement). . One (1) Power Amp - configuration TBD (for CC meeting room reinforcement). . One (1) SpeakerlReproduction System - TBD (for CC meeting room reinforcement). . Media Output Panel with multiple connection configuration - TBD . One (1) six to eight channel mixer (for Master Control). . One (1) Distribution Amplifier to at least four destinations (for Master Control), and to Media Output Panel. . One (1) Stereo CompressorlLimiter (for Master Control). . One (1) Dual Transport Cassette Recorder (for Master Control). ADDITIONALINOT VENDER SUPPLIED . One (1) Television Modulator and RF Signal Splitter. . One (1) Laptop Presentation Computer. D " D '" -0 <~E~~ Q C'~ ~~ .... D 'l -om '" D " (/) I '" I '" --I (/) D IJ>J> L J>r'! ,., J> -0 n ~ /OZCI .... --II 'l 0 D '" Ctj-O Vl 'lr'! 'l D I I tJ::j 0 n '" 56< -0 J> f---i ,., (/) I ,., '"0 n Z --I I r'! ,.,c ~J> J> r'! ",x I ",., --I D ru ~ t5 tJ::j O? '" r'! I c ~ I x tj r'! c; J> D -< -0 D CI J> /0 J> CI r'! /otJ::j 0/0 Or'! ~J> A ~n J>O IZ An .... cg n " " " x ,., X ".... Vl 0 X Vl,., .... " ",0 ....r 0 ~ \I> ,,< ,.,,., '" I n" "'< " ^'" n- C> ~ '" Vlr 0:2 ,., (Q ;0 ,., Zo ,., ....Z n '" .... 0 0 r '" 21'-11' ~~ 8'-9' II ;U '" /0 r'! J>n'l /Or'!/O r'!-oO J>--IZ f---i--l o Z tJ::j ~ J> r'! --I Z I (/) /0 o o ~ n A f---i --I n I r'! Z 'l C /0 /0 o Z o J> ~ n r'! (/,) ~ U 0 > <[ > (LU Z W (}:: 0<[ /' 0 f- f-"- W ~ (La:: L:J <[ I--< (:Q f- LL <[~ <[ f- Z <[ I "" --'z (La:: (/,) <[ 0 z (L DO I--< > W f- I f-f- (}:: f- f- =:l a:: (LVl W Z 0 L 0 U a:: <[ <[ L 0- > w --,W (:Q W f- >- f- --' L (/,) I--< Za:: "" (/,) =:l <[ <[w <[ <[ W C5 ~ U> U I (}:: VlZ 0 W 0 U 0- u 0 Q :3 a:: (}:: W 0 Z 0 ): f- B Uz "- a:: a:: a:: Z U U W W f- Wo z(}:: > > x a:: 0 U a:: a:::::J (}::I--< 00 i: (L ~ :::J W W(L 0 0 0 I iSU /'f- I--<f- 0 U (}::<[f-U a:: a:: B a:: f- f-Z 0 0 ~ (L 54' o(}::<[w U U 0 a:: :3 ~ W W ::J <[ 0 0 Vl Vl~ f-Wf-(}:: a:: a:: <[ a:: f- W 0 uO-(/,)1--< L:J Z 0 (}:: 0 wo Q a:: 0 > 0 f- (}:: '-/ (L ~ Z I--< 0 Q U (}:: W f- (/,) <[ L - .os ~ .. .21 ~ - .1>2 .. Z 0 I--< (/,) > W ~ 1 w ~ o ~ 0 f- w~gj I W --'Wf- (/,) ~ ""f-~ <[VlZ 0<[ ~ (:Q Z "- a:: u>-o ~ ~a::a:: a:: U <[ 0 Z lfl 0 Vl~ C') <[ f- VI 0- f- U iilw W :::J ~ <[ U I--< 0 <[ <[ --' (L (}:: f- I--< 0 './) --' I >-0 a:: --' U 0 /' <[ f- (\J :::J f- L.:J c-- ~ ~W~ W 0 <[ ~ 0 <[Z--' L.:J ~~ ~ a:: 0 > (}:: <[ L 0 (LID <!: f- ci /' (}:: W f- <[ ~ zug: U L:J U Z <!: w OU8 0 0- (/,) U a:::~z 00 U L 0 '-/ ::J:3o 0 <[ ~V)u U a:: Ad to be run in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune and the Farmington Independent. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Farmington is requesting proposals to provide the necessary equipment and installation for an audio visual presentation and cable telecast system that will meet the objectives of the existing design. The meetings to be telecast will take place in the existing Council Chambers of the Farmington City Hall. The proposals must be submitted in a specific order and format which may be obtained from Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager (651) 463-1802. All Proposals must be submitted to the City of Farmington, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, March 13,2000. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us II/; TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: CSAH 31 Fence Project - Update DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION In 1997 and early 1998 before the construction of the CSAH 31 project began, the City indicated to the residents in attendance at the public hearings and neighborhood meetings that the City would be willing to look at doing a fence project along CSAH 31, depending on the level of resident interest. Project costs of any fence installed would be the responsibility of the benefiting property owners. At that time, there was little interest indicated for such a project. In September 1999, staff received numerous calls from residents that live along CSAH 31 indicating an interest in a fence project. Based on the apparent resident interest, Council directed staff to hold a neighborhood meeting with interested residents to deteimine if the residents wish to petition the Council to initiate a fence project. DISCUSSION Staff contacted the owners of property abutting CSAH 31 and held a neighborhood meeting to ascertain the level of interest in a fence project. At this time, nine (9) property owners have indicated interest in a fence project (see attached map for property locations). These properties have a total of approximately lIOO-feet of frontage along CSAH 31 that would be eligible for the fence project. Staffs preliminary research into the costs of the project indicate that the estimated construction cost for 1100-feet of privacy fence (cedar, solid, 6-foot high) at $27.50 per- foot would be approximately $30,300 (which includes a 10% contingency). Since this amount is over $25,000, the project would have to be put out for formal bids. The legal, engineering and administrative costs for the project could add approximately $8,200 to the cost of the project, for a total of$38,500 or $35.00 per-foot offence. The cost to a property that installed a 100-foot section of fence as part of a City project would be approximately $3,500, $750 of which would be due to the City's legal, engineering and administrative costs. That amount assessed to the property over a 5-year period at 6.5% would result in a yearly payment of $840 for a total cost of $4,200. The total cost to the homeowner for a 100- foot fence based on the quotation staff received if the homeowner contracted the work privately would be $2,750. Based on the relatively few property owners interested in the project and the associated costs if the City were to administer the project, it would appear that it is more cost effective for the residents to contract individually for fencing along CSAH 31. BUDGET IMP ACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Council consideration whether to initiate or discontinue the CSAH 31 Fence Project. Respectfully submitted, ~Yt1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Neighborhood meeting attendees IDIOIIII=J ~n I UIILJ ~~ t. C:tttttttttj :: I I ~(T'f~LJ 11,::/ I D:HfHHIIJ ':: ~t==W III11 11/ ~ - = I( :-- =--~ U I I 11U LJ~M~ m 8ffiHffiE == I L_ 1 I \U I I I J 111"11"11 DIIIIIIIJTl = \\ 1'1' ,.....1'... UWJJIIID = [ - 11III111 ~)~ \ ~ L f-- ~ I--- ~~( TTTl llirHttrrttJ n \ '\ I' r-- f!l<TITTl I I I =-- JitJD; ,- ~ ~~~r:-rrm~~tf , ~~ &[0 r-- - \\ Y ~ ~ ~'/~ ~ Ilt= /f't~ 1Il1t:: )/\ ~ ~ I n~nD\\ fl \.------- \ f--- r-- ~' If I r-- 0IITIJll ~ l ~~, ~ r-- I 1?r3 . i >/ l\"= =~:rll( T ~y~~ I ~\i ~ ~ JJLCLQ ~ I I / \ I, I I~: ~I~ 1 ~!\lL I If f:S1Tll i--~ ,n \\~- Q1lr\~ ~ ~ -----\1 \ - ')\ --\\ H!HlH@ e--r H ~\ - ~ ~ ---I' ~ it:! r-~~=}) ~ '----------- ,------\ N ::j ~~ I == ~ J I ::=\' .-':/ - . ---II ~---4 ~ l=~ I \ '---- I I 1~~ c.------i, f-- f-- IT I / / ~____ ~lrI I I~ 'Ll-::::' ~~ IT \ /\ I!~ ,,~ \ \ \ \ ~,)~ft\\ \ I, \ I, ~ PI. L ffR;\Ir Y::?l:~ ~ - '\ ~~ 11/ IT \ \ \ \ \ \1 \ \ f7~ ~ r~.-.PAYJ \ \L~_ l ~________ I" ,-- f-- - 1 ~,--\ r---_I! ~~ 'f-- f-- ~ = /I~ -II \ V /'------- ~1\ln/\, III V ~ ---. - ~ DIIIIIIIIIJ I ~v r / ~ ~~~~~ I I ~ - ;; 1.- == rt, I---- f-- . ./ 1,-- f-- / y 4-- f-- \~4-- ~ -~ -=~ f-- '------- c.::= cocnCOOOONNO N~(<)(<)I.OI.O..........CO .....CO.....CONN..........CO cncocococncncococo It' I I I I I I o..~~~~~~~~~ -000000000 N 1.0 1.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.0 01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.0 ZZZZZZZZZ :2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2 ZZZZZZZZZ 000000000 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1- I-(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)(!) ooZZZZZZZZZ ~:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E:E ,,0:::0:::0:::0:::0:::0:::0:::0:::0::: 0'""' <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL >- ~ I-OW :c:cW >-UO>WWI-I-> <(WO<(~~<(<(<{ $:US:C o..o..:c Z...JooWWOOOO Q<(W~~~~~~ ...J:C(!)(!)I-I-UU(!) .....QZZZoooo::>::>Z o:::~WWWWWWWW OWI.OCO.....COCONCO(<) OOCOI.O~N(<)OOCO <((<)cocnl.O..-'-.....~~O 0:2~~~~~~~~ W :2 <( Z LL o ..., 00 >- 0::: <( :2 W :2 <( Z ...J o ..., o <( I- 00 (!) 0::: W CO Z o S2 ~ ;1iz ~ (!) :c<( N:c N 0::: oo~I-~U(UO:::O~ :200>-::>jjJ...JW<(W W...J :c 0::: CO I- Z:C:CU""<(~OOW -U...JOO!!!LL>-(!)Z t)OOW<(O::::2o:::o:::::5 o:::WS2>-~>-<(~w :c~U:2<(:2:2 :2 wuZ5<(><(~S~ :2~~~~~~S>-O::: <(o..~:2S(!)(!)z~z ~z...Jwzoo<(oz ...J:C O:::...J:C <(o>-<(W ::>0<(<(0:c00:::0:::...J LL...,WO...,UI-COCO(!) :2 W W ..., ~ W Z ...J W Z ~ !!!<(OC:2& ::5 -W~>-~>-<( ~~U:2<(:2:2 ~ uZ5<(><(~S~ w~~~~~~S>-O::: :2o..~:2S(!)(!)z~z <(Z...JWZOO<(OZ Z:c O:::...J:C <(o>-<(W ~QLi5~Q5~~~a z <( W ~ ~ :2 0 ...J <(<(...JI-::>...... zw:co>-:c~ ...J:CU U~ Ooooo:coow .......... (<)N CO 00000 00000 .....N(<)Ncn 0.....000 zg~g~g a:: ~ 01.0 01.0 CO CO >< ~, CO 1.0 <(1'-1.0 1.0 LON I-~~~~~ S20Z 00<(0 >- 1-00 WZOO::> ...IN(!)(!) 0:::0:::0:::0::: <(WWW LLCOCOLL CO ..... ..... N 0000 0000 Ol'-COCO ..... 0 0 0 000(<) 0001.0 CO CO CO..... 1.01.01.0..... NNN..... ~~~~ ~ T""" T""" T""" N(<)~I.OCOl'-cocn - - City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.fannington.mn.us //~ TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Akin Road Turnback - Schedule Council Workshop Date DATE: February 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION As Council is aware, the need to schedule a workshop to discuss recent County transportation issues associated with the turnback of Akin Road have been raised. As the issues raised by Dakota County will have substantial long-term policy and funding implications for the City, the Council may wish to dedicate an evening's meeting to further examine the County's arguments and formulate a legislative response. DISCUSSION Council policy states that the third Wednesday of each month be reserved for workshops, except in such cases where a majority of Council determine another appropriate date. Accordingly, unless scheduling conflicts suggest otherwise, Wednesday, February 16,2000 at 7:00 p.m. could be scheduled for this purpose. ACTION REOUESTED Approve scheduling Wednesday, February 16,2000 for a Council Workshop to discuss Akin Road turnback issues raised by Dakota County. ~:mitted, Ihn F. Erar file