The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12.06.99 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR December 6, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) StaffIntroduction - Police Department 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open/or Audience Comments) a) Seasonal Parking Restrictions - Resident Concerns b) Street Name Change - Resident Concerns c) Traffic Concerns - Akin Road 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (11/15/99) (Regular) (11116/99) (Special) b) Various City License Renewals c) Adopt Resolution - Approve Tree City USA Application d) Appointment Recommendation - Police Department e) Capital Outlay - Fire Department f) Approve Autumn Glen Plat Extension g) Approve Meals-On- Wheels Contract - CAP h) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Truth in Taxation Hearing b) Adopt Resolution - Cameron Woods Easement Vacation c) John Tschohl - Planning Commission Decision Appeal 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Ordinance - Rezoning Property for Farmington Lutheran Church b) Water Use Restrictions - Water Board Communication 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2. NEW BUSINESS a) Acknowledge Interim Maintenance Services - Akin Road 13. COUNCILROUNDTABLE Action Taken 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Progress Land Company 5. 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, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police FROM: SUBJECT: Oath of Office Officer James Constantineau DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION Officer Constantineau was hired by the City of Farmington as a full time police officer on November 22, 1999. He will be introduced to Council and take his Oath of Office at the Council meeting. ACTION REQUESTED The City Administrator will administer the Oath of Office. Respectfully submitted, Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police FARMINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT I, James Constantineau, 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 James Constantineau John Erar, City Administrator Date December 6. 1999 December 6. 1999 Chief of Police Daniel M. Siebenaler City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police TO: SUBJECT: Seasonal Parking Restriction Citizen concerns DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION With Council adoption of the new Seasonal Parking Restriction ordinance, staff was assigned to respond to citizen concerns and to work with residents in an attempt to resolve any parking issues. Staff has received questions from six citizens and has attempted to resolve parking concerns. A synopsis of those responses is provided here for Council review. DISCUSSION Marian Carlson, resident manager, Spruce Place Apartments, 300 Spruce St. . Ms. Carlson was concerned about the lack of off street parking for the tenants at Spruce Place. At the present time two residents must park on the street. Staff checked the area and offered the possible alternative of expanding the off street parking along the alley on the south side of the property. Ms. Carlson stated the owners were considering this option for Spring construction and that she would approach them about earlier construction. Dawn Johnson, 5108 192nd St. . Ms Johnson supports the concept of the no parking plan but asked the Council to consider changing it to an odd-even system when there is a plowable snow. It was explained that a review of odd-even systems revealed that they did not work well relative to achieving maximum efficiency in snowplowing operations. In addition, parking restrictions based on snowfall are difficult to manage due to the occurrence of snow after normal sleep hours. Ms. Johnson also asked that the Council consider the possibility of issuing temporary parking permits for overnight guests where there is no alternative parking available. Daniel Miller, 515 Elm St. . Mr. Miller expressed his concern that there was insufficient off street parking available at the apartment building. I explained the City Zoning Code requiring off street parking for apartment buildings. I also explained that there were 24 parking spots and asked about the current use of the garages. A review of the area overnight showed that the parking lot was under utilized and that most people parked on the street. I also spoke with the apartment managers and learned that when the apartment property was split from the adjoining dentist office two of the garages were included in the sale leaving only 22 off street parking spots for the residents. They also acknowledged that two of the residents didn't have vehicles which also reduced the parking load. Mr. Miller indicated that this was a short term problem for he and his wife since they were moving soon but was concerned about the effect of this ordinance on apartment residents in general. Lynn Dilley, 403 Division St. . Mr. Dilley was concerned about the late adoption of the ordinance. He stated that he intended to comply with the ordinance and wanted advice on the placement of a curb cut on the Oak St side of his property. The City Engineer and the Police Chief met with Mr. Dilley on his property and concurred with the future curb cut location. Mr. Dilley stated he would be unable to complete the work before snowfall and asked for an exemption from the ordinance. Staff suggested that he use the space directly adjacent to his existing driveway as an interim parking area for this season. Although it appears to be a workable temporary solution to staff, Mr. Dilley was not satisfied with that arrangement. Gale Sprute, 11 Oak St. . Mr. Sprute stated his intention to follow the new ordinance and that he would be installing a curb cut to allow for a new off street parking area to serve his house. He asked if he would be allowed to drive over the existing curb for this season to determine if the location he chose was suitable. He was informed that that option was acceptable. He was also concerned about overnight guests for this holiday season. I informed him that for this year parking would not be a problem due to the current courtesy warnings until January. Scott Alexander, 18025 Emerald Trail . Mr. Alexander wanted to express his concern about the new ordinance. He stated that he considered it a "heavy handed" action to ticket and tow vehicles and that people should be allowed to move cars after the snowfall. I explained that the purpose of the new ordinance in conjunction with new equipment was intended to make snowplowing more efficient and that waiting until after the snowfall would actually make the plowing less efficient than it had been in the past. I also explained that residents were being issued educational courtesy warnings for 6 weeks and that no towing would be done under the new ordinance until January 1,2000. Mr. Alexander stated he understood the need but was frustrated that more information was not made available to the public prior to Council adoption of the Ordinance. Staff explained that the topic was publicized prior to a Council workshop and that it was publicized again prior to its adoption at a regular Council meeting. Mr. Alexander remained dissatisfied and was advised of his right to attend a Council meeting to voice his concerns directly to the Council. Several residents expressed their desire to express their concerns directly to the City Council and were advised of the meeting date and time. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. Staff will monitor specific parking issues to determine the need for temporary overnight permits as requested by several residents. For example, overnight guests with multiple vehicles and insufficient off-street parking may be a legitimate reason to issue temporary permits. Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police cc: Marian Carlson, 300 Spruce St. Dawn Johnson, 5108 1 92nd St. Daniel Miller, 515 Elm St. Lynn Dilley, 403 Division St. Gale Sprute, 11 Oak St. Scott Alexander, 18025 Emerald Trail SPRUCE PLACE APARTMENTS 300 SPRUCE STREET FARMINGTON, MN 55024 Phone/Fax 651-463-2511 November 11, 1999 Mayor Jerry Ristow 325 Oak Street Farnrington,~ 55024 Dear Mayor Ristow, I have a couple of comments regarding the new parking ban. As pertains to my building specifically, we currently do not have adequate parking so there are three tenant vehicles parking on the street. Adding additional spaces was addressed at this year's budget meeting but is not something we will be able to accomplish this year. Where am I to direct them to park when I am asked? This may end up causing a financial loss to Spruce Place as relates to future potential residents to whom I will be obligated to disclose the parking situation, or current residents who may leave due to their being unable to keep their vehicles at the building. Further, did anyone think this through to the impact of such a ban particularly over this holiday season time? Between Spruce Place Apts. and Red Oak Manor there are 98 apartments. That means 98 families will be unable to have overnight or long-term visits from family or friends for the holidays, and that is taking into account only two apartment buildings. For many senior residents who are not as physically mobile as you and I may be, the visits of family and friends are the focal points of their holiday season. Then, considering the number of private residences that may not have accommodations for extra vehicles, the city has effectively denied numerous families the right to have overnight visitors. I noticed in the newspaper article a mention of odd/even street plowing having been tried in 1991 but public reaction to this, especially from the downtown area, caused it to be repealed. I am willing to guess much of it came from the merchants. While Spruce Place does not sell a product, we do provide a service which generates customers for the local merchants as well as paying considerable taxes on this building. I am asking the council to please consider the information I have presented and possibly come up with a more equitable parking/plowing program than that which is currently in place. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, '1Y)a4a~~ Marian Carlson, Resi~t Manager Spruce Place Apartments November 11, 1999 Dear Mayor and City Council members, After reviewing the updated parking restrictions, I would like to support the worthy points of this plan. I would also like to note that I om nat completely opposed to your decisions. However, after thinking about it, I wondered if you hod thought about 0 few things- outlined, (below). First of all, I do appreciate snow removal being completed in a timely and efficient manner, and value the neat appearance of a neighborhood uncluttered with cars not parked on the streets. Here are my concerns. If no one is permitted to park on the streets between 2am-6am, what will people do when they have a party, funeral, wedding, or other event in which there may be several guests staying overnight? Where will they park if their hosts driveway is full? What if the guests are sta~ng for an extended period? Are they forced to park in nearby schools, churches and open lots? What if the event involves alcohol consumption? Do we want individuals drinking and driving because they aren't permitted to park on the streets? Is the only other option, parking in one's front yard? (they do this in Bloomington, and it's unsightly). I have two recommendations and suggestions to this issue, and hope that you would consider and discuss them: 1) "Temporary" parking permits- obtained from the police department, allowing temporary parking overnight (for a pre-determined duration of time) on the street/ which may be combined with the following recommendation in the event of snowfalL 2) Odd-Even parking on odd-even days when there is a snowfall requiring snow removal (two inches or more) Sincerely, '~(\r. Dawn B.Johnson 0 2J(.;? ~ 7 7 ~ '1 515 Elm Street Apt. 17 Farmington, MN 55024 November 13, 1999 John Erar 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Mr. John Erar, I am writing to you in regards to the new parking ordinance which has been adopted in Farmington. According to the informational flyer I received, the ordinance states that: "between November 1 and April 15 of each calendar year, no person shall park a vehicle or permit it to stand upon any street, highway or alley between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. OR after a two inch or greater snowfall until the streets are plowed curb to curb." I have been a resident of Farmington .since March of 1997, and have always considered ll!Y.self to be a decent, law abiding citizen. However, with the adoption of this ordinance, you will be forcing me into a situation which does not allow me to follow the law. My wife and I, as well as numerous other families in Farmington, rent an apartment where there is only one space per household alotted for off-streetparkin..g. I feel as if we are beiqg economically discriminated against because we are not home-owners and do not have access to adequate parking. I think this parking ban will also affect the wID' visitiors to our community will view our city. The winter months are full of holidays, travel, and get togethers with family and friends. This parking ban provides very few options for out-of-town..gue.sts to remain parked in our community without having their vehicles ticketed and towed. I have never heard of a city which bans all parking on all streets between certain hours for snow removalpUl;poses. PerhC:ijJs a rotating even-odd or north- south parking system would be something the city could look into. I think the city needs to re- evaluate the purpose of the parkiUg ban, and adopt a,polic.y that works for both its Ie.sidents and those responsible for maintaining the safety of our roads during the winter months. Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns. I would C:ijJpreciate your comments on this issue and will look forward to a letter or phone call from you in the next week or so. ~~ Daniel D. Miller 651-463-3260 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~b TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administratofv FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Street Name Changes - Resident Concerns DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION Several residents spoke during Citizen Comments on November 15, 1999 regarding a proposed street name change along Endeavor Avenue adjacent to Euclid Street. DISCUSSION The Cameron Woods Development has resulted in the connection of Euclid Street north of this development with Endeavor Avenue to the south of this development. Endeavor Avenue exists along three lots and is connected with Euclid Path to the south. Unfortunately the County assigned the name Endeavor Avenue to this short stub street at the time the Nelson Hills 3rd Addition plat was approved. The County was contacted when City staff became aware of their decision to name this stub street Endeavor Avenue and were requested to change it to Euclid Street. Unfortunately the County did not act on this request until after homes were constructed on the three lots that front on Endeavor Avenue. By the time these property owners were notified of the need for name change, the City had assumed responsibility for the assigning of street names in the City of Farmington. The fact still remains that the street is improperly named and should be change to Euclid Street for public safety, postal delivery, and street naming consistency reasons. Mention was made by the two residents at the November 15th Council meeting of other similar situations of continuous streets in the City with different street names assigned to them. The examples cited included Pilot Knob Road/190th Street! Akin RoadJDenmark Avenue and the other was Embry Avenue and Lane/Echo Lane. In both of these cases, the name changes coincide with intersections and/or major changes in the direction of the street. Neither case exists in the case of Endeavor Avenue and Euclid Street. The access points for the Cameron Woods development are private drives as opposed to public streets. It should be noted that several properties did have their addresses changed in conjunction with the 190th Street and English Avenue reconfigurations completed as part of the Pilot Knob Road project. Concerns were also expressed about the costs to the homeowners as a result of the street name change and the need to have a new "plot plan" prepared. The street name change has no impact on the legal descriptions of the properties involved. The requirement for a "plot plan" typically is a requirement of lenders at the time a property is being purchased. Property abstracts are also typically updated only at the time of a property being sold. In most cases the description of a property in a deed or abstract is done by legal description rather than street address. City staff and the City Attorney are not aware of any other requirements associated with changing the street name other than notification of normal institutions such as banks, credit cards, utility companies etc. While there is a certain amount of inconvenience associated with notification, costs to residents should be minimal. ACTION REQUESTED F or information only. Respectfully ~ ..-- avid L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Harvey and Carrie Wright Edward R. Jr. and Ellen Stober Richard M. Goedde [ ill2 V G:tRE TR.! ~ m 1,- LI83RD ST. 101.1 I: L. 183RD S~. l~lJP. lA3RD S~ , ~ 18~TH ST. ~ ~~~Q ~ ~"" 7- ~C ~ EGRET \JAY I- U I- ~ Q:: CJ t.J t.J ::J Z W > < :z c I- (I) <( t.J EAGLE\lOCD TRAIL ST 'JEST \ ) >- tt: ~ ~ (r-- 0 "C \ \..!-91ST ST. '$-0 \ ~ ~ \ 192ND ST. ~ <~~ I ~ _z M 1~3RD C City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us ~~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: SUBJECT: Akin Road Traffic Concerns DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the November 15, 1999 City Council meeting, a resident expressed concerns regarding several issues related to Akin Road. DISCUSSION The resident expressed concerns regarding the speed limit, the amount of traffic and the fact that two schools are located adjacent to Akin Road. The City has not yet accepted the turnback of Akin Road from Dakota County. As part of the turnback process, the City will be performing a study of Akin Road. The study will address infrastructure issues, traffic control issues and citizen concerns. During the process, neighborhood meetings will be held in order to receive citizen comments regarding the roadway. Once the study has been completed and the turnback of Akin Road has been accepted by the City, the issues identified in the study will be addressed as appropriate per the direction of the City Council. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REQUESTED F or information only. Respectfully submitted, ~M~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Kerry Hanifl, 19927 Akin Road COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR November 15, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch None City Administrator Erar, City Attorney Jamnik, City Management Team 4. APPRO VE A GENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) School District Gym Utilization Concerns b) Traffic Concerns - Upper 1820d Street c) Traffic Concerns - Akin Road d) Citizen Comments - Snow Plowing Practices Staff has responded to citizen's requests. Mr. John Gage, 18493 Echo Drive, owns 18493 Echo Drive and 400 Elm Street, expressed his concerns regarding the new parking ordinance. Many of the older homes do not have driveways, or have single driveways. Newer homes have 2 car garages and 4 car driveways. There is no parking in the older part of Farmington to support the ordinance requirements. The solution is people will have to pave front yards or back yards. He feels it takes away from the heritage of Farmington to have to park in the front yard. He would like to see the ordinance changed to odd - even parking for the downtown area such as Minneapolis and St. Paul. Mr. Randy Slagel, 700 Oak Street, also expressed his concerns about the new parking ordinance. Older homes do not have room to accommodate parking. He feels parking on one side of the street and then switching sides when plowing is done would be a good solution. He would like Council to reconsider the ordinance. The short notice creates a hardship for this winter. If residents would have been notified of the situation last spring, residents could have worked out a solution this summer. Mr. Harvey Wright, 18543 Endeavor Avenue, was concerned about the proposed name change of Endeavor Avenue to Euclid Street. He realizes with the addition of Cameron Council Minutes (Regular) November 15, 1999 Page 2 Woods, the City wants to make it all Euclid Street. There are other instances in Farmington where a street has more than one name. If the name change does go through he wants to know who will pay the cost of changing driver's licenses, checks, abstracts, etc. There are only three houses there, but it is something residents should not have to pay. It is not oftheir choosing, it is being forced upon them. They changed addresses when they moved in, now they have to change again. It is uncalled for. Mr. Ed Stober, 18529 Endeavor Avenue, his concern is with the name change of Endeavor Avenue to Euclid Street. He has requested, but has not received any of the statutes that govern this. He would like to know how the City can change the name at will. Issues in the letter he received from the City stated it will happen January 1,2000 and it is being done for safety reasons and postal reasons. Then why are there three other streets in the area with different names? He is also concerned with costs. On the initial posting, if six or more people live on the street another process has to be followed to change the name of the street. There are currently three houses on the street. If the change was done in four months, there would be more people living on the street. He sees this as a way for the City to get it through quickly without incurring other costs or additional meetings. Councilmember Strachan stated when the street was proposed several years ago, there was only one house there and that owner was notified. He wondered what had changed. Staff replied until recently the County was responsible for street naming in Farmington. The City is now in charge of street naming. The notices the owners received prior to the last one, were from the County and outlined procedures in the County's street naming process. The City is not required to adopt the same ordinance as the County. It is an unfortunate situation. Mr. Stober stated there is an intersection three houses up, which leads to Cameron Woods. He proposes installing a street sign showing the Cameron Woods development as Euclid Street and the residents keep Endeavor Avenue. Ms. Kerry Hanifl, 19927 Akin Road, is concerned about the traffic on Akin Road. It is a residential road and there are two schools along the road. Her driveway is directly onto Akin Road. When she purchased the house she was aware of the construction of Pilot Knob and that it would alleviate some of the traffic on Akin Road. She has not seen any change in the flow of traffic on Akin Road, especially the trucks. The trucks turn around in her driveway, cars do not slow down, and are passing on the shoulder. The speed limit is 50 mph and many cars go above that. There are children that want to go to the park and cannot ride their bikes there. It is a residential street and it is not suitable for the type of family living she would like to see. Staff will send her copies of responses to previous requests. Councilmember Strachan stated Pilot Knob is a County road and we are trying to influence the road in terms of lights, turn lanes and speed limits. All requests are forwarded to the County. Akin Road will become a City road and speed limits on Akin Road will be reviewed at that time. 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (1111199) (Regular) (10/20/99) (Special) This item was pulled so Councilmember Verch could abstain from voting as he was absent from both meetings. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg approving the minutes. Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan. Abstain: Verch. MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) November 15, 1999 Page 3 MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Adopted RESOLUTION R96-99 accepting Senior Center donation c) Adopted RESOLUTION R97-99 approving Livable Communities Act participation d) Adopted RESOLUTION R98-99 approving a Gambling Premises Permit e) Approved Withdrawal of Public Improvement and Condemnation Action - TH3 Frontage Road Project f) Acknowledged resignation - Liquor Store Operations g) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) 2000 License Renewal Public Hearing In accordance with City ordinances a public hearing must be held to renew On- Sale Liquor Licenses, On-Sale Sunday Liquor Licenses, On-Sale Wine and Club Licenses, and Saunas and Therapeutic Massage Licenses. The American Legion, Farmington Lanes, Long Branch Saloon and Eatery, Eagles Club, VFW Club, B&B Pizza, and Rite Touch Therapeutic Massage have submitted the required applications and fees. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to approve the 2000 On-Sale Liquor, On-Sale Sunday Liquor, On- Sale Wine, Club, and Therapeutic Massage Licenses for the businesses listed above. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Certification of Delinquent Municipal Services Minnesota State Statutes grants Cities the authority to certify delinquent utility accounts to property owners' real estate taxes as a special assessment for collection. All property owners with delinquent utility bills (over 90 days overdue) have been notified by mail and may pay their delinquent amount by December 1, 1999 to avoid certification. At the time of the mailed notice, 316 accounts in the total amount of$105,169.19 were outstanding. The amount is certified to the property, not the property owner. New property owners do have a recourse by taking the previous owners to small claims court. However, the statute states the amount is certified to the property, not the owner. Certification is done instead of turning off service. If title companies call the City the title company will be informed of outstanding bills and the title company will escrow for the outstanding bills. One reason it is certified against the property and not the owner, is so the City will not become involved in the court action. The City is not equipped to handle that aspect. Mr. Wayne Raffle, was representing the new owners of 504 Elm Street, regarding a delinquent water bill. At the closing the former owner signed a statement saying they would pay the final water bill. They have moved out of state and have ignored all notices sent to them. The new owners have received notice that the delinquent water bill would be certified to the taxes. He contacted the listing agent a month ago and received a response that the previous owners did move out of state and they are trying to locate them. He would like an extension of time to try and locate them. Mr. Raffle stated the laws have all been obeyed, but to try Council Minutes (Regular) November 15, 1999 Page 4 and salvage this situation, is it possible an exception could be made for 30 - 40 days. The sellers moved out of the country, there was a divorce and now he is living in Colorado. They are trying to locate him. The Mayor asked if a title search was done on the property. Mr. Raffle replied that was done, but to protect themselves, the title company has the seller sign the document stating they would pay the bill. City Attorney Jamnik stated a title binder excludes things not of record, such as utility bills. Under the statute the certification cannot be delayed. The City has to certify the bills to the County by December 1 so it can be put in the system to be certified to the taxes. The new owners will have until December 1 to settle the matter. Mr. Ed Stober, 18529 Endeavor Avenue, stated this can then occur at the beginning or middle of a billing cycle on the sale of a home. The notification to the new property owner would not occur until 90 days. Staff replied it becomes delinquent when it is not paid within 30 days. There is then a fee attached for a penalty. Service is continued, however the bill escalates. At the beginning of November, all accounts 90 days overdue are reviewed and sent a letter stating the amount of certification that will be imposed upon them. There may be services that are less than 90 days overdue which would be in addition to that. They are only being asked to pay the portion over 90 days overdue. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch to adopt RESOLUTION R99-99 certifying the delinquent accounts as special assessments to the 2000 taxes of the appropriate properties. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTSAND COMMUNICATIONS a) Y2K Contingency Planning - Update Council received information on key planning and operational issues associated with Y2K contingency plans. b) Adopt Resolution - Farmington Townhomes Development Contract The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Farmington Townhomes 1 st Addition Preliminary and Final Plat on July 13, 1999. The City Council approved the preliminary and final plat on August 16, 1999 subject to the preparation and execution of a Development Contract and approval of the construction plans. Mn/DOT has found the plan acceptable, however the Developer is still required to apply for a Mn/DOT access permit. The Development Contract requires the following conditions be agreed upon: The Developer enters into the Development Contract. The Developer provides the necessary security in accordance with the terms of the Contract. The Minnesota Department of Transportation approves the access points on the frontage road. Council Minutes (Regular) November 15, 1999 Page 5 MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION RI00-99 authorizing its signing contingent upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Ordinance - Landscape Ordinance The amendment to Section 2-9 (11-20) - Reforestation Advisory Commission, includes the removal of Section 2-9-11 to 2-9-20 and transferring these requirements to Section 10-6-14. The amendment to Section 10-6-14 includes the addition of the following: perimeter parking lot planting requirements, interior parking lot planting requirements, buffer/screening requirements, tree maintenance on City boulevards, tree protection in construction zones and planting requirements near overhead utility lines. These amendments mainly address commercial and industrial uses. The boulevard tree planting requirements will address requirements for residential subdivisions. This is being done due to the vision for the City of Farmington which was determined during the Comprehensive Plan Update. Boards and Commissions, nurseries, landscape design professionals, the Builder's Association of the Twin Cities and City staff have commented on the revisions. Specific revisions and additions to the ordinance were discussed. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to adopt ORDINANCE 099-441 approving the amendment to Section 2-9 (11-20) and Section 10-6-14 of the Farmington City Code concerning the Landscape Ordinance with additional changes by the City Attorney. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Ordinance Amendment - Weeds The need for a revised weed ordinance developed from the interest of residents desiring to establish natural areas within their yards on platted lots. Areas identified in the revised code to allow weeds or growing grasses include slope areas, pond/wetlands, natural/wildlife areas, and natural areas on platted lots. The revised ordinance also contains a statement concerning noxious weeds, requiring that they must be removed regardless of where they exist. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch adopting ORDINANCE 099-442 approving amendment concerning Title 6 Chapter 7 of the Farmington City Code concerning weeds. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution -1999 Budget Re-appropriations The resolution revises the 1999 budget. The budget is prepared 18 months in advance and what might have been a reasonable revenue or expenditure assumption in June of 1998 may not hold true in October of 1999. There is an increase in revenues of approximately $174,900. In addition, per an amended TIF agreement with the East Farmington TIF district, the City will recover $41,936 worth of fees which were charged to the developer and were not paid, and will be recovered through the TIF district. The total increase to revenues is $216,917. Expenditures increased by approximately $27,600, which is less than 1 % over the adopted budget. Council was advised that implementing the Comp Worth Plan, because it was the initial year, that part of it had been budgeted in the 1999 Council Minutes (Regular) November 15, 1999 Page 6 budget, but not all of it. The $27,600 is the difference between what was budgeted and the actual cost of the plan. There is also an addition to close the transfer of the Municipal Building Fund. The auditors suggested that deficit be eliminated. This revised budget acknowledges the revenues coming in and finds a place to apply them. Total expenditures will increase by $72,628. The revised budget shows an addition to the fund balance of approximately $237,000. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan adopting RESOLUTION RI01-99 amending the budget for fiscal year 1999. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmemher Strachan: The School Task Force is discussing an annual joint City/School District meeting that would cover both planning and combined tax burdens and what the planning is for that. The meeting will be designed as both a planning tool and a communication tool. He asked for thoughts from Council. His co-worker came to City Hall to pay his assessment, asked about a development and was referred to Lee Smick. He said he was dazzled by her service and the amount of time she spent with him. She answered every question, and offered him maps of the development. If she did not know an answer, she found out and got back to him right away. City Administrator Erar: Reminded Council of the Special Meeting November 16, 1999 to hear objections to CSAH 31 assessments. Regarding budget re-appropriations, Council should also be recognized for leadership it has shown in terms of fiscal stewardship of limited City resources. Mayor Ristow: He received letters regarding snow removal and passed them on to staff for reply at the next Council meeting. He has also received good comments on the ordinance. It was not Council's intent to put undue hardship on anyone, but the ordinance is for the betterment of the community and a cost-efficient way to get the job done. He received a notice from Senator Pariseau regarding a meeting in Northfield on December 1, 1999. There was a Veteran's Day gathering at the Senior Center that went well. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /J ~ / , '-;7-7 ~/ ?vvO"tc:.CG /" /4~0 Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES City Hall Council Chambers November 16, 1999 Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Mayor Ristow, Council Members Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch None City Administrator Erar, City Attorney Jamnik, Finance Director Roland, City Engineer Mann The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The agenda was reviewed and approved by Council. The purpose of the meeting was to consider County Road 31 special assessment objections. At the October 18, 1999 Special Assessment Hearing, 39 property owners raised objections to the CSAH 31 assessment. These objections were presented to Council. The first category of objection is that the method of assessment was unfair or there was no reason given. Each property in the project area was determined to specifically benefit from the reconstruction of the road. Which means, the value of the properties within the project area could be shown to have an appraised increase by a specific dollar amount. An individual property may be assessed for up to the amount of the appraisal, but not in excess of that appraisal amount. The assessment of $392.56 per household equivalent in the area north of 195th Street is within the Special Assessment Policy parameters. Mr. Anthony Pena, 18906 Embry Avenue, does not see benefit for 1/2 mile either side ofCSAH 31. He does not use CSAH 31, he uses Akin Road. Most cars are coming from or going to downtown Farmington. He feels the downtown benefits as much as anyone else. He does not think CSAH 31 is safe. He also wanted to know if they are paying for the road going past the trailer park. The Mayor replied no, the assessment only goes to the Farmington border. Mr. Pena did not have an independent appraisal, but last year the county raised his appraisal by $54,000. Mr. David Buntjer, 5532 Upper 182nd Street W, stated since CSAH 31 has been widened, there is increased traffic and a new stop light. When there is a busy road, it decreases the property value. He did not get an independent appraisal on his house. At the stop light, cars are revving engines and squealing tires. There is an access plate in his front yard. He told the County he was not notified and it is an eyesore. Hill Dee Park is across the street, and wanted to know why the plate was not put there. The County said this is the first time they know that an access plate was placed in a front yard. The County installed the plate when the turning lane was installed. It is an access to the stop light. City Engineer Mann stated he has reviewed the situation and it is well within the public right-of-way. Mr. Buntjer stated it may be in the public right-of-way, but it is still in his yard, he mows it and it shows when he decides to sell his house. Mr. Kenneth Chin, 19066 Estate Avenue, asked where the assessment numbers came from. He saw someone taking a picture of his house and wanted to know ifthe City was given a specific value for his house. Houses in the area are not selling for $147,000. When his neighbor sold his house the realtor told him he could ask for $10,000 more if he was across the street. Mr. Chin has 10 feet of yard from the edge of his deck. His kids can no longer pitch a tent in the backyard because it is not safe and he has no privacy. The County is saying his house is worth more than it is. When he complains at County assessment meetings, the value is always lowered. The County told him the value of his land will be cut 15%. How can the value go up? Staff replied the sales data used is based on market data. Values of homes are based on what homes are selling for in a certain time frame. Some time ago, there was a review of lots being sold at the time the road was identified, and some lots were discounted because of the fact the road was being planned there. He does not know if Mr. Chinn's lot was included. Mayor Ristow stated the appraiser stated the $392.56 assessment will be applied to Mr. Chinn's house as a benefit. Attorney Jamnik stated the appraisal information of$147,412 is an average figure for sales in the area. The appraisal information indicates individual properties in the area may be sold for more or less than that figure. The appraiser did not do an individual appraisal on each house. That will be done if it goes to court. Comparable properties are identified that are located in very similar situations, and the unique features of each individual house are considered. The appraiser did view the houses and indicated in his opinion the amount of benefit exceeded the amount of assessment. Mayor Ristow stated if the County states Mr. Chinn's property is worth $120,000 he should be able to add the $392.56 to the market value and it should show that much benefit to sell. Councilmember Soderberg asked Mr. Chinn if he had anything from the County showing his land value will be decreased by 15%. Mr. Chinn replied no, just what the County told him over the phone. Staff stated Mr. Chinn can provide that information to the court rather than the Council, as the appraisal information the City has indicates the property value would increase by that amount. Staff is not aware of any information from the County that would selectively identify a property as a reduction. Mr. Thor Seufer, 19183 Enchanted Way, bought his house 2 years ago in March and did not know the assessment was coming, especially at Christmas. A lot of people are on a fixed income and $400 is Christmas to a lot of people. He then asked if there were any other fees he should expect. He asked if it was correct that if he declined to pay the assessment, it would go on his taxes spread over 15 years, and if he sells his home, it would be passed on to the new owner? Councilmember Strachan stated it would be paid at closing and it can be paid in full at any time. Councilmember Cordes asked Attorney Jamnik, a lot of people are stating they were not informed of the assessment when they bought their house. By law should they have been informed by the realtor or the seller? Attorney Jamnik replied there is a fiduciary duty to disclose certain items that realtors are aware of. When real estate documents are signed, there is a paragraph specifically listed for special assessments. It requires in the Purchase Agreement to circle if the seller or buyer will pay the assessments. Mr. Anthony Pena, 18906 Embry Avenue, asked if seal coating is maintenance of the road and should it come out of the Road and Bridge Fund? He was assessed $50 to do their street. Mayor Ristow replied it was a policy set up by Council to go on a seven year program. There are a lot oftax-exempt properties in the City and residents pay directly for these properties. Mr. Pena 2 asked why CSAH 31 could not be handled the same? We are all benefiting from it. Ifwe do seal coating, that is maintenance on the road. Mayor Ristow stated when a County road is in the City, the County and City each pay a share of the cost of the road. Councilmember Strachan stated Farmington has a ton of tax exempt property. Assessments (for seal coating) can be thrown into everyone's taxes and hide it, or go up front and have the people getting the benefit, including tax exempt properties, pay their fair share, which reduces the overall burden to home owners. We are trying to get taxes down and spread the burden out to those who benefit. That is what these hearings are for, it is more straightforward. The next category is for owners who stated the assessment was a financial hardship. These assessments have now been paid in full. The next category is for single households on acreage. These properties will be assessed for one household equivalent in the amount of$I,000.38 for properties south of 195th Street regardless of acreage. The balance of the assessment amount will be deferred until the property is developed. If it is never developed, no further assessment will occur. Mr. Steve Wilson, 5200 203rd Street W, thanked the Council for dropping his assessment from $11,204 to $1,000.38 as long as it remains a single household. He wanted to know how they were assessed. He has a letter from April 6, 1998, saying he would be assessed $826.27. Staff replied at that time the estimated assessment per household equivalent on property south of 195th was estimated at $826.27. The City was working with best estimates the County had at that time. In August 1999 the City received new final estimate amounts and a review was done of the number of assessable acreage. Project cost went up by $257,193 and the number of acres assessable went down by 43 1/2 acres. The result is an increase up to $1,000.38 per household equivalent. Mr. Wilson stated there are more houses north of 195th than south of 195th. The City is assessing this on a per household value. On a per house value he is paying 2 1/2 times more than those north of 195th. Staff replied under the City Special Assessment Policy, new road construction is assessed at 100%. While the County pays 55% of the new alignment south of 195th, the City policy assesses residents for the balance, 100% of the City's portion. The appraisal data is different south of 195th due to the fact there was no road. Having a road increases the value of the property as the property is not landlocked. If there had been no road from the City's north border to County Road 50, the value would have increased substantially more. Because there already was a road north of 195th, there was an improvement to an existing road. Mr. Dan McCarthy, 5014 203rd Street W, would like to be appraised as a single family household. He stated their house was thrown in with a different type of group - business, industrial and large agricultural. A business or industry with direct access to the road would benefit, but they are a single family household. Councilmember Strachan stated Mr. McCarthy is in that group because he is south of 195th where there are only three houses and because it is a new road, not an existing road. Mr. McCarthy stated there should be a separate category for the three residents and they should be assessed $392.56. Staff stated all of the lots in Charleswood are also paying $1,000.38 each. 3 Mr. Harvey Briesacher, 21075 Eaton Avenue, stated due to the nature of his property, it would be resold as a residence. He asked if a potential buyer would want to keep it as a residence, would he have to pay this assessment? Staff replied as long as the buyer maintains it as a single residence the assessments are deferred on the balance of the property. If the rest of the property is developed, the buyer would have to pay the assessment. The next category is specific objections regarding access to the road. Direct access to CSAH 31 is not a requirement in determining project benefit. CSAH 31 serves as a primary north-south transportation corridor and as such, benefit is conferred to those properties in the project area. The appraised value of the benefit exceeds project assessments. Mr. Jeff Thelen, owns property in the Industrial Park on Eaton Avenue, read the City will develop land in the Industrial Park and will be continuing 208th Street. He recognizes the answer for not having direct access. He questioned the acreage and how it is being assessed. From 195th Street south to CR 50 there are approximately 1100 acres of land. But there is only 734 acres being assessed. Staff had told him there are certain types of property not included - ag preserve, green acres, wetlands, and acres that the road itself takes up. He owns approximately 2 acres. . He feels he is paying 150%. If there is one green acre, is he paying a lar&er portion to cover that green acre? Staff replied the way the calculation was done south of 195 Street, is the total acreage was looked at for 1/2 mile on either side of the road. Then the flood plains and wetlands were taken out, as well as the right-of-way for the new road alignment and the right-of-way for the streets in the industrial park. Since green acres and ag preserve were not part of the flood plain or wetlands they were left in the calculation. Mr. Thelen then asked who is covering that portion? Attorney Jamnik replied the City is covering it through bonding costs. Staff stated the City did not exclude itself. City property on the comer of CSAH 31 and 195th, as well as water board sites are also being assessed. Mr. Thelen then stated he has a gas line easement of 50 feet x 300 feet, he cannot do anything with. He also has a water drainage easement on two sides of his property he cannot do anything with. Staff replied they did consider those possibilities. The pipeline easement runs east and west. There are also two other pipeline easements that go to the north. Those areas were not taken out of the calculation, so those pipeline easement areas are going to be assessed except where they go through flood plains or wetlands. All the properties in Charleswood that currently are there have drainage and utility easements that ring their lots like every lot and they are all being assessed. In addition, all the property undeveloped right now that gets developed will have drainage and utility easements on those lots and in addition public streets which are all being assessed. Mr. Thelen stated the drainage easements in residential areas are just for that lot to drain to the street. Staff replied the front of the lot drains to the street, the rear of the lot typically drains to the back. Mr. Thelen stated what drains through his property is about 10 acres. Plus whatever comes off the curb backs up in the parking lot and runs in because the catch basin is not large enough. He wondered if that was common that someone has to give up that much of a drainage easement. Staff will have to look at his specific situation. Mayor Ristow stated he did hear from Mr. Gerald Stelzel, 18875 Chippendale Avenue, that since his assessment was deferred he had no further objections. The next category is for those who stated the road is of no benefit to their property. A letter was received from the Seed Trust withdrawing the objection for PID#14.16500.030.00 with the 4 understanding this is deferred until the parcel develops. Staff recommended the objection for PID#14.16500.021.00 be extended until such time as further consideration can be given to a request from Seed Trust. They have a portion of this parcel which is only accessible from ag preserve land which is owned by another party. That particular parcel cannot be developed for at least eight years. It is isolated by a wetland and is not accessible by any other way. Seed Trust wishes to petition for ag preserve status for that particular parcel. Staff recommended that until such time that ag preserve request is submitted and addressed by the City that this particular parcel be held open. At the time designation is made, the assessment would be addressed. Councilmember Strachan asked if a corporation can place land in ag preserve? Staff replied they can only if the City allows them to. This is a City decision. Astra Genstar is asking for consideration for ag preserve since it is not a developable parcel. It is surrounded on three sides by ag preserve land which is one of the requirements of the ag preserve statute. Astra Genstar is asking that this be left open until that is considered. Councilmember Soderberg stated this is a question he specifically asked at the initial public hearing, if someone could subsequent to the hearing apply for ag preserve. At that time, Attorney Jamnik stated it would not benefit the property, or that it would not change the status of the assessment. Attorney Jamnik stated we would have to re-assess. If a property wants to go into ag preserve, they have to apply to the City. The City approves it contingent on all the criteria being met. The assessments on that parcel currently have to be paid. But if one of the conditions upon application is to ask for re- assessment to defer that amount, they would not have to make installment payments. The assessment could be approved now, but when they apply for ag preserve, they would probably bring a re-assessment request for that parcel and there would be another process to follow. By holding this open the City avoids another legal proceeding. The final category covers property currently undeveloped and does not benefit from the road improvement. Properties are agricultural, green acres or ag preserve. Under State Statute the City is not allowed to levy special assessments against ag preserve properties. When the property is developed, the City reserves the right to assess the property for road improvement costs. Green acres parcels will be deferred until development occurs. Interest is being accrued during deferment period. If it is a green acres deferred parcel, the interest accrues and is kept track of by the County. If it is a City deferred parcel, the interest is kept track of by the City. Mr. John Devney, 5788 212th Street W, stated he was surprised ag preserve property could be assessed. If this was not developed for 20 years, would there be an assessment due at that time? Staff replied the City reserves the right to assess the property when it comes out of ag preserve. However, if the property is in ag preserve until after the assessment period ends, it would be very difficult for the City to assess the principal and interest at that time. The City can only assess on a property as long as the bonds the City issued to pay for the project are outstanding, in this case 15 years. No interest will accrue on the assessment while in ag preserve. Interest starts to accrue when the property comes out of ag preserve. The three properties under ag preserve are shown as there was an objection to the assessment. In terms of a motion to adopt the special assessments, it would be with an exception to the three parcels shown as ag preserve. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5 Councilmembers Soderberg and Strachan stated if Mr. Chinn can provide documentation from the County showing that the value of his property has been reduced, they would reconsider his assessment amount. Staff stated if Mr. Chinn can provide information, the City should conduct a full independent appraisal of the property to determine whether or not the reduction on the part of the County still had the effect of actually reducing the market value of the property in light of the assessment being proposed. The City would have to fund the cost of an independent appraiser. Mr. Chinn will need to provide the documentation from the County to Finance Director Roland by the December 20, 1999 Council Meeting. Staff stated this document would not suggest there has been a reduction in market value. While the land value may have decreased, the house itself could have appreciated beyond the value of the land. Council agreed the objection to the assessment for the parcel of the Seed Trust property (PID#14.16500.021.00) will be extended until the ag preserve application has been approved or denied. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to adopt the special assessment with the exception of the Seed Trust property and the ag preserve property. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Staff stated objectors to the assessments have another 30 days from November 16, 1999 to pay the assessments. After the 30 days, they will be certified to the tax rolls for payment over the next 15 years. MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, rZ~,h-?~ ? - .~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 6 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /b TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Various City License Renewals DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION City Ordinance 3-2-5 states that the Council has the authority to approve both On-Sale and Off- Sale Beer Licenses; Ordinance 3-25-7 regulates the granting oflicenses for Billiard Halls; Ordinance 3-7-3 regulates the granting of Cigarette Licenses; Gaming Device Licenses are renewed by the City Council after application has been made in accordance with Ordinance 3- 16-2. DISCUSSION The following establishments have submitted their applications for renewal: Beer On-Sale - Beer Off-Sale - Gaming Device License - Billiard License - Cigarette License - B & B Pizza, 216 Elm Street Tom Thumb Superette, 22280 Chippendale Budget Mart, 705 8th Street Kwik Trip, 217 Elm Street Super America, 18520 Pilot Knob Road Farmington Lanes, 27 5th Street Farmington Billiards, 933 8th Street B&B Pizza, 216 Elm Street Farmington Billiards, 933 8th Street Longbranch Saloon & Eatery, 309 3rd Street Farmington Lanes, 27 5th Street American Lecfion, 10 North 8th Street VFW, 421 3r Street Farmington Eagles Club, 200 3rd Street Farmington Municipal Liquor Stores, 18320 Pilot Knob Road Farmington Municipal Liquor Stores, 305 3rd Street Townsedge Car Care, 957 8th Street More4, 115 Elm Street Tom Thumb, 22280 Chippendale Blvd Kwik Trip, 217 Elm Street Budget Mart, 705 8th Street Budget Mart, 18266 Pilot Knob Road Speedway SuperAmerica, 18520 Pilot Knob Road The appropriate forms, fees and insurance information have been submitted with the applications. Police Chief Dan Siebenaler has reviewed the forms and approved the applications for issuance. BUDGET IMPACT The fees collected are as proposed in the revenue portion of the budget. ACTION REQUESTED Approve Licenses for the above mentioned applicants. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /e, TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Tree City USA Application DATE: December 6,1999 INTRODUCTION Council consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing application for the City's Tree City USA designation. DISCUSSION The City has received the Tree City USA designation the past number of years. Council adoption of the attached resolution will authorize the application for the Tree City USA designation for 1999. This designation honors cities that have demonstrated a commitment to forestation efforts in their respective communities. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the application for the 1999 Tree City USA designation. Respectfully submitted, ~~JJL James Bell Parks and Recreation Director PROPOSED RESOLUTION No. APPROVE APPLICATION FOR TREE CITY USA DESIGNATION 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 6th day of December, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has been designated a Tree City USA in the past; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to become a Tree City USA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby directs staff to submit an application to the National Arbor Day Foundation for the 1999 Tree City USA designation. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 6th day of December, 1999. Mayor Attested to the day of December, 1999. City Administrator SEAL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ?,j TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation - Police Officer DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION The recruitment and selection process for the appointment of a full-time Police Officer to fill a new position in the Police Departmtmt, Patrol Division has been completed. DISCUSSION After a thorough and comprehensive review of applicants for this position by the Police Department and Human Resources Office, an offer of employment has been made to Mr. Mark Sundgren, subject to ratification by the City Council. Mr. Sundgren is currently a police officer with the City of Faribault, Minnesota and has been with that department for the past year. Prior to serving with the Faribault Police Department, Mark was a correctional officer with the Dakota County Sheriffs Office for two years, and prior to that position was a supervisor at a correctional halfway house for two years. Mr. Sundgren brings a number of specialized technical skills to the department from his previous positions, and will be a valuable asset to police operations. Mr. Sundgren has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice Administration, and is a licensed Peace Officer in the State of Minnesota. BUDGET IMPACT Funding for this position is authorized in the proposed 2000 Budget and is supported through a federal COPS grant. In light of the fact that Council previously adopted a resolution on September 20, 1999 accepting the $75,000 federal grant over three years, funding for this position in the amount of $35,000 is already included in the 2000 Budget. Consequently, the appointment recommendation may be approved prior to the normal adoption of the 2000 Budget in the absence of any Council opposition to the proposed position itself. RECOMMENDATION Approve the appointment of Mr. Mark Sundgren as a full-time Police Officer effective January 3,2000. / ohn F. Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7e TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief FROM: SUBJECT: Capital Outlay Purchase - Fire Department DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is planning to purchase several small appliances, ten Scott Aviation self- contained breathing apparatus voice amplifiers, and Haz-mat isolation equipment. DISCUSSION The small appliances will provide additional resources and options for extinguishing fires and the isolation and control of water flows. The voice amplifiers will greatly enhance the communications between Fire Department members. With the breathing apparatus in place, it becomes very difficult to hear or understand any communications after members have the mask covering their face. Haz-mat training suits will allow Fire Department members to train with class A&B suits. The Haz-mat Response Kit contains numerous hand tools in one container which can be carried to the site of problem area. The plugs and dike patties will provide temporary plugging of leakage. The lockoutltagout kit will provide members with lockouts to isolate energy sources to prevent InJurIes. BUDGET IMPACT Approved in the 1999 Capital Outlay Budget. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~KJ~ 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 )-p TO: Mayor, Council Members, City AdministratorjY~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinat FROM: SUBJECT: Time Extension for Submission of Final Plat - Autumn Glen DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City Code requires that developers submit a final plat within 100 days of the approval of a preliminary plat. Arcon Development, Inc. is requesting a time extension from the 100-day requirement in order to allow ample time for the City of Farmington to complete the transfer of title of Outlot 'D' to Arcon Development so that it can be included in the final plat for Autumn Glen. DISCUSSION Mr. Larry Frank, Arcon Development, is requesting an extension to the submittal of the final plat for Autumn Glen to May 1, 2000. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on September 7,1999. A formal request is attached for Council review. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the request. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the time extension request for the submission of the final plat for Autumn Glen until May 1,2000. Respectfully submitted, ~k~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Arcon Development, Inc. ARCON ~EVELOPMENT, INC. 7625 METRO BLVD.. SUITE 350. EDINA, MINNESOTA 55439. P.HONE612/835-4981 . FAX 612/835-0069 November 15, 1999 Ms. Lee Smick Planning Coordinator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Autumn Glen Dear Lee, Arcon Development, Inc. is hereby requesting an extension of the Preliminary Plat approval for Autumn Glen to May 1,2000. It is Arcon's intention to file the Final Plat for Autumn Glen 1 st Addition in Marchi April of next year. This will allow ample time for the City of Farmington to complete the transfer of title of Outlot 'D' Akin Park to occur so that it can be included in the Final Plat of Autumn Glen 1 st Addition. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, ~It:~ Larry D. Frank Project Manager WE DO MORE THAN DEVELOP lAND.... WE CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS DEVELOPERS - PLANNERS - CONTRACTORS City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: CAP - Meals on Wheels Contract DATE: December 6,1999 INTRODUCTION The contract for mobile meals with the Community Action Program (CAP) needs to be renewed. DISCUSSION The Mobile Meals program at the Senior Center provides inexpensive lunch time meals to "shut in" seniors throughout the community. The City has a contract with CAP to provide these meals, and staff, with volunteer help, distributes them to qualifying seniors. The cost of the meals is passed on to the users of the program. BUDGET IMPACT The 2000 budget will not be affected by the cost of the meals. ACTION REQUESTED Request Council authorization to sign agreement with CAP to provide Mobile Meals. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director Investing In People, Building Community AGENCY November 29, 1999 Missie Kohlbeck 431 3rd Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Missie, Enclosed please find the Meal's on Wheels contract with the CAP Agency for 2000. I am providing you with two signed copies, one for your records and one to return to the CAP Agency with the appropriate signatures. The only change to the contract is under Program Requirements. I have added a sentence under number one that covers the full cost of the meal when a client is under sixty years of age and not the spouse of someone over sixty. The CAP Agency is unable to subsidize meals for people under sixty per the Older Americans Act. Staff will provide you with the appropriate NAPIS reporting forms when we have them available later in December. We also need to continue the meal tracking of all clients served as we go forward into the new year. Thank you for purchasing meals from the CAP Agency Senior Nutrition Program. We continue to enjoy working with the Farmington Meals on Wheels Program. Sincerely, 9v~~ Joan Lynch, Director Food and Nutrition Services Shako pee Office 712 Canterbury Road South Shakopee, MN 55379 612/496-2125 FAX 612/402-9815 scott-Carver-Dakota CAP Agency, Inc. An Equal Opportunity Employer www.scdcap.org Burnsville Office 14551 County Rd. 11, Suite 100 Burnsville, MN 55337 612/432-6699 FAX 612/432-5855 COUNCIL REGISTER COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 6, 1999 VENDOR ACTIVITY 4 PAWS ANIMAL CONTROL <*> ABH PROPERTIES <*> ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC <*> ADAM, LONNIE <*> AFFINITY PLUS FEDERAL CREDIT U <*> AFLAC <*> AIR SYSTEMS INC <*> AIRLAKE FORD MERCURY <*> AIRTOUCH CELLULAR <*> ALAN EDEL OIL SERVICE INC <*> ALCORN BEVERAGE CO. INC. <*> ALL SAINT'S BRANDS DISTRIBUTIN <*> AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRE <*> APPLE RACEBERRY JAM <*> APPLE VALLEY FORD <*> APPLE VALLEY TIRE & AUTO <*> ASSET RECOVERY CORP <*> BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC <*> BON APPETITE <*> BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK INC DESCRIPTION CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM POLICE ADMIN PROF SERVICES 644.32 OH 644.32* SEWER OPEATIONS BLDG MAINT & RNT 100.00 OH SOLID WASTE BLDG MAINT & RNT 1,600.00 OH STREET MAINT BLDG MAINT & RNT 300.00 OH 2,000.00* FLEET MAINT SERV OPER MAT & SUPPL 79.45 OH 79.45* ICE ARENA OPER LESSONS 40.00 OH 40.00* EMPLOYEE EXPENSE ST CREDIT UNION 4,542.58 OH 4,542.58* EMPLOYEE EXPENSE INS BENEFITS 285.60 OH 285.60* GENERAL FUND PLUMB/HEAT PERMI 211.50 OH 211.50* BUILDING INSPCT EQUIP MAINT/RENT 41. 75 OH 41. 75* BUILDING MAINT UTILITIES 211. 94 OH PATROL SERVICES UTILITIES 239.78 OH POLICE ADMIN UTILITIES 20.63 OH 472.35* STREET MAINT PROF SERVICES 55.00 OH 55.00* LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 16,374.50 OH 16,374.50* LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 244.00 OH 244.00* Senior Center OPER MAT & SUPPL 224.00 OH 224.00* Recreation prog OPER MAT & SUPPL 10.00 OH 10.00* PATROL SERVICES FUELS/MILEAGE 308.90 OH 308.90* PATROL SERVICES FUELS/MILEAGE 287.81 OH 287.81* SOLID WASTE SPEC ACT SUPPL 222.50 OH 222.50* ICE ARENA EQUIP MAINT/RENT 513 .45 OH 513 .45* Senior Center OPER MAT & SUPPL 73.08 OH 73.08* CO RD 72 PROF SERVICES 14,293.13 OH COUNTY ROAD 31 PROF SERVICES 1,617.00 OH DEEP WELL #5 PROF SERVICES 7,965.95 OH DEER MEADOW SSWR PROF SERVICES 105.87 OH DWNTWN SLIPLINE PROF SERVICES 5,805.16 OH ENGINEERING SERV PROF SERVICES 4,050.00 OH G.I.S. PROF SERVICES 75.00 OH PARK IMPROVEMENT PROF SERVICES 243.71 OH PRAIRIE CR ST SR PROF SERVICES 5,570.63 OH PRIVATE CAP PRJ PROF SERVICES 12,532.80 OH SEWER OPEATIONS PROF SERVICES 1,123.00 OH STATE AID STREET PROF SERVICES 273.70 OH STORM WATER UTIL PROF SERVICES 2,726.51 OH 02-DEC-1999 (12:49) ?~ COUNCIL REGISTER VENDOR BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK INC <*> BOYER TRUCK SALES & SERVICE <*> BRANDL ANDERSON HOMES <*> BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES <*> BT OFFICE PRODUCTS INTERNATION <*> BUDGET OIL CO <*> BURNSVILLE, CITY OF <*> Brekken, Renee <*> CAMPBELL KNUTSON <*> CAP AGENCY <*> CATARACT FIRE RELIEF ASSOC <*> CINTAS - 754 <*> CITY COUNTY FEDERAL CREDIT UNI <*> CMI INC <*> COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES <*> COLLEGE CITY BEVERAGE INC <*> COLLINS, SHELLY ACTIVITY STREET MAINT WATER CONST WATER UTILITY CAPITAL ACQUIS ESCROW FUND SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION Recreation prog ENGINEERING SERV PATROL SERVICES SEWER OPEATIONS SOLID WASTE WATER UTILITY 02-DEC-1999 (12:49) DESCRIPTION CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM PROF SERVICES PROF SERVICES PROF SERVICES VEHICLE PURCHASE ESCROWS PAYABLE PROF SERVICES OFF & PAPER SUPP OPER MAT & SUPPL FUELS/MILEAGE FUELS/MILEAGE FUELS/MILEAGE FUELS/MILEAGE FUELS/MILEAGE RECREATION PROGR SCHOOL & CONF RECREATION PROGR SCHOOL & CONF ADMINISTRATION PROF SERVICES COUNTY ROAD 31 PROF SERVICES ENGINEERING SERV PROF SERVICES GEN ACCOUNTING PROF SERVICES LEGISLATIVE CTRL PROF SERVICES PERSONNEL PROF SERVICES PLANNING/ZONING PROF SERVICES POLICE ADMIN PROF SERVICES PRAIRIE CR ST SR PROF SERVICES PRIVATE CAP PRJ PROF SERVICES Police Forfietur PROF SERVICES SE AREA TRNK SEW PROF SERVICES TH3/WILLOW FR RD PROF SERVICES WATER UTILITY PROF SERVICES Senior Center FIRE SERVICES PROF SERVICES PAYROLL EXPENSES FLEET MAINT SERV OPER MAT & SUPPL SOLID WASTE OPER MAT & SUPPL STREET MAINT OPER MAT & SUPPL EMPLOYEE EXPENSE ST CREDIT UNION COMMUNICATIONS PRINT & PUBLISH LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE Recreation prog OPER MAT & SUPPL 750.00 13,860.72 792.25 71,785.43* 51,286.00 51,286.00* 3,500.00 3,500.00* 14,962.40 14,962.40* 619.60 331. 75 951.35* 82.54 54.21 55.76 587.30 23.20 803.01* 75.91 75.91* 75.91 75.91* 380.00 716.90 303.50 30.00 2,310.91 140.00 812.00 4,107.50 841.24 469.03 248.00 956.50 575.00 959.50 12,850.08* 1,818.70 1,818.70* 37,327.00 37,327.00* 32.47 97.41 194.80 324.68* 272.00 272.00* 292.91 292.91* 453.50 453.50* 7,347.05 7,347.05* 30.00 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH COUNCIL REGISTER VENDOR ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM 02-DEC-1999 (12:49) <*> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONOCO <*> CULLIGAN WATER CONDITIONING <*> CY'S UNIFORMS <*> D & J GLASS INC <*> D & 0 PROPERTIES <*> DAIRY QUEEN INC <*> DAKOTA COUNTY LUMBER COMPANY <*> DAKOTA COUNTY RECORDER <*> DAKOTA COUNTY TREASURER/AUDITO <*> DAKOTA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION <*> DELEGARD TOOL CO <*> DEUTSCHLE, GARY <*> DLT SOLUTIONS INC <*> DUEBERS DEPT STORE <*> ECM PUBLISHERS INC <*> ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATI <*> EMERGENCY MEDIAL EDUCATION <*> ERAR, JOHN <*> FARMINGTON BAKERY INC <*> FARMINGTON EMPLOYEE CLUB <*> FIRE SERVICES PATROL SERVICES SOLID WASTE ICE ARENA PATROL SERVICES FIRE SERVICES LIQUOR Recreation prog SNOW REMOVAL ADMINISTRATION FUELS/MILEAGE FUELS /MILEAGE FUELS/MILEAGE PROF SERVICES OPER MAT & SUPPL FUELS/MILEAGE BLDG MAINT & RNT OPER MAT & SUPPL EQUIP MAINT/RENT PROF SERVICES HRA/ECONOMIC DEV PROF SERVICES PATROL SERVICES SCHOOL & CONF BUILDING MAINT EMERG MGMT SERV FIRE SERVICES LIQUOR SEWER OPEATIONS SIGNAL MAINT SOLID WASTE WATER UTILITY UTILITIES EQUIP MAINT/RENT UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES FLEET MAINT SERV OPER MAT & SUPPL PATROL SERVICES SCHOOL & CONF PRIVATE CAP PRJ OPER MAT & SUPPL ICE ARENA Recreation prog Senior Center COUNTY ROAD 31 PERSONNEL OPER MAT & SUPPL OPER MAT & SUPPL OPER MAT & SUPPL PRINT & PUBLISH PRINT & PUBLISH HRA/ECONOMIC DEV DUES & SUBSCRIP RESCUE SQUAD ADMINISTRATION SCHOOL & CONF SCHOOL & CONF ENGINEERING SERV OPER MAT & SUPPL Recreation Prog OPER MAT & SUPPL EMPLOYEE EXPENSE EMPLOYEE CLUB 30.00* 92.93 15.00 575.01 682.94* 115.02 115.02* 475.57 475.57* 127.56 127.56* 2,979.39 2,979.39* 35.00 35.00* 15.13 15.13* 78.50 78.50* 25.00 40.00 65.00* 14.09 10.66 357.17 358.93 55.78 2,203.14 73.29 2,101.45 5,174.51* 99.59 99.59* 20.54 20.54* 1,096.00 1,096.00* 3.94 2.49 8.25 14.68* 41. 96 499.24 541.20* 175.00 175.00* 1,665.00 1,665.00* 334.97 334.97* 7.20 8.00 15.20* 103.00 103.00* OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH COUNCIL REGISTER VENDOR ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 02-DEC-1999 (12:49) CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OH FARMINGTON FAMILY CLINIC <*> FARMINGTON INDEPENDENT <*> FARMINGTON PRINTING INC <*> FARMINGTON, CITY OF <*> FEDERAL RESERVE BANK <*> FERRELL GAS PRODUCTS CO <*> FINSTUEN, KAREN <*> FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MINNE <*> FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMP <*> FRITZ COMPANY INC <*> FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS <*> GALL'S INC <*> GODFREY'S CUSTOM SIGNS <*> GOLD STAR PRINTING INC <*> GOODIN COMPANY <*> GOPHER SPORT <*> GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC <*> GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN <*> GRIGGS COOPER & CO <*> HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP POLICE ADMIN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING INSPCT PERSONNEL Senior Center LIQUOR Recreation prog PROF SERVICES PRINT & PUBLISH PRINT & PUBLISH PRINT & PUBLISH OPER MAT & SUPPL PRINT & PUBLISH OPER MAT & SUPPL EMPLOYEE EXPENSE SAVINGS BONDS ICE ARENA ADMINISTRATION FIRE SERVICES FUELS/MILEAGE FUELS/MILEAGE OPER MAT & SUPPL EMPLOYEE EXPENSE INS BENEFITS OPER MAT & SUPPL LIQUOR COMM DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS COUNTY ROAD 31 ICE ARENA LIQUOR POLICE ADMIN SEWER OPEATIONS SOLID WASTE WATER UTILITY PATROL SERVICES BUILDING MAINT PATROL SERVICES ICE ARENA UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES OPER MAT & SUPPL PROF SERVICES OPER MAT & SUPPL EQUIP MAINT/RENT RECREATION PROGR OPER MAT & SUPPL Recreation prog OPER MAT & SUPPL SEWER OPEATIONS WATER UTILITY PARK MAINT PATROL SERVICES SOLID WASTE LIQUOR SEWER OPEATIONS WATER UTILITY PROF SERVICES PROF SERVICES EQUIP MAINT/RENT EQUIP MAINT/RENT EQUIP MAINT/RENT MERCH FOR RESALE PROF SERVICES PROF SERVICES 128.00 128.00* 137.65 47.25 25.00 75.00 284.90* 15.98 15.98* 200.00 200.00* 50.00 50.00* 192.08 192 .08* 20.46 20.46* 135.46 135.46* 590.75 590.75* 2,417.59 2,417.59* 30.42 1,939.81 17.04 30.42 302.70 71.01 266.76 30.42 42.11 2,730.69* 269.89 269.89* 50.00 50.00* 121.73 121.73* 43.31 43.31* 1,150.24 67.14 1,217.38* 260.75 260.75 521.50* 19.50 20.00 23.75 63.25* 9,409.50 9,409.50* 1,006.43 5,337.36 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH COUNCIL REGISTER VENDOR <*> HAYES, DONALD <*> HOFFBECK TRUCKING INC <*> HOHENSTEINS INC <*> HYDRO SUPPLY CO <*> ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 <*> IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS <*> INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE <*> INTERSTATE BATTERY TWIN CITIES <*> JEMS <*> JG WEAR <*> JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPAN <*> K-MART <*> KARRMANN, JAN & MARC <*> KEYLAND HOMES <*> KLOTZ, BEN <*> KWIK TRIP <*> LAKEVILLE SENIOR CENTER LINEDA <*> LARSON, LENA <*> LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES <*> LOCAL GVMT INFO SYSTEMS ASSN. <*> M W JOHNSON <*> 02-DEC-1999 (12:49) ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM 6,343.79* PARK MAINT FUELS/MILEAGE 46.41 OH 46.41* PRIVATE CAP PRJ PROF SERVICES 762.50 OH 762.50* LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 2,529.05 OH 2,529.05* WATER UTILITY OPER MAT & SUPPL 196.20 OH 196.20* EMPLOYEE EXPENSE ICMA 9,303.60 OH 9,303.60* ADMINISTRATION EQUIP MAINT/RENT 517.09 OH 517.09* EMPLOYEE EXPENSE PAYROLL EXPENSES 1,064.92 OH 1,064.92* SOLID WASTE EQUIP MAINT/RENT 142.60 OH 142.60* RESCUE SQUAD DUES & SUBSCRIP 47.97 OH 47.97* RECREATION PROGR OPER MAT & SUPPL 270.00 OH 270.00* LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 7,398.06 OH 7,398.06* GENERAL FUND DONATIONS 105.35 OH 105.35* ICE ARENA OPER LESSONS 32.00 OH 32.00* ESCROW FUND ESCROWS PAYABLE 2,000.00 OH 2,000.00* SOLID WASTE OPER MAT & SUPPL 98.84 OH 98.84* BUILDING INSPCT FUELS/MILEAGE 61.09 OH ENGINEERING SERV FUELS/MILEAGE 51.06 OH FIRE SERVICES FUELS/MILEAGE 70.14 OH FLEET MAINT SERV FUELS/MILEAGE 27.40 OH PARK MAl NT FUELS/MILEAGE 278.31 OH PATROL SERVICES FUELS/MILEAGE 233.63 OH SOLID WASTE FUELS/MILEAGE 6.83 OH STREET MAINT FUELS/MILEAGE 413.61 OH WATER UTILITY FUELS/MILEAGE 290.40 OH 1,432.47* Senior Center OPER MAT & SUPPL 50.00 OH 50.00* SOLID WASTE FUELS/MILEAGE 35.34 OH 35.34* EMPLOYEE EXPENSE LELS UNION DUES 297.00 OH 297.00* BUILDING INSPCT PROF SERVICES 625.50 OH GEN ACCOUNTING PROF SERVICES 1,020.82 OH MIS PROF SERVICES 411.30 OH PAYROLL PROF SERVICES 373.99 OH POLICE ADMIN PROF SERVICES 825.00 OH 3,256.61* ESCROW FUND ESCROWS PAYABLE 1,500.00 OH 1,500.00* COUNCIL REGISTER VENDOR ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 02-DEC-1999 (12:49) CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM OH <*> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT MARTIN-MCALLISTER <*> MCNAMARA CONTRACTING INC <*> MEDICA <*> METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY <*> METROPOLITAN COUNCIL <*> MINCKE, KEVIN E <*> MINNESOTA AFSCME COUNCIL #14 <*> MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOCIATION <*> MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE <*> MN NAHRO <*> MOE, CLIFF <*> MORE 4 <*> MOTOR PARTS SERVICE CO INC <*> MUNICIPAL BUILDERS INC <*> MVTL LABORATORIES INC <*> NATIONAL INFORMATION DATA CENT <*> NATROGAS INC. <*> NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS <*> NOAA NATIONAL DATA CENTERS <*> NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY <*> NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO <*> NORTHLAND CHEMICAL CORP <*> SOLID WASTE POLICE ADMIN WATER UTILITY EQUIP MAINT/RENT PROF SERVICES EMPLOYEE EXPENSE INS BENEFITS BLDG MAINT & RNT Recreation prog OPER MAT & SUPPL SEWER OPERATIONS S.A.C. CHARGE PATROL SERVICES SCHOOL & CONF EMPLOYEE EXPENSE AFSCME UNION DUE EMPLOYEE EXPENSE MBA/MN BENEFITS EMPLOYEE EXPENSE CHILD SUPPORT HRA/ECONOMIC DEV SCHOOL & CONF Recreation prog ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MAINT FIRE SERVICES PATROL SERVICES POLICE ADMIN Recreation Prog SENIOR CITIZEN PARK MAINT SOLID WASTE DEEP WELL #5 WATER UTILITY ADMINISTRATION STREET MAINT OPER MAT & SUPPL OFF & PAPER SUPP OPER MAT & SUPPL OPER MAT & SUPPL OPER MAT & SUPPL OPER MAT & SUPPL OPER MAT & SUPPL OPER MAT & SUPPL EQUIP MAINT/RENT EQUIP MAINT/RENT CONSTRUCTION PROF SERVICES OFF & PAPER SUPP EMPLOYEE EXPENSE PERA LIFE INS OPER MAT & SUPPL ENGINEERING SERV PRINT & PUBLISH EMERG MGMT SERV ICE ARENA SIGNAL MAINT STREET MAINT SOLID WASTE EQUIP MAINT/RENT UTILITIES UTILITIES EQUIP MAl NT/RENT OPER MAT & SUPPL 296.44 296.44* 304.50 304.50* 160.20 160.20* 3,275.26 3,275.26* 172.21 172.21* 17,671.50 17,671.50* 64.19 64.19* 822.60 822.60* 266.21 266.21* 203.96 203.96* 110.00 110.00* 162.00 162.00* 43.53 23.13 5.40 15.56 9.36 102.64 6.34 205.96* 8.22 44.36 52.58* 38,001.00 38,001.00* 72 .00 72.00* 48.90 48.90* 9.00 9.00* 159.00 159.00* 32.00 32.00* 6.28 3,864.91 3,575.98 7,447.17* 33.97 33.97* 72 .23 72.23* OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH COUNCIL REGISTER VENDOR ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM 02-DEC-1999 (12:49) <*> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORTH STAR IMAGING SERVICES INC NORTHSTAR REPRO PRODUCTS INC <*> NTFC CAPITAL CORPORATION <*> OFFICE MAX <*> PAUSTIS WINE CO. <*> PEER ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEE <*> PELLICCI HARDWARE & RENTAL <*> PEOPLES NATURAL GAS <*> PEPSI COLA COMPANY <*> PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO <*> PETERSEN CARPET CLEANING <*> PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC <*> PINNACLE DIST INC <*> PRECISION APPRAISALS & <*> PROGUARD <*> PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS <*> QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS CO <*> RATZLAFF CONSTRUCTION <*> REGINA MEDICAL CENTER <*> RON'S CUSTOM CABINETS <*> RON'S GOURMET ICE <*> RONGITSCH CONSTRUCTION DWNTWN STREETSCP PRINT & PUBLISH 144.09 OH 144.09* ENGINEERING SERV OFF & PAPER SUPP 163.87 OH 163.87* COMMUNICATIONS UTILITIES 422.91 OH 422.91* LIQUOR OPER MAT & SUPPL 85.39 OH 85.39* LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 160.00 OH 160.00* HRA/ECONOMIC DEV PROF SERVICES 3,303.00 OH 3,303.00* FIRE SERVICES OPER MAT & SUPPL 107.26 OH ICE ARENA OPER MAT & SUPPL 15.96 OH IDEA SCHOOL OPER MAT & SUPPL 1.16 OH LIBRARY SERVICES OPER MAT & SUPPL 1. 37 OH PARK MAINT OPER MAT & SUPPL 12.54 OH POLICE ADMIN OPER MAT & SUPPL 7.93 OH SENIOR CITIZEN OPER MAT & SUPPL 3.81 OH SOLID WASTE OPER MAT & SUPPL 4.11 OH STREET MAINT BLDG MAINT & RNT 54.59 OH WATER UTILITY OPER MAT & SUPPL 26.95 OH 235.68* LIQUOR UTILITIES 14.08 OH OUTDOOR ICE UTILITIES 33.91 OH SOLID WASTE UTILITIES 23.30 OH SWIMMING POOL UTILITIES 88.91 OH 160.20* LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 315.30 OH 315.30* PATROL SERVICES PROF SERVICES 1,000.88 OH 1,000.88* FIRE SERVICES PROF SERVICES 53.25 OH 53.25* LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 4,524.24 OH 4,524.24* LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 513 .12 OH 513.12* COUNTY ROAD 31 PROF SERVICES 2,100.00 OH 2,100.00* ICE ARENA MERCH FOR RESALE 151. 56 OH 151.56* EMPLOYEE EXPENSE PERA 20,812.82 OH 20,812.82* LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 1,505.26 OH 1,505.26* ESCROW FUND ESCROWS PAYABLE 5,500.00 OH 5,500.00* POLICE ADMIN PROF SERVICES 216.00 OH 216.00* ADMINISTRATION OPER MAT & SUPPL 1,040.00 OH 1,040.00* LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE 511.98 OH 511.98* ESCROW FUND ESCROWS PAYABLE 2,000.00 OH COUNCIL REGISTER VENDOR ACTIVITY 02-DEC-1999 (12:49) DESCRIPTION CHECK AMOUNT CK-SUBSYSTEM <*> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OH ROSEMOUNT, CITY OF <*> RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO <*> RUTTEN, PATTY JO <*> SCHIMMEL, RICH <*> SCHMITTY & SONS SCHOOL BUSES <*> SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION <*> SISTER CABRINI <*> SMICK, MARY LEE <*> ST CROIX RECREATION CO INC <*> ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS <*> STERLING ATHLETICS <*> T C CONSTRUCTION <*> TRANS ALARM INC <*> TRINITY HOSPITAL <*> U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS <*> UNIBUILT INC <*> UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE <*> UNITED WAY FUND OF ST. PAUL AR <*> UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA <*> UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA <*> UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO OF AMER <*> WACKER, MARILYN <*> WELCOME FRIENDS <*> WINE MERCHANTS <*> WISONSIN SCTF <*> Recreation prog OPER MAT & SUPPL SNOW REMOVAL EQUIP MAINT/RENT ADMINISTRATION OFF & PAPER SUPP ENGINEERING SERV FUELS/MILEAGE Recreation Prog PLANNING/ZONING SENIOR CITIZEN PLANNING/ZONING PARK MAINT ADMINISTRATION Recreation prog ESCROW FUND SEWER OPEATIONS WATER UTILITY PERSONNEL GEN ACCOUNTING MIS ESCROW FUND COMMUNICATIONS OPER MAT & SUPPL SCHOOL & CONF SPEC ACT SUPPL FUELS/MILEAGE OPER MAT & SUPPL DUES & SUBSCRIP OPER MAT & SUPPL ESCROWS PAYABLE PROF SERVICES PROF SERVICES PROF SERVICES UTILITIES UTILITIES ESCROWS PAYABLE PRINT & PUBLISH EMPLOYEE EXPENSE UNITED WAY BUILDING INSPCT FIRE SERVICES SCHOOL & CONF SCHOOL & CONF EMPLOYEE EXPENSE INS BENEFITS EMPLOYEE EXPENSE INS BENEFITS PATROL SERVICES OPER MAT & SUPPL LEGISLATIVE CTRL OPER MAT & SUPPL LIQUOR MERCH FOR RESALE EMPLOYEE EXPENSE CHILD SUPPORT APPROVALS: RISTOW SODERBERG CORDES STRACHAN 2,000.00* 281. 46 281.46* 64.79 64.79* 62.00 62.00* 33.17 33.17* 600.00 600.00* 45.00 45.00* 175.00 175.00* 55.01 55.01* 191.79 191.79* 22.75 22.75* 696.70 696.70* 2,000.00 2,000.00* 216.88 216.87 433.75* 232.00 232.00* 149.74 149.75 299.49* 2,000.00 2,000.00* 2,000.00 2,000.00* 32.00 32.00* 360.00 180.00 540.00* 18.00 18.00* 307.20 307.20* 18.00 18.00* 35.45 35.45* 184.06 184.06* 513 .88 513.88* 425,896.72* VERCH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH <*> City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~Q, FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~C- Robin Roland, Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: Truth in Taxation Hearing DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City adopted a proposed Tax Levy and budget for 2000 with Resolution R84-99 at the Council meeting on September 7, 1999 and established the Truth in Taxation Hearing to take place at the City Council Meeting of December 6, 1999. DISCUSSION AND BUDGET IMPACT The Truth in Taxation Hearing is held pursuant to State Statute to receive input from residents and other concerned citizens on the proposed budget and tax levy. The hearing will include a presentation by staff of the highlights of the City's proposed 2000 Revenue and Expenditure Budget and the 2000 Proposed Tax Levy. Residents have received property specific notices outlining the proposed effect of the 2000 tax levy on their individual property taxes compared to the taxes levied against their property in 1999. This hearing will give residents the opportunity to share their comments and concerns about the proposed 2000 levy and budget. ACTION REQUIRED Receive input on the Proposed 2000 Budget and Tax Levy. Close the public hearing after hearing all citizen comments and concerns. Adoption of Final Budget and Levy will take place at the December 20, 1999 City Council Meeting. ;?Z;42/ Robin Roland Finance Director Determination of Proposed 2000 Tax Capacity Rate Fiscal Disparities Dist. (1) $ 1,311,177 X 1999 Tax Capacity Rate of equals $ 433,555 in Fiscal Disparities Distribution the City of Farmington will recieve in 2000 33.066% Farmington requested levy for 2000 is 2.QQQ 2,641,645 1.999 2,529,924 199a 2,496,208 Minus Fiscal Disparties Distribution 433,567 393,478 395,272 Minus HACA\LPA Credit 404,409 394,981 394,928 Minus Equalization Aid Equals Levy to Collect (2) $ 1,803,669 $ 1,741,465 $ 1,706,008 (3) 7,134,196 6,376,496 6,073,948 (4) 412,590 364,356 359,203 (5) 893,810 745,521 643,348 $ 5,827,796 $ 5,266,619 $ 5,071,397 1,803,669 (adj. Levy) divided by $ 5,827,796 $ 5,266,619 $ 5,071,397 30.9494% 33.066% 33.640% 2000 Net Tax Capacity Value Less Local contribution to Fiscal Disparities Less Amount to Tax Increment Amount used to determine Tax Capacity Rate 2000 Tax Capacity Rate will then be (adj. tax capacity value) equals: (1)According to County Property Tax Division. (2)State mandated Levy Limit 2000 = $ 2,452,246 (3) Estimated 2000 GTCV as of Dakota County 9/1/99 @ 99% . (4) Dakota County 9/1/99 (5) Estimated as of Dakota County 9/1199 REVISED12/01/1999 City of Farmington, Minnesota Property Tax Levy General Fund Levy Certified 1998 1,153,616 Certified 1999 1,141,465 2000 Proposed 1,103,669 Debt Service Funds Supplemental Levy 42,608 105,509 154,605 Against City Property 361,239 349,491 244,845 Equipment Certificates 146,153 95,000 150,550 *Total Debt Service 507,392 550,000 550,000 Capital Project Levy 100,000 Fire Levy 45,000 50,000 50,000 Total City Levy 1,706,008 1,741,465 1,803,669 TOTAL LEVY 1,706,008 1,741 ,465 1,803,669 Tax Capacity Rate 33.640% 33.066% 30.949% **Adjusted Tax Capacity Value $ 5,071,397 $ 5,266,619 $ 5.827,796 *2000 Debt Service Levy is based on City's Debt Management Study. ** Adjusted Value determined by deducting Fiscal Disparities and Tax Increment estimates. W ::> ....J z~ 01- I-W(/) C)~W zo::~o ~~I-g E LL ~ ';l LLO-I.O LLZU~ OOD~ >-(/)Z 1-(2<( -<( Ua.. ~ o U o W (/)0 00 0..0 ON 0:: a.. ....J <(0) ::>0> 1-0> U~ <( ....J ~~m ~~~ 0:: W a......J ~<(I'- ::>0> 0..1-0> ~U~ -<( U ....J <(CO ::>0> 1-0> U~ <( ....J <(1.0 ::>0> 1-0> () <( w ::> ....J ~ I- W ~ 0:: <( ~ o o o N 0> 0> 0> ~ CX) 0> 0> ~ I'- 0> 0> ~ CO 0> 0> ~ 1.0 0> 0> ~ C') CX) N ~ 1.0 ~ C') ~ 0> N C') ~ C') 1.0 C') ~ 1.0 o C') ~ C') 1.0 N ~ o o ~ CO CX) ~ o o v r-: CX) ~ o o C') r-: CX) ~ o o 1.0. CO CX) ~ o o ~ C') CX) ~ o o CO N I'- ~ N C') C') N V C') o CO C') N I'- C') CX) o C') 0> CX) N o o 0>. 1.0 0> o o N N 0> o o 1.0 N 0> o o C') ai CX) o o C') o CX) o o 1'-. I'- I'- CO N 1.0 N I'- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 v o CO v CX) 1.0 ~ V CO I'- 1.0 1.0 CO 1.0 CO CO I'- V V N CO CO C') 0> CX) 1.0 o o v -<i C') o o 1.0 rti v ~ o o C!- O C') ~ o o I'- o:i C') o o CO o:i N ~ o o I'- r-: C') ~ o o CX) .n ~ ~ o o o o C') ~ o o 1.0 -<i o ~ o o I'- .n N ~ o o I'- rti ~ o o C!- ~ N ~ 0> 0> 0> ~ - 0> ~ ~ ~ ~~ COil N r y DAKOTA COUNTY TREASURER-AUDITOR ADMINISTRATION CENTER 1590 HIGHWAY 55 HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033-2392 LOCAL BUDGET INFORMATION Your Proposed Property Tax for 200C - ihlsls Not a Silt. Do Not Pa - . " IMPORTANT INFORMATION IS PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS FOF OWNER(S): Property 10: 14 73100 160 01 SUNNYSIDE ADD TO FARMINGTON 16 1 The taxable market values below are final and are not subject for the upcoming budget hearings. They wer discussed at the board of equalization hearings held earlif this year. The final taxable market values for 2000 taxes mE' reflect a reduction under the limited market value law or th "old house" law. PROPERTY CLASS(ES): PAY 1999 RESD HSTD PAY 2000 RESD HSTD TAXABLE MARKET VALUE FOR 1999 TAXES: $ TAXABLE MARKET VALUE FOR 2000 TAXES: $ 94,600 98,800 [1f {2t . (at, k ,,>, ..;,1 > ,., '.,of' . . ... HI"" Ittetedse'ft)l!cl't!dU . . JItCffltleJmJtiltd\ '~.'" . . .../'0 tal Due tts S el1tlln . r1u1 th" . ; , , COUNTY OF DAKOTA $ 306.90 $ 21.37 $ -18.85 $ 309.42 FARMINGTON REGULAR TAX $ 358.12 $ 23.55 $ -34.68 $ 346.99 ~ ANSIT TAX $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 SCB DIST 192 STATE DETERMINED LEVY $ 133.35 $ .00 $ -70.24 $ 63.11 VOTER APPROVED LEVIES $ 435.25 $ 5.86 $ -56.04 $ 385.07 OTHER LOCAL LEVIES $ 26.70 $ -4.62 $ .00 $ 22.08 METRO SPECIAL $ 17.63 $ 1. 77 $ -1.47 $ 17.93 TAXING DISTRICTS OTHER SPECIAL $ 8.77 $ .98 $ -.43 $ 9.32 TAXING DISTRICTS TAX INCREMENT TAX $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 FISCAL DISPARITY TAX $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 $ .00 _______.~M...___..._._.._.__.__.___._..__._.__.._...._W"O ........-.-.--.---- ..------..-.....-..----...-.....---.-.-...-..--- .....--..................-.---...... TOTALS .. $ 1,286.72 $ 48.91 $ -181. 71 $ 1,153.92 (Excluding Special Assessments) Percentage change (proposed 2000 total tax over 1999 total tax) - - - - - - - - - - - - -> -10.3% , BUDGET HEARINGS: LOCAtiONS & DATES D'~OTA COUNTY 'MINISTRATION SLOG JUNTY BOARD ROOM HASTINGS, MN 55033 DEC. 2, 1999-7.00 PM " DAKOTA COUNTY ADMIN 1590 HIGHWAY 55 HASTINGS, MN 55033 651-438-4576 , DItIWIG'ro. _an BW. ~. .. ...~!*_i:,~.. FINANCE DIRECTOR 325 OAK STREET FARMINGTON, MN 55024 F."l-d.F.~_'~n Analysis of Proposed Property Tax Statement 1999 Market Value $ 94,600.00 2000 Market Value $ 98,800.00 OLD RULES Market Value Increase 1999 value 2000 value $0 - $75,000 @1% 750 750 OVER $75,000 @ 1.70 % 333 405 TOTAL TAX CAPACITY VALUE 1,083 1,155 City Tax Capacity Rate 33.06% 30.55% City Taxes on Property 352.67 NEW RULES $0 - $76,000 @ 1 % OVER $76,000 @ 1.65 % TOTAL TAX CAPACITY VALUE City Tax Capacity Rate City Taxes on Property Page 1 1999 value 2000 value 760 760 323 376 1,083 1,136 33.06% 30.55% 358.17 4.44% I i rn ~ == .C CI ell = ~ ~ =- OIl <= " <= . .~ .. = ~r-- I " . ===~ ~=~ .~ . ~ .~~ ~~\C · c:> r- =- ; =e-= .- ~ a ~=8 := = GJ ~~= VJ GI == -. ~ ~ ~ -- == 0,) ,.d ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ""* o e'd Q... cd U ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ec <.) o ~ o o o N ~ ,.d ....- ~ .. ""* d ...... = o ""* ~C1'\ 8~ 0""'" ...... ....- .. s 5 r:n S~ 0",,* <l) 8 ;> 8..2 o <2) <.) e ~ ~ . --= == ~ -. U == == c= U =' = = ~ ~...< ~.. = ~ CG ~ ....... ""'"' CG ~ ~ .0 ] ...... =' ~ rT.. ~ ~ ~ ~ s:= ~ r..~l"'\. ...... V ~. ~ 0,) ~ ~ c .. ~ bI) ~ ~ ~ :.a r:n ~ ..",,* ~ ~.... ~ ..- ~ .is ""W rn ~ <2) .: "0 ~ .... ~ ~.' ~ ?' .:= S ~ ...... rn c~~ C ~ ~ ~ (J 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ",,"'" (I') ~ ~ ;.CG..'..... N.. .... ~ "". +J C ~ ~ ~ ~......\. ~ C;S,.d ...., 0 ...... 1--. .s bI) r:n ~ ,.......,. r:n \U........ ~ 0,) ~........... ~ (..)~ ~~~8 . ~td . ~ ,.d .. ~ v t: ~ ~ S ~ 0 ~ = ~ ~ -:: t: w ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ...... ~ (J) ~ (..) c "E E (J) ~~rJl '- .. ~~.&J ~ ~\ <l) := ~ ,-,..\ t: ....,..... ..;: .g 0'<\ ~ ~ ~ ~ O(j ,...... ~ ~ <l) ~O\ ~ ~........ s:= ca E ..~ ~ 'S ? ~ o~ ~ . cd ~~ 8 l~S ~ ~ = ~ ~ <l) ~ ~ 8 &:: ~ .~ ~,.S ~ ~~ ~ . 0 <( . iR O(j c ~ ....... c:s ~ ~ """"'- ~ (J o~ ~ ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ....... ~ t: ..~ .s t: .~ " ~ ....... ~ .9IJ ~ ;:= ~~ 8~ ~o la ~....... ~.s ~ .s ~ ~ ~iS ~~ ;te~C (I') . N ~ ~ == c -- ...... c c ~ f#'} cu == .- ... cu ~ .- == l.~ Q) ~"5 ~ ~ ~ ~ s= s: ~ . ..... (1) s:~ ~ S ~ ~ ~... ~.. 0\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... s~~s: lSoo .~ ~ ~. ~ is ~ :::.. \U ~ ._ ~ ~. ~~ CJ S..... ........ 00 '"i) ~ OJ) ~ Cd ~ ~~. s=:.= 'a ~ .~ ~ ...... ...... as~~;s ~~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ........ ~ oCd~~ ~a s= ~ ~ s ...... .sa e ~ ..~ ~ ~ :61$ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ..s::; 0 ~ ~ Cd ~ .- 0 ~ ~ ~.. s= Cof-I ~ ~ ~ ;:J' ..... ~1~.~~8ei "'... ;s ~ f\~ ~ s= .~ (1) ~ .~ =S \U.sa ~ .~... c 1; ~ ~ ~... ~'-o' c~~ ~ ~~ - c.~ u ~ - ~~~~c.~~ .~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ (1) 00 o~l> ~ f: ~O~E~o..Q) Q) 0 ~ ~ ~ ~-+t ~ '-oen.., ~ .~.~ .. OJ) g s J!l-~~] O(1)~~.~.B~ <e~ <eta . . ~t&< ~ ~ --= == ,~.. I .,.ml. CJ. == == = U. = = = N Cof-I o 0 ~ .- ~ s= ~.' o (1) " . ..... > ...() td'fn b ~ 1$ s= ;:: ~. (1) ~ . ~ ~ s~ i: '"5 ~ e ....... ~ Q.. (1) ~. c, 8.,0 ~ ~ ~ ...... 0 ~ s;~ ~~ ~. ~ .s .:; ;:. .i.... E enCLl ~- ~~t::~ ~E ~5 O(1) ~~ ~ '.t: p....s::; u \:) ,&g~~<Ii'&~ ..., en Q) d ~ .s:_. ... l:) ~ ~ N t:i(1).. .. 0 ~ 0 ........ ' ..... '_ ~ ~ ~ .~ 6b ~ ~...... e ~ ~ 'r-' 0 o. ~ 0.0 ~ .. .., 0 Q .' "iY ..?\ ~..;:: as CIJ ~ ~..;;:: ~ ~..... I"'oI! ~ en ~ ........ '-I ~ ..... 1"'oI!.- ....... C "'.-0 ..... '-I So. '~ ~.s := .Q 'E ~ . ~u Cd.~.-- ~...,~ ~ en "Q ~... ~ ~(~-: s= ~c ~ ~ 0.. ~ 0 ;:s.... ~~~OJ)~~~ 8 ~ ~ "Q ,~. 8 c ~E:a;s::c~ ~so..~~~~ ~ ~..~~... ~ .... ~ ~ a> Q 8 ~.::: ~~ 8;':: 0 ~~ cE (1). 0 0 c '_ ct ~ ~ ~ ~ ct l>.. ~ ~ ~. '0 '61> ~ ~ ~~ as S s:: e:;~ . 8 0 ~ . <e U 0 . ,.... --= ~ ~ ~' ~ '- c ~ .... ., r U V1 Cl) V1 J-; U ,-..... Cl) ~ V1 J-; ,-..... Cl) u ""0 ,-..... ......-01 ~ Cl) V1 V1 V1 ..... ~ Cl) Cl) S ""0 0... ""0 ;j ......-01 ......-01 Cl) 0 V1 Cl) Cl) ..... ..... '-" ..j.J ~ S S 0.........-01 ~ ..j.J U V1 J-; o Cl) J-; ..... ,-..... '-" '-" Cl) Cl) 0 > ......-01 ..j.J V1 ......-01 > V1 ~ ..... Cl) J-; ~ ~ Cl) Cl) Cl) ""0 0... J-; u ~ ......-01 V1 Cl) > ""0 ......-01 ..... Cl) ..... ~ ~ ..... U ~ ..... Cl) ..... U Cl) (/) ""0 S ~ (/) Cl) ~ S u ~ 0 ~ Cl) ~ Q ~ -< J-; Cl) bJ) ..... '-" V1 (/) ~ V1 ~ ~ .S ..j.J I ~ V1 Cl) J-; J-; I I Cl) Cl) ..j.J E ~ V1 S ......... V1 ......-01 ""0 Cl) V1 V1 ......-01 U V1 ;j ;j Cl) I ..j.J ..j.J ~ ~ ..... ..... ......-01 Cl) Cl) ..... ~ ......-01 ..... ......-01 0 0... ......-01 0 ~ g J-; J-; 0 J-; ~ J-; 0 .b ;j ~ ~ ~ J-; U U ..... ::r: u ..j.J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (/) (/) (/) o 0'\ 0'\ ~ + 00 f""-. m 0\ 0 0 N \D 0\ . + . 00 . . m m + + N f""-. 0 m N 0 f""-. N 0\ 0\ + 0 \D f""-. ~ + N \D L./") ~ \D 0\ N ~ ~ 00 L./") \D 0 00 0 + \D . . m N L./") L./") 1"- + N + 00 ~ L./") L./") 0 . 0 N ~ m 0\ " \D \D N \D L./") m 0 \D N " " + " ~ ~ N ~ \D m ~ 0 0\ 00 \D ~ N L./") + + 00 N m \D + 00 L./") 0 0\ \D 0 L./") m N \D 0 ~ . 0 0\ N 0 L./") L./") ~ ~ ~ 00 " N " " ~ L./") N L./") m ~ m N 0\ ~, Q) f:)IJ = ~ ..d U "$. ~ I " .- ~ == a.. ~ ...., =' 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ ~ I "'C 0.-4 ~ = Q .- ..... .- rIj Q C. e Q u C .- ~ ~ c. ~ U ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ Z 0\ 0\ 0\ ~ tI.:l tI.:l cod --t U F Q) ~ o ~ ~ $ Q) tI.:l cod ~ ~ ~ b ...... 0> U <( co +:i c-;::f2, Q) 0 -0"": . - I"-- ~I"-- 0::: (/) ...... c Q).....o lo... E 0...... Q)-;::f2, -e<q ~~ CO NO' 0.. 0 <( co lo... ::J ~"(ft ::J('f) U . 'C ~ L 1- - ~"(ft +:iCO ::)...t co 'C .....0 ...... 0...... ~N -oLO c co '0 lo... Q)-;::f2, E~ EcO o o 0\ If) N \O~ o N r-~ fA II C ...... () ro ~ U X ro t---O\ +->'2:' (1) ..... Z~ ~ QJ ~ ~ = ~ ~ QJ .. c- o ~ < 0\ 0\ 0\ ~ rIj > o o o = N 0 ~ .~ QJ .. rIj = o C- ~e ~ 0 ~U ~ {I:) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ U t-I ~ ~ ~ {I:) ~ . .....( > j ~ ~ o ~ -0 Q) .j...I 0.- o ~ 0\ 0\ 0\ ,......., "'0 C :::::l lJ...?f2. roL() "- . O)L() cc.o 0) (9 -0 Q) C/) o 0.- o ;...; ~ o o o M"'O C :::::l lJ...'::R _0 roN "- . 0)"'- cc.o 0) (9 O)'::R "- 0 .- 0) lJ... . N 0) .~ C'::R 0) 0 C/)~ ..........- ..0("') 0) o CJ) ....... () 0) '0' "-'::R a... 0 L() rn . ~L() 0.. ro o O)'::R "- 0 .- <Xl lJ... . N 0) .~ C'::R 0) 0 C/)LJ? .......0 ..0("') 0) o rIj ~ = =' ~ ,...... ,...... < I rIj Q..) =' = QJ > Q..) ~ o .- u ~ ~ ..... o ~ '" CD ~ c: CD > CD D::-c -oS::: CD~ ",U- O~ C.m o I.. a.. o o o N "'C c :::J LL'c12. COCO l.... . (]}LO C('l') (]) c..9 (]) :::J C (]) > (]) ......0 0::: 0...... ~ . ~ ('I') U (]) 0.. C/) (]) U .~ ~ (]) 0 C/)~ ........('1') ..c~ (]) o (]) (f) ._ 0 l....-a::. 2-m (]) . ........~ C('l') W ........ l) Q) '--' o l....~ 0...0 t-- coLri ........ .- ~ 0.. CO o lr) -.::t C'-l O\~ 00 ('-.. ..- ..- fA (/) C) ~ C) >- ~ ~ +-' o t-< rIj QJ = = QJ ~ QJ ~ ~ = = ~ b o blJ Q) .I-J ~ u $ V) Q) ::i c: ~ ~ jIIIIIIIIIIIj ~ J-. QJ = QJ ~ ""'0 Q) V) .~ ~ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ ..-I ""'0 Q) V) o ~ o ~ ~ o o o ~ x co I- 0 >.~ tLO Q) , 0.."- OM '- a.. en Q) u '2: Q) CJ) 0 '-~ .2~ en I"-- Q) Ol '- CO ..c () wcf2. ..c LO ON en === E '- ::R Q) 0 D...~ ~~ U -I x CO I- 0 >.~ tv Q) . o..m o N '- a.. en Q) u '2: Q) CJ) 0 '-~ .2~ en I"-- Q) e> CO ..c () wcf2. ..c ill OLO en === E ,-::R Q) 0 o..~ ~~ .~ -I === ~ o LLcf2. ~"! en"- Q) c LL === ~ o LLcf2. ~---: en ..- Q) ,5 LL +-' > ocf2. e>o Q) cr:i eM .. ......... r./'l~ Cl)('1") ~ ... ~'-O Cl)......... >......... Q) ... ~~ fFJ- r./'lO Cl)0\ ~ \0" ~......... Q)N >N Cl) ... ~a ", == <>> - ~ cu - == ~" .. --= == QI =- ~ ~ --= = :s ~ ~ " a. QI == Q1 ~ o o o o o o ..n p... - 0 N 0 N 0 +n N + a.. N 0 +n 0 ~ 0\ 0 0'\ + N 0'\ 00 0'\ m - CO 0' -< ~ 0' 0' 00 \0 0'\ 0'\ N - + L1'l <( m Q) 0' 0' l'- \0 0'\ 0\ 0'\ m - 0\ ~ - \0 0' m 0' \D 00 0'\ + <( 0'\ 00 - 00 ..0 N 0' m 0' m <( LI1 0\ 0'\ - LI'\ 0\ 0' 0'\ 0' - L1'l r-- \0 N $ 0' + 00 0' 0'\ 00 0'\ - - r-- m \0 <( N M 0' 0' M r-- 0'\ \0 0'\ +n ~ - N r-- N 0' N 0' N 00 <( 0'\ 0 0'\ r-- - N 0' 0\ 0' On N I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 - 0\ 0 0 0 0 0'\ 0 0 0 0 0 0'\ \0 0 0 0 0 - m 0 0 0 0 0\ 0 0 0 q - ~ t""i' t'i - N rIJ. QJ :.. = ..... .- ~ = QJ ~ ~ ~ ~ = = ~ aJ ~ ;j i-l . """ -0 = aJ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o on aJ i-l ~ U ~ ~ ~ :- QJ = QJ ~ o o o N ~ QJ rIj Q ~ C .. ~ >. ro +J ::J O?F. _ 0) (f) l- ro. Q) Q) :::R ....... 0 '- 0 ..c 0'0.. Q. ~ 0....... I'-: ro Q. ~ ..- 0 ::J C"') Cf) (f) Q) .~ ~ Q) ....0 Cf) 0.... C0 roc0 cc.o o (f) l- Q) CL l-?F. .8"": o (f)C"') Q) ~ ro ..c o ~ = OJ e ~ ;.. ~ ~ OJ ~ ~ c = c rIj .~ ;... ~ ~ e o U 0\ 0\ 0\ ~ .............. Q Q Q~ f'l .~ ~~ -0 (]) .l-J ~ o -0 ~ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ ~ -0 (]) r/') o 0- o S-i ~ o o o M rIj QJ :. = ~ .~ ~ = QJ > OJ o 0 E g; E . o CO o > Q) o 0 E~ Em o o c o :;::; ~:::!2 _ 0 (/)0> 'c . . _ L(') E ...... "0 <( t) OJ 0::: 0 06~ o (/) . ~o .... N C'O 0.... OJ t) c 'cf2. C'O C") C . u::t- ~'cf2. =C") o . 0....""'" N ~'cf2. .- ...... LL . <.0 c o :;::; C'O 0 ..:=~ (fl <.0 :~ ill E ...... "0 <( t) Q) 0::: 0 06<;':::: N C/) . ~<.o .... ...... C'O 0.... OJ t) c"2f2. co v c . u::t- ~'cf2. =i.O Ow l:LN (/) ~ .... o s'cf2. ""'" .~ r-...: ..0...... ~ 0.... (/) ~ .... o Sg; .~ W ..0...... :::::I CL ~'cf2. u:~ I'-- . . ~\O .....0 3"T ~ \O~ ~c Q)oc 0... ~ ><~ ~f;A . " ~X) i>-;.--" -- d'O ~ M~ ,.... !.n v"""" 0.....,[ _><:: f;A i-l-I :: 0 QJ . 'OOOl ~ ..... u . 'OOOl ~ ""0 CI) . 'OOOl ill ~ ~ ......, ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ....0 ro 0'\ ..... ~ t- ~ .- ........ ~ . 'OOOl ro M U U ......, . ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ E- Ii ~ ~ U 0'\ 0'\ ~ ~ 0'\ ~ U ~ Ct\ ~ Ct\ Ct\ >. ..... ~ c ~ :::l o ;::R ~ U~ ro . ..... ..-- o N ~ ...... ro ~ 0 ..... 0 ~ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\ ~ >> l-< ..... ......, ~ en ',""" O;::R U 'U ~ _ 0 .... ill 0 roO') 00 ......, r-... "(3 ......: 0'\ ~ Q) \0 c.. 0'\ ;:j .--Cf) ~ 0 N U U ro City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us 8!J TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato1'~ .. Lee Smick, AICP -f} 0 Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Vacating an Existing Drainage and Utility Easement - Cameron Woods DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION Wensmann Homes seeks to vacate an existing drainage and utility easement on the easterly property line of Block 1 Lot 1 in the Cameron Woods development. DISCUSSION The Developer requests that the existing 5' drainage and utility easement be vacated due to the existing blanket easements that are located within all of the common areas of the site. As shown on the attached exhibits, Block 1 Lot 1 was not sized appropriately to encompass the proposed building on the site and the building would encroach into the easement by 0.61 feet. The vacation allows for a clearer legal description of the property. A formal request is attached for Council review. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed vacation of the existing drainage and utility easement. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt a resolution to vacate an existing 5' drainage and utility easement along the easterly property line of Block 1 Lot 1 Cameron Woods. {j;[Ub~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Wensmann Homes RESOLUTION NO. VACATING AN EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 1 BLOCK 1 CAMERON WOODS 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 6th day of December, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has received a request to vacate the attached existing drainage and utility easement as described as: Five foot Drainage and Utility Easement on the Easterly Property Line of Lot 1 Block 1 Cameron Woods Dakota County, Minnesota WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 6, 1999 to consider the vacation of said drainage and utility easement after proper publication and notification, at which time public comment was heard thereon; and WHEREAS, it is determined that said drainage and utility easement is no longer necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above described public drainage and utility easement is hereby vacated. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 6th day of December, 1999. Mayor Attested to the _ day of December, 1999. City Administrator C~~~) October 26, 1999 Lee Smick City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Lee, Enclosed is a petition to vacate the 5' Drainage and Utility Easement on the Easterly Property Line of Lot I Block 1 Cameron Woods. Due to the error by our Civil Engineers, the lot is not appropriately sized for our building. We would encroach 0.61" over the current easement line, however still be inside property line with the overall structure. We feel this drainage and utility easement is not necessary due to the blanket easements which are on all the common areas of this site. Our plans are to apply for building permits for Lot 1 Block 1 within the next year. We preferred to address this situation now rather than waiting when we apply for building permits. Please accept our petition to vacate this drainage and utility easement. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call us at 651/406-4400. Sincerely, ~~J~ k...t.~.- erbert Wensmann President J,,-- RHS Building 1895 Plaza Drive Suite 200 Eagan. MN 55122 651/406-4400 Fax 651/905-3678 PETITION TO VACATE Drainaqe and utility Easement. We, the undersigned owners of record of 100 percent of the property abutting upon Eastern property line of Lot 1 Block 1 Cameron Woods located within the City of Farmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Farmington, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, to vacate the Easterly 5 foot Drainage and Utility Easement legally described as: Lot 1 Block 1 Cameron Woods. Dakota County, Minnesota. Name l. Signature Herbert H. Wensmann Print Name Wensmann Homes, Inc. 2. Signature Print Name 3. Signature Print Name 4. Signature Print Name 5. Signature Print Name Address Date 1895 Plaza Drive Suite 200 10 25 99 I I I I -1--- ~ . I") N ;.... f'l Ol IX) (/) _~.- 00'0<; L r I I --1 I 3 Zfli.()c)N " 6 t '09 C) ,;'/ " f. () .J 1.- ::) o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ / , ./ I '/' A /' f /' // /.-:~ l- f , .~~ ",/ /,7'Y4J ,/ iYQ. <(- :,:G 1"-.)( I. t5.tl () '> 21lLLl IwO__J ffil-tll ~~ -'Q. i= ::)5 <O;Q.I") wI- U) '-'Z . ...w Ol ~~ "- <((J) .... <r<( ow , \' \~'''--~ L9 - :to'LO~ ~ 1"; /' "~&;Y'~ /~\C\, .. i. '~\Jf v;:.~Y //' ~~;/ ..---- ..'" . . .. PIONIIIIR .. ..r iii <<...* Certificate of Survey for: ,:' /1' 'i " " " " " " " I, " 'I 1/ 'I f; 'I H : ~ :: 11 :: U " " :: :t " :: " LAND SUIl'<f:YQRS . CI<!L E_E!lS LAND PlAHNERS. LANDSCAPE AACHtTECTS 2422 Enterprise Dr; Mendota Heights, M (851) 881-191.-1 E-mail PIONEEREN 625 Highway 10 N.I Blaine. MN 55434 (812) 78J-188C E-moil: PIONEER20 WENSMANN HOMES //,','/,'J"~--~----'~-----"----'-->"""',,\,\, ~ ",. I . /1 / / I f I - - - -ol: g 0,0 ------- I'll . I I \ I ~ . J 16448 _/ I \1 , ml . ~)I I '<tf I : I : I : I I ~ - I ,) t. 1-1 0.61 " 1 00 "/' i . / I I I -------.. 20.00 o o " o ~ "- t<r:. 1..39 ::Jet ~ ~O:: . W ,.... ,;.{ CL ", L.J'- ";... OZ ..... <r:.UJ t'l ~ 23 o ~~ o OL.J Z r-.... ~ '<t ~ 1,) 48 _, i A' ".. ,t -, ,; ~ j ~ I -,d ~! ,,0 t--) liO ~.; Ii ," -(-+-J ! ,"-/ /20 00 ;:__ n _d. _ .. r') "" . "~,, " " " '\ " " " " " " " \' " .' " " " 1! " " " " " Ii " " " " " " " " " .. " " !! " " " " ., ~ : i1 " City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmington.mn.us 1?'c FROM: Mayor, Council Members, City AdministratorjJC- Lee Smick, AICP nw Planning CoordinatorV' TO: SUBJECT: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation and Equipment and Maintenance Use in the A-I District DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION Mr. John Tschohl has filed an appeal to the decision of the Planning Commission (Board of Adjustment) to deny a conditional use permit to allow commercial recreation and equipment and maintenance storage in the A-I District. The Planning Commission denied the conditional use permit on November 9, 1999 with a 3-0 vote. DISCUSSION Mr. Tschohl and his son Matthew proposed to construct a 42' x 60' building at the northwest intersection of Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street in the A-I zoning district. The applicants proposed to use the building for the storage and repair of cars and the construction of a rock- climbing wall for recreation. After continued discussions with the City Attorney, it was determined that car storage was a permitted use in an A-I district and falls under the Travel Trailer and Boat Storage requirements. The City Attorney gave the opinion that car storage is similar to boat, travel trailer, snowmobile and other vehicle storage in that these items are stored throughout various times of the year or when additional storage space is desired by a renter of the facility. The City Attorney also determined that the applicants were required to seek a Conditional Use Permit for the following uses in an A-I district: Commercial Recreation Use - Climbing wall Equipment and Maintenance Storage - Car repair The climbing wall was considered a commercial recreation use because monthly dues would be required for non-owner participants included in a cooperative to use and maintain the facility identifying this as a commercial use. The car repair falls under the equipment and maintenance storage category as a conditional use. The Equipment and Maintenance Storage definition reads as follows: "A structure for maintenance, repair or storage of equipment on property owned by the owner of said equipment." The owner may repair cars that he owns within the facility, but the repair of cars not personally owned by him for a profit is not allowed in an A-I district. Therefore, City staff recommended the approval of the conditional use permit because the uses met the conditional use requirements within the A-I zoning district. However, City staff proposed a number of contingencies to the approval including the following: 1. The number of recreational users be limited to 20 at any given time during use of the climbing wall; 2. Advertising only be permitted for the storage of vehicles, lessee must submit sign application for proper review and approval by Planning staff; 3. Hours of operation for the repair of vehicles and recreational use of the climbing wall be limited to the hours between 7 AM to 10 PM; 4. Vehicle or equipment repair is limited to vehicles owned by the lessee; 5. No outside storage of vehicles or vehicle parts is permitted; 6. All uses of the facility and property be limited to the applied uses as described on the conditional use application and property owners letter, any other uses, commercial or recreational, must be approved by the Planning Commission at a separate public hearing; 7. Building location must meet the minimum setback requirements for the zoning district. The contingencies placed on the conditional use took into account the concerns expressed by adjacent property owners in the area. Planning Commission Public Hearing - October 26, 1999 The Planning Commission on October 26, 1999 reviewed the public hearing for the conditional use permit. At the meeting the Planning Commission learned that the applicants were proposing to lease a portion of the property originally owned by the applicants. Additionally, there were a number of other issues raised that included the following: 1. Can a CUP be approved for the leased area if the CUP runs with the property after the lease has expired or the applicant terminates the lease? 2. Should the minimum setback of 50 feet be increased considering that 210th Street and Fairgreen Avenue may be constructed to the west and north in the future? 3. Will an access easement be required from the property owner to the east (Huber) or the property to the south (Murphy)? Is the IO-foot wide roadway adequate for accessing the site? Will there be a parking area located on the site? 2 4. How will the City, applicant and/or adjacent property owners reduce conflicts between the mining trucks and participant's vehicles? How will the City, applicant and/or the affected property owner inhibited the possibility for thefts at the mining site? 5. Can a CUP be approved when a portion of the building will be leased cooperatively by participants of the climbing wall? Since the number of issues could not be answered at the October 26, 1999 meeting, (see attached minutes) the Planning Commission was forced to continue the review of the conditional use permit to the November 9, 1999 meeting. Planning Commission Public Hearing (continued) - November 9, 1999 The City staff memo addressed the questions from the October 26, 1999 meeting (see attached memo). Upon review of the staff memo, the Commission voted to deny the conditional use permit for a commercial recreation and equipment and maintenance storage use in an A-I zoning district because of the following facts: 1. Conditional use permits should not be placed on a building that may be moved in ten years. 2. A business use should not be approved in an agricultural district. 3. The minimum 50-foot building setback is not adequate to allow the possible extension of F airgreen A venue to the north of 21 Oth Street to the west. 4. There are no plans for a parking lot and the plan to park vehicles on the street is not adequate. 5. The lighting of the property is not to City standards. 6. The equipment repair use typically moves to the outside of a building causing unsightly views. The basis of the appeal as explained in the letter from Mr. Tschohl on November 18, 1999 is that the Planning Commission's vote was "flawed with conflicts of interest and a lack of understanding of a very simple request." Development Committee Meeting - November 30, 1999 - Facility Use Issues The Development Committee met on November 30, 1999 to discuss the appeal by Mr. John Tschohl. At the meeting, the Building Official and Fire Marshal presented new information to staff concerning the construction requirements for the proposed building due to the variety of uses within the building. Mr. Brad Schmoll, Fire Marshal, has attached requirements for the construction of the proposed building. This analysis is typically done at the building permit stage of the approval process rather than the zoning stage, however, occupancy separation issues became apparent at the Development Committee meeting. Therefore, Mr. Tschohl will be required to comply with the Fire Marshal's requirements as listed in the attached letter. .., ~ ACTION REOUESTED The Council options include the following: 1) AffIrm the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the conditional use permit for a commercial recreation and equipment and maintenance storage use in an A-I zoning district. The Council either needs to concur with the fmdings of the Planning Commission or state new or additional findings of its own. 2) Overturn and/or modify the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council should incorporate fmdings which support the decision. These findings will then be brought back to Council for approval at the next Council meeting. Any decision to modify or overturn the Planning Commission's decision will require a 4/5th,s vote of the Council. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: John Tschohl 4 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator FROM: Brad Schmoll Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Plan Review of John Tschohl building located at the NW comer of 210th Street and Fairgreen Ave. DATE: December 6,1999 I have reviewed the plans that were submitted, and in order for the building to be in compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Building Code as established by the city of Farmington. The following items need to be addressed prior to construction: It will be required to provide a detailed Architectural plan by a licensed Architect, the plan shall be signed and dated prior to submittal. The Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Building Code both require area separations based on the occupancy use in the building. The plans that were submitted did not indicate this required information. Therefore, It will be necessary to provide information showing where occupancy separations will be located in the building. . Construction Plans should include the following: Civil Plans, Architectural, Structural and Mechanical. Plans for Fire Department access need to be submitted for review prior to the start of construction. Fire Department Access: Fire apparatus roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty [20] feet and an unobstructed height of not less than thirteen [13] feet six [6] inches. Required unobstructed width of a fire apparatus road shall be maintained at all times. Fire apparatus access roads should be designed and maintained to support the imposed weight of fire apparatus with a surface to provide All Weather driving capabilities. Fire apparatus roads shall be installed prior to and during the time of construction. A permit must be obtained from the city of Farmington Building Division prior to conducting any work. This will help ensure that any work to be done will be handled properly and that any changes will be in compliance with all applicable codes. Respectfully Submitted, d.~/~ Brad Schmoll Farmington Fire Marshal John '1Schoh/ Investments 9201 EAST BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55420 (612) 884-3311 November 18, 1999 Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Lee: My son and I would like to appeal to the City Council the Planning Commission's decision to not approve the 42' x 60" metal storage building on my property at Fairgreen and 210th Street. This is a very attractive building that would be used to store cars, a small climbing wall for my son and his friends and a place he can occasionally fix cars he owns. My 18-year-old son and his friends don't drink or use drugs. These are highly trained athletes who are from 16-45 years old. The building is hidden from view. It's in a very isolated part of Farmington. The Planning Commission vote was flawed with conflicts of interest and a lack of understanding of a very simple request. ~ ) --------- .231993 I~ ~\)~ ~ Lf;z.. / ~t o S d<:Yl f1 t\D ~c ,.0 ~ ~, " '" ~,> 1 '- ~ ., ~o-,\ ~Ve ~(\ ~). f{fL9 \ ...P e.. c.. ...p"-' ~ 'ifG-\ 'efi,CJ~S{ K l.Uy S~ t :-' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us .- - - FROM: City Planning commi~Si Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator TO: SUBJECT: Application for a Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Recreation and Equipment and Maintenance Storage DATE: November 9, 1999 INTRODUCTION Mr. John Tschohl and his son Matthew are seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use (Climbing wall) and Equipment and Maintenance Storage (Car repair) within a proposed 42' x 60' building. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission met on October 26, 1999 to discuss the Conditional Use Permit. At the meeting the Planning Commission learned that the applicants were lessees of a portion of the property originally owned by the applicants. Additionally, there were a number of issues raised that forced the Planning Commission to continue the review ofthe CUP to the November 9, 1999 meeting. The Commission requested City staff to review and respond to the following issues: 1. Mr. Tschohl no longer owns the property that the proposed building will be located on. Mr. Babe Murphy has purchased the property and has signed an agreement to allow Mr. Tschohl to lease a 147 foot by 147 foot square parcel of property in the southeast comer of the property to locate a portable building (see attached lease agreement). The lease is for a period of 10 years. Question: Can a CUP be approved for the leased area if the CUP runs with the property after the lease has expired or the applicant terminates the lease? Response: The City Attorney stated that a CUP might be granted to a person leasing a property as long as they comply with the conditions of the CUP. Additionally, the CUP will run with the length of the property, however, new owners/lessees also have to comply with conditions of the CUP. 2. The attached site plan shows a 50-foot building setback from each property line. Question: Should this setback be increased considering that 210th Street and Fairgreen A venue may be constructed to the west and north in the future? Response: The 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update does not address any expansions for 210th Street or Fairgreen Avenue. Therefore, there is no basis for requesting the increase of the minimum setback of 50 feet from a property line required in Section 10-4-2 of the City Code. 3. The attached site plan shows a 10- foot gravel road accessing from the comer of 21 Oth Street and Fairgreen Avenue to the building. Question: Will an access easement be required from the property owner to the east (Huber) or the property to the south (Murphy)? Is the 10-foot wide roadway adequate for accessing the site? Will there be a parking area located on the site? Response: The City's Geographical Information System (see attached map) shows that the property enroaches into the right-of-way on Fairgreen A venue thereby requiring no access easement from adjacent property owners. The applicants will be required to have a survey prepared before they may apply for a building permit. A building permit is required for this building because it is not related to agricultural uses. 4. Mr. Huber (property owner to the east of the proposed building) discussed the future traffic conflicts between mining trucks accessing the mining operation along 21 Oth Street to the east and vehicles owned by participants of the climbing wall cooperative. He also discussed his concern of theft to his property with the increased traffic utilizing the proposed building. Finally, he stated that the proposed hours that Matthew Tschohl requested (7 AM to 12 AM) for participants to utilize the building would provide the opportunity for additional thefts to his mining operation. Questions: How will the City, applicant and/or adjacent property owners reduce conflicts between the mining trucks and participant's vehicles? How will the City, applicant and/or the affected property owner inhibited the possibility for thefts at the mining site? Response: Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street are public streets, therefore personal vehicles may access the area at any time. The applicant may want to notify the participants in the cooperative that truck traffic is continual along these roadways and extra care in accessing the location is important. Secondly, if there have been thefts at the mining site, Mr. Huber needs to notify the Farmington Police and/or secure items on his property. However, security of a site is not a land use issue. Finally, at the meeting Matthew Tschohl requested the hours of operation be from 7 AM to 12 AM. Further discussions at the Planning Commission need to take place before the hours of operation are finalized. 5. Matthew Tschohl informed the Planning Commission that the climbing wall area would be owned cooperatively by eighteen to twenty participants. Monthly dues from these participants would assist in constructing the building and climbing wall, and expanding the climbing wall in the future. Question: Can a CUP be approved when a portion of the building will be leased cooperatively by participants of the climbing wall? Response: The City Attorney stated that if the use (climbing wall) falls within the requirements of a CUP in the A-I district then the CUP may be approved. As stated before, the CUP might be approved as long as the lessee or cooperative lessees comply with the conditions of the CUP. The applicants propose to use the building for the storage and repair of cars and the construction of a climbing wall for recreation. As stated in their letter, they feel that the storage of cars should be considered, which is a permitted use within an A-I district. The City 'Attorney has concurred that the storage of cars as a permitted use be considered the same as the storage of boats and travel trailers. . As stated at the October 28, 1999 meeting, it has been determined that the Tschohl' s need to seek a Conditional Use Permit for the following uses in an A-I district: Commercial Recreation Use - Climbing wall Equipment and Maintenance Storage - Car repair The climbing wall is considered a commercial recreation use because monthly dues will be required for participants to use and maintain the facility identifying this as a commercial use. The dues will allow eighteen to twenty men to cooperatively lease the climbing wall. The car repair and storage falls under the equipment and maintenance storage category as a conditional use. The equipment maintenance and storage definition reads as follows: "A structure for maintenance, repair or storage of equipment on property owned by the owner of said equipment." In the case of Mathew Tschohl as a lessee, the lessee may repair cars that he owns within the facility, but the repair of cars not personally owned by him for a profit is not allowed in an A-I district. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use (climbing wall) and Equipment and Maintenance Storage (car repair) for the proposed 42'x 60' steel storage building at the northeast intersection of Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street based on the following condition; 1. The number of recreational users be limited to 20 at any given time during use of the climbing wall; 2. Advertising only be permitted for the storage of vehicles, lessee must submit sIgn application for proper review and approval by Planning staff; 3. Hours of operation for the repair of vehicles and recreational use of the climbing wall be limited to the hours between 7 AM to 10 PM; 4. Vehicle or equipment repair is limited to vehicles owned by the lessee; 5. No outside storage of vehicles or vehicle parts is permitted; 6. All uses of the facility and property be limited to the applied uses as described on the conditional use application and property owners letter, any other uses, commercial or recreational, must be approved by the Planning Commission at a separate public hearing; 7. Building location must meet the minimum setback requirements for the zoning district. OZ'J!4 Lee Smick, AlCP Planning Coordinator Cc: John & Matthew Tschohl - UCo ~.- ..::0- ~~ u,: .30,... t-..Uq \ G ~. -t- ':) {' C\.}1..~ C '-' u. c~ .~ ()...A \L~ :\ ~.. C:S\ r O'l<)' ~ 0'-f( 1- \"'-...il C (.: r ll\.. en. ""'\ -::.' i ~ , ~ L . \ l- ~2. tl ~'h...\. \ <: \ f\.~ I'~I'\ -~\ i ,~ ~} "~ l '\\ '7_ \C' -t t, S1 --"~'- ....--. TI f'. ., -, ," '-1 11; 1(1 .'::J uc:""C..- .::c:s-~~ U/: ~bA ..._u, liquidated damages. In the case of any default by SELLER, Upon tenninalion of this Agreement the earnest money shaH be returned to BUYER. BUYER also shaH have the right to specifically enforce this Agreement provided that any action therefor i.s commenced within six (6) months after sueh right arises. In any action or proceeding to enforce this Agreement or any term hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and aLlomey's fees. 18. FARM U~ASE: 13UYER shall have the right to lease the subject property tor fanning purposes for the crop year 2000. 'Ibe rent ter the same shall be 40% of the 1999 rent paid by the third party farm tenant to SELLER for the subjccl property, said 40% representing that portion of the crop year that is attributable to the timc period prior to the closing date hereof. Said rent shall be paid on lhe E1at~of olooiRgl. May /O/.1aoo. 19. LEASE FOR SOUTHEAST CORNER: SELLER's child )hcreinaftcr "Tenant") shall have the right to lea'5e a 147 foot by 147 foot s.5t~aw(J~arcel of property in _...... the Southeast corner of the subject property for a period of ~years commencinf--- - with the closing date hereof nn the following tcnns and conditions: ) ^. Tenant shall have the right to place a portable huilding on the leased area, . _ however, all costs for such placement and/or purchase uf the same shall be home snlely by the Tenant. Upon the tcrmination of the lease period, said building and any other improvement placed upon lhe leased area shall be removed at Tenant's expense, the subject property to be restored to a condition equivalent to that lhat existed prior to the commencement of the lease term. S. 111at portion of real estate taxes to be paid during the lease term, including installments of special assessments. attributable to the lease area that is being leased and attributable to the placement of any building or other improvements upon said lcased area shall be timely paid by tcnant as follows: one-half (112) of each respective year's sum shall be due and payable to BUYER (hereinal1er "Lessor") by May I and one-half (J/2) of each year's such sum shall be due and payable on October 1 of each respective year in question. c. All utility and othcr operating costs of any kind whatsoever attributable to the usage of said leased area, building, or other improvements on said leased area shall be timely paid by tenant. n. Tenant shall hold harmless Lessor from all liabilities arising from the usage and/or improvement of said leased area, building or other irnprovemenL'5, howsoever originating. r;urthcr, Tenant shall obtain a liabilily insurance policy naming Lessor as an insured, the provisions of the same Lo be reasonably approved by Lessor, a copy of the same to be provided to Lessor. and said policy to state that in no event shall Lhe same be tenllinatcd and/or cancelled without the firsl giving of 30 days advance written notification to Lessor. E. Tenant shall solely be responsible for any losses arising to said building, its contents, or any olh<.:r improvement placcd upon said lea..ed area, howsoever ..rising. Murphy T$c:I...,hl plJreha.~e llgrccnlC:..llpurogree 7 .,], .l,,{} ~c~-~o-~~ U':~OA SELLER: ...._U~ F. SELLER shall hold harmless and indemnify BUYER from all liabilities ancllor responsibilities undertaken and/or assumed by Tenant during the lease term. G. Tenant shall cnter into a written lease with Lessor embodying the above terms before Tenant shall have any right to so lease. BUYER: ~,1. ~ WP-5l/ John S'};chohl , }:1arried Bernard D. MW'phy SSN:.~ 7/#'5b-?/6.? SSN: 476-34-2510 <..:.:i;~"--r4-'- r.c ~~ ./9-.;1.8-<79 (signatu (dale) "':~B;tJ:~;A J. TSf~ob\ Married SSN: t.( 7& - :tb'" 7 i?'fD Single MUflIhy TsdlOhl purchasc llgI1:Cmenllpuraf!.to;c 8 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP {), (0 Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Application for a Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Recreation and Equipment and Maintenance Storage DATE: October 26, 1999 INTRODUCTION Mr. John Tschohl and his son Matthew are seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use (Climbing wall) and Equipment and Maintenance Storage (Car repair) within a proposed 42' x 60' building. Planning: Division Review Applicant: Mr. John Tschohl Service Quality Institute 9201 East Bloomington Freeway Minneapolis, MN 55420-3497 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. A-I Permitted and Conditional Uses 4. Section 4-5-4 Pole Buildings 5. Section 10-4-2 Table 1 Location of Property: The property is located at the northeast intersection of Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street in the agricultural district. Current Land Use: Agriculture. Proposed Development: The owner proposes to construct a 42' x 60' steel storage building within the A-I district. Area Currently Bounded By: Agricultural uses surround the property along with single-family homes to the west of the proposed site. DISCUSSION As stated in the attached letter dated September 29, 1999, Mr. Tschohl and his son Matthew propose to construct a 42' x 60' steel storage building within an A-I zoning district. Section 4-5- 4 permits pole buildings within the A-I district. As shown on the attached site plan, the applicant proposes to construct the building 30 feet from each of the property lines. However, per Section 10-4-2, the required front yard setback is 50 feet considering that Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street may become future roadways. Therefore, both sides of the building facing the property line are considered front yards and require 50-foot setbacks. The Tschohl's propose to use the building for the storage and repair of cars and the construction of a rock-climbing wall for recreation. As stated in their letter, they feel that the storage of cars should be considered the same as the storage of boats, which is a permitted use within an A-I district. The City Attorney has approved this venture as a permitted use. After continued discussions with the City Attorney, it has been determined that the Tschohl's need to seek a Conditional Use Permit for the following uses in an A-I district: Commercial Recreation Use - Climbing wall Equipment and Maintenance Storage - Car repair The climbing wall is considered a commercial recreation use because monthly dues will be required for non-owner participants to use and maintain the facility identifying this as a commercial use. The car repair and storage falls under the equipment and maintenance storage category as a conditional use. The equipment maintenance and storage definition reads as follows: "A structure for maintenance, repair or storage of equipment on property owned by the owner of said equipment." The owner may repair cars that he owns within the facility, but the repair of cars not personally owned by him for a profit is not allowed in an A-I district. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use (climbing wall) and Equipment and Maintenance Storage (car repair) for the proposed 42'x 60' steel storage building at the northeast intersection of Fairgreen A venue and 210th Street based on the following condition; 1. The number of recreational users be limited to 20 at any given time during use of the climbing wall; 2. Advertising only be permitted for the storage of vehicles, property owner must submit sign application for proper review and approval by Planning staff; 3. Hours of operation for the repair of vehicles and recreational use of the climbing wall be limited to the hours between 7 A.M. to 10 P.M.; 4. Vehicle or equipment repair is limited to vehicles owned by the property owner; 5. No outside storage of vehicles or vehicle parts is permitted; 6. All uses of the facility and property be limited to the applied uses as described on the conditional use application and property owners letter, any other uses, commercial or recreational, must be approved by the Planning Commission at a separate public hearing; 7. Building location must meet the minimum setback requirements for the zoning district. Respectfully submitted, /~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator Cc: John & Matthew Tschohl -. .-.---.... CITY OF FARMINGTON CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION Fannington. MN 55024:. -. .. 651-463.7111 FAX 65'-463-1611 ~1~~~t~5~Y~5~~~ ~'-\' ~ ,,;\ '''1' r~~-,~-'~'r"~- ~~1r~~~Z~~~~l ~ AppIIcaat N.... :r "I,.. 'S: d'- f\AO.:t\~ "-~ ~ T ~ <. kolA r - ~ Appliunt Address 4 (.; _ 0 If) ; 111 =- ~,'l ~ ~ ~e Street city State Zip Code Phoae Number c... \ 2.. - S'iJ Y. -"3 ~ (( ~~ ~~~I'{.' Legal Description of ~bjectfropeJ1y.; (lot. b ock. plat aame, section, township, range) ~ -\ j,.., ~ l e:. .:-\::-1. L. 6 " ,~ " Co- C- . ~ bu.\\'~V\.~ -(D;. t~~~' r~~ Fol1owiDl Attached: (plesase cbeck) _ Proof of OwDersbip _ BouadarylLot Survey _ Application fee ($150) _ 6 Copies of Site PIaD _ Abstrac:tJResicleat List *(req1litcd 350'. from sabject propeny) .,. _ Torrens (Owner's Dablicate Certificate ofntle Required) hopcrtyOwaers~~~J.J? Appka..~~"~1JIt a. m ~ ~ -- +-' m () o ...J - I D L I \ _J - I I \\ \ ( - l --- 1 --=== ~ ~ ~ - I ~ c: 0 :;:: ~ co to> 0 I ...J Q) L... ::l t) .E I----- en ~ - '0 = Q) en - C. 1 e a.. ~ ~ - - ~1\11 - f--- l c ~ ~D <( en cj f-- / ~ L-- I-- ~~ :JA'lt 1.:1 ;=::::: '--- L - - :J - fLr 10-3-2 10-3-1 CHAPTER 3 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL. uses SECTION: 1 0-3-1 : 10-3-2: Permitted Uses Conditional Uses 10-3-1: PERMITTED USES: The permitted uses for each district are listed below. Accessory uses and essential services are also permitted. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-205. 8-15-1988) 10-3-2: CONDITIONAL USES: The Planning Commission may authorize conditional uses as specified below, which will not be detrimental to the integrity of the districts if all the conditions and provisions of Chapter 8 of this Title are met. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Qrd. 088-205, 8-15-1988) Permitted Uses Conditional Uses (A) A-1 Agricultural District . 1. Two-family dwellings ~Agricultural service ~Commercial recreation uses 4. Water recreation and storage 5. Stables and riding academies 5. Public buildings 6. Drainage and irrigation 6. Public utility buildings systems 7. Kennels 7. Specialized animal raising 8. Solar energy systems 8. Greenhouses and nurseries 9. Cemeteries 9. Travel trailer and boat storage 10. Mineral extraction 10. Truck gardening - - <!D Equipment and mainte- nance storage 12. Feedlot 1. Agriculture 2. Single-family dwellings 3. Public parks and playgrounds 4. Golf courses 11. Seasonal produce stands 597 City 0; Farmington. 1. Two-famtly dwellings 2. Agricultural service 3. CommercIal recreati.-, uses 4. Water recreation and storage 5. Public buildings 6. Public utility buildingl 7. Kennels 8. Solar energy system 9. Cemeteries 10. Mineral extraction 11. Equipment and mairte- nance storage 12. Feedlot 13. Accessory apartmens 14. Public and parochial schools 15. Churches 16. Towers (Ord. 086-1n, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-205, 8-15-U38; 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 1 0-3-2 ....'" Conditional Uses 13. Accessory apartments 14. Public ana parochial SChOOlS 15. Churches 16. Towers 088-205. 8-15-' 988; Ord. D93-298. 1. Cemeteries 2. Nursing homes 3. Nonprofit recreatioral uses 4. Day care facility se..i ng more than 14 perslns 5. Hospitals and clinia 6. Public utility buildinls 7. Public buildings City of Farmin.gton. ~ II. I~ II'~,:, 1I1'~, III ':~i;ii,,~ ii'lJ.''''''~~ - - Argenrina Australia Bel ize Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile Colombia Cosra Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador FJ Salvador Guaremala ,mduras ong Kong Indonesia Israel Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Panama Peru Unired Arab Emir,Hes Unircd Kingdom ,ild Sratcs ,','noul,l.l \'irl'in Isl.mds SERVICE QUALITY INSTITUTE . .-:< ., _/ <,JV ' . \"0 ~;\:>~ September 29, 1999 Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 D ~:~~:~I~ Dear Lee: My son needs the building approved on October 12 so it can be built now. Otherwise, he will miss the entire winter season. The building will be used to store cars and boats. The climbing wall will be for a cooperative of 12 young boys. It is not for commercial use. The storage of cars should be the same as boats. He will store cars for people who want a heated storage facility, not to repair their cars. Eventually he will repair cars he owns in the building. I doubt if anyone in Farmington needs a conditional permit to repair their cars in their own garage. Please respond by fax or phone today. I believe you will have the names today from Dakota County Abstract. '....", 9201 1',1\1 BI""lllillgrtln Fr"'l'\\;t" . i\linw"I,..[i', \linnc'l'Ll ;',i20.;'I'j- l, ~..\, . ]'b."". (<i2 SSI ,ill. F,1\ h!2 ~Ii I ~')()I F..~d.liI qll.liiiy:.iJ,,,'r\.j....-npl,tlitT "':;,)111 . \\ 'l'h ,,-\\ \\...:tl'{. 'lIh'J ..;....1\ jl,.;,:.l..llIll 4-5-3 .1-5-5 4-5-3: ALTERNATE MATERIALS: In the event an owner, intending to apply for a building permit, desires to use any of the materials included under Section 4-5-2 above as exterior finish materials, such owner may present to the Building Official a request for preliminary approval for the use of such materials prior to the preparation of final drawings and application required by other sections of this Chapter. Such information may be necessary to indicate accurately the use to be made of such materials and the appearance of the exterior of such structure when completed. If such request for preliminary approval of materials is granted by the Building Official or the Council, as the case may be, the sketch and other information shall be properly marked for identification by the Building Official and be filed in his office and such data shall become a part of the building permit application when filed. (Ord. 093-319, 12-6-93) 4-5-4: POLE BUilDINGS: A pole building shall be permitted in zoning districts A-1 or C-1 and only in any other district upon approval by the City Council. Said Council shall exercise its discretion in determining whether or not a building of such type will be compatible with the surrounding area. Such structures may be authorized by the Council for use as warehouse, heavy equipment storage, or other uses which would tend to be compatible with that type of structure and in a location where it would not be offensive to other property owners or persons within the City. (Ord. 093-319, 12-6-93) 4-5-5: RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: (A) Uniform Building Code: All residential units shall meet applicable requirements of the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code, 1986 Edition, which has been adopted by reference by the City. (B) Dwelling Unit Restrictions: 1. No garage. tent. accessory building or motor home shall at any time be used as living quarters. either temporarily or permanently. 2. Basements and cellars may be used as living quarters or rooms as a portion of the principal residential dwelling. Energy conserving designs such as earth sheltered housing shall be exempt from this provision. 294 City 0; Farmington ~ 10-4-2 .... :0 Cl it-~ -ow )(...J:> c 0 :0 (.) W ...J CD C t- :f) Z :::l ~uJ _a:: ~;,,) :;jc :;:a:: o~ cJl cJl o a: Cl ...,. t- !;. lI:: (.) C CD t- W en o a: C > w ~:l 0 ~ ~~:e t- o ...J :0 :::l :0 Z ~ ~I II :f) "" ...J~ ...::l c.... ...(.) o::l a:: .... cJl ~Io - N cJl ~Io wN a: zlo ~ on ... C~ ",,'" a:: 0 cen .. .. ..- _u u. .0 -- ~ c Cell. ". _'" .... " .. ii: =::l "::l a::;;'7- J: ..! >- -15 2:15'~ :a : c "3 ! ~ !i l1. ~ Cia CI 0 C C ~ N .( .( '" .. '" '" ~ '" '" o '" .., ,0 ~ '" " :D Q .. ieo!at~-oe ~ 1,/)0000 0 NMMNM M '" .... .... 0'" "'''' ~ :, '" o '" <ocaooo CDf.OOOQ ~2222 u:aca<OOOQ 2 OQ "'''' ~ '" '" ~ ~ "'''' "'''' 000<0"''''.." on '" N C'\f (J) N .... Z ... :0 w a: '3 o Q ~ '" .... (.) it .... cJl i5 > a: Q C Q :0 '" it l1. > CD o w Z ~ => a: 0 w 0 .... -:; w ... o o '" COCDOQO cacaaoo 222'22 cacoca~22 2: o '" 00000 00000 0000'0 oaoooo 0 C'\fNNNN NNNNN NNNNN NNNNNN .n o '" l.t1W')OO&l) 0"'010"" "'1.1)000 0001000 '" ""01",,,,01 <0""22"" """""OQ:IICD caCD<DQQCD ,... .. .. .. - _u ... .0 -... gg ~8g ggggg ggggg 88gggg g 0"': · o,...~ cO": 0 ei": o.1Ii I6i 0 o. r.ri fStJ- -- Q a _- o. ___M_ -N(\I- ----- -NN- ?> Os :lilt:.!'>. . = ~.- . \LEoE.. <i.x:::l a~ C:~- ,=~~'3.! ~t-~:o15 ci:. ~ E . ... .! >O:~UI SE SE : en.x:::l , LA. _ . ... . -'-.. ~~~'3= ~t-t-:Oo '" o 'C '" :0 ~ a: ~ e . \L . .. .! >o..~UI ""'" "'e" ~~~:~ . ~ c...:,.:; ~~~'3= ~t-....:oO .. ::I J:: "" :f "? a: City at Farmington " .. ~ U .!!?> < e'e.!'!~. ..eoe: :O~.X:" ~a.6i3~ "=10"= 8ent-t-:OO 'C .. .. 2 ... a: 'C .. .. Q. .. Q. .. ~ ::l ~ ~14 4( :: :fe:.. ~ =~~: : ~ Gii:- c a3 ~~i5 ~ " CD ! E i ~ Cl ~ dlCD .. .. <II ::l OOO<OII)~ll'J '" '" '" ti3~O a ~ ~ ~ 000 0 0 0 0 ~"'''' III ." ~ ~ 000 0 0 0 Q ggg g g g g ~lI'i.ft .n Q Q~ c:i .. ... III ~ .2 '; .. -6 > ~.E = : E a x 3' (.) '" <D ..:. U '" < .. .. '" .. ::l < :c ~ < .. .. .. .. .. .. ::l ::l <= :i 0: < .. '8 ~~~ ; u: _ 'C"i Q " c: o .2 . u::....Cl '" '" .... .... .... 10-4-2 :;;r _, ..:!IlII '" '" ..,. ~ ,... ("] cc C\l ("] ..,. 01 o 'C o M 01 01 .;. ..,. o ("] M 01 o 1:i o C\l 01 ~ .... .... C\l 01 C\l C\l 01 o 'C o <II .. '" ::l 01 ("] CD ,... ..,. ~ .... 01 o 'C o 'C E 1lI iQ <Xl C\l .... cD cc CD <Xl o 'C Q. 594 Planning Commission Minutes Regular November 9, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Larson, and Ley Members Absent: Dougherty and Johnson Also Present: Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz 2. Chair Rotty requested any comments on the minutes for October 12, 1999. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Rotty to approve the October 12, 1999 Commission minutes. Ley abstained. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Rotty requested any comments on the minutes for October 26, 1999. Rotty noted that the meeting was a special meeting not a regular one. Staff will make the necessary changes. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty opened all scheduled public hearings at this time. --?>- 3. Chair Rotty briefly introduced the application for a conditional use permit for a commercial recreation and equipment and maintenance storage building to be located northeast of Fairgreen Avenue and 21 Olh Street in the A-I district. He stated that this was a continued public hearing from October 26, 1999 due to new information released at the meeting and the need for answers to questions raised at the meeting. The new information included owner-lease issues, easement access, site plan issues, traffic issues and setback issues. Planning Coordinator Smick discussed each issue at length stating that Mr. John Tschohl, the applicant no longer owned the property at the northeast intersection of Fairgreen Avenue and 21 Olh Street and that Mr. Tschohl would be leasing a 147 foot by 147 foot square parcel at this location. The lease is for a period of ten years. The issue was whether the CUP runs with the property after the lease has expired or the applicant terminates the lease? The City Attorney relayed to Planning Coordinator Smick that a CUP might be granted to a person leasing a property as long as they comply with the conditions of the CUP. The second issue that Planning Coordinator Smick discussed was the 50-foot building setback and whether this setback should be increased? She stated that there was no basis for requesting an increase because the 2020 Comprehensive Plan does not address any expansions to Fairgreen Avenue or 210th Street. Therefore, the City could only require a minimum building setback of 50 feet per the City Code. Commissioner Ley asked where the property line was and whether Fairgreen Avenue and 210lh Street would be expanded to the north and west. Planning Coordinator Smick explained that the property line was the centerline of the future roadways and that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan does not address the expansion of Fairgreen Avenue or 210th Street. At this time, Chair Rotty asked where the applicant was and if he was going to attend the meeting. Planning Coordinator Smick responded that she called Mr. Tschohl, however, she did not get a returned phone call from him. The third issue addressed the site plan and the need for an access easement for the 10-foot gravel road accessing the site. She explained that the City's Geographical Information System showed that the property encroaches into the right-of-way of Fairgreen Avenue thereby requiring no access from adjacent property owners. At that time in the meeting, Mr. Tschohl and his son Matthew arrived.. Mr. Tschohl corrected Planning Coordinator Smick's staff report by stating that the property was owned by him until July 5, 2000. Mr. Tschohl also stated he would comply with the building setback requirement of 50 feet. Planning Coordinator Smick stated that the applicant would be required to apply for a building permit. She also stated that a site plan would be required for the project showing the parking lot and access. She stated that Lee Mann, City Engineer reviewed the site plan and stated that the 10-foot access roadway was not wide enough to handle the traffic to the building. Commissioner Larson questioned whether Mr. Mann had a problem with where the access was located in conjunction with Fairgreen Avenue and Planning Coordinator Smick stated that Mr. Mann did not have a problem with the access location. Planning Coordinator Smick addressed the issue of whether a parking lot would be located on the site? She stated that the City requires a parking lot and the applicant needs to show this on the site plan. Chair Rotty questioned Mr. Tschohl on whether he proposed to install a parking lot due to the number of individuals (18-20) using the facility. Mr. Tschohl stated that he assumed that people would park on Fairgreen Avenue because it is such a "desolate street." Matthew Tschohl stated that he proposed to place a floodlight on the building to light the area and that there could be a designated parking area next to the building. He also stated that there would never be 20 people at the building at the same time, but more like 15 people and not all at one time. Planning Coordinator Smick continued with another issue concerning the adjacent property owner's (Mr. Huber) issues dealing with traffic conflicts and theft problems due to the building being opened from 7 AM to 12 AM. She stated that Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street are public streets and personal vehicles are allowed on these streets, however, the applicant might want to notifY the participants in the proposed building that mining trucks are continual in this area. She also stated that the Farmington Police should be notified of theft problems and Mr. Huber should secure items on his property, however security of a site is not a land use issue and should not playa part in the decision of the Planning Commission. Finally, she stated that at the October 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, Matthew Tschohl requested that the hours of operation for the climbing wall be extended from 7 AM to 12 AM to allow people from Minneapolis to climb in the evenings. The final issue dealt with whether a CUP can be approved if a portion of the building is leased cooperatively by the 18-20 participants in the climbing wall venture? Planning Coordinator Smick stated that if the use (climbing wall) fell within the requirements of the CUP in the A-I district and the lessees complied with the conditions of the CUP, then the CUP may be approved per the City Attorney's opinion. Planning Coordinator Smick stated the conditions of the CUP: I. The number of recreational users be limited to 20 at any given time during use of the climbing wall; 2. Advertising only be permitted for the storage of vehicles, lessee must submit sign application for proper review and approval by Planning staff; 3. Hours of operation for the repair of vehicles and recreational use of the climbing wall be limited to the hours between 7 AM to 10 PM; 4. Vehicle or equipment repair is limited to vehicles owned by the lessee; 5. No outside storage of vehicles or vehicle parts is permitted; 6. All uses of the facility and property be limited to the applied uses as described on the conditional use application and property owners letter, any other uses, commercial or recreational, must be approved by the Planning Commission at a separate public hearing; 7. Building location must meet the minimum setback requirements for the zoning district. Chair Rotty pointed out that the repair of cars may be done only by the lessee on cars he owns, not by the members of the cooperative or on cars that they own. Chair Rotty questioned whether the applicant understood this condition. Matthew Tschohl responded that he would only work on cars in his ownership. Chair Rotty clarified that this condition would run with the length of the property not just for the time that the applicant leased the property. Chair Rotty questioned the applicant on whether they had any other issues. Mr. Tschohl stated that Matthew had a problem with the hours of operation between 7 AM to 10 PM. Matthew explained that the participants are climbing at their current gym until 10 PM on Wednesdays and 12 AM on Fridays. Mr. Tschohl further explained that the proposed building was in the middle of no where and at that hour of the night no one would steal anything and secondly, there was nothing to steal. Mr. Steve Huber stated that young kids took a front end loader from his property and buried it in the swamp. Chair Rotty stated to Mr. Huber that he would have time to discuss his issues when the Commission opened the meeting up for comments. Chair Rotty also stated that the Commission would take the staff memo comments and the Tschohl comments into consideration when the discussion of hours of operation was brought back to the table. Matthew Tschohl passed around pictures of the climbing club where the future participants currently climb. Mr. Tschohl stated that the participants do not take drugs or drink alcohol because they are athletes. Chair Rotty opened the meeting up for public comment but mentioned that since previous testimony was taken on October 26, 1999 the Commission would only review new issues from the public. Mr. Steve Huber asked whether there were any plans for 210th to go through to the west. He stated that in a few years the street may go through and the proposed building may be within the setback. Chair Rotty stated that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update does not show this road to be expanded at this time. Mrs. Darlene Donnelly: Didn't the City obtain an easement for an east-west roadway? Planning Coordinator Smick responded that the easement was for 20Sth Street. Mr. Tschohl also added that the reason the City obtained the easement was to insure that the City would not have to take down any buildings on the Christensen farm. Commissioner Ley asked what the width of the right-of-way was on 210th Street to the east. Planning Coordinator Smick responded that it might be 50 feet, where the City requires a 60-foot right-of-way width in current developments. Mrs. Elaine Donnelly questioned the Commission asking if this building was a commercial building? She continued to ask if the rest of the property owners in the A-I district would be allowed to run a repair shop as a commercial business on their individually owned properties? She stated that they reside in the agricultural district and that's what should be allowed there. She was also concerned that if Mr. Tschohl received an approval for the business, the rest of the farmers could start businesses as well. Mr. Tschohl asked Mrs. Donnelly if they fix tractors on her property? Mrs. Donnelly agreed that they fix tractors but they don't have a climbing wall or rent out space for the storage of cars. Mrs. Donnelly asked Matthew Tschohl about how many cars he plans on repairing on the property. Matthew stated that he owns four cars. Chair Rotty brought the discussion back to the table at this time. Commissioner Ley asked if the setback in an A-I district is a 50-foot minimum? Planning Coordinator Smick stated that that was correct. Commissioner Ley asked Mr. Tschohl if there would be a problem with him setting the building back ten feet further than the minimum requirement? Mr. Tschohl stated that the proposed leased property would be 147' x 147'. Commissioner Ley stated that he had a problem with approving the minimum 50-foot setback. He feels that the building should be set back now to the standard 20 feet from the right-of-way. Commissioner Larson stated that he feels that this is a business and it belongs in a business district not in an agricultural district. The parking on the street is not adequate, the floodlight on the building is not adequate per City standards, the setback of the building is a concern and where the driveway enters the site at the comer is hazardous. He continued to state that this type of building belongs in a business district and the building may not allow the room for all of the uses including storage, repair and a climbing wall. Chair Rotty also agreed with Commissioner Larson's comments and stated that the way the Commission looks at Conditional Uses, they don't place conditions on a building that can be moved in ten years, they place it on the property and he feels that the approval of commercial uses in this location with the possibility for future development would not be a wise move. He also stated that the equipment repair tends to cause problems because the equipment tends to move outside and causes unsightly views outside of the building. He stated that he did not think the Tschohl's would purposely store repair equipment outside, but that is typically the trend with equipment maintenance uses in the City of Farmington. He also feels that this is not the proper piece of property to use for a commercial recreation use. Commissioner Ley also stated that if the building was to be built, the building needs a parking lot. No parking of vehicles on the street should be allowed. Mr. Ley asked Mr. Tschohl if there were mining trucks using the road? Mr. Tschohl replied "very rarely". Commissioner Larson stated daily. Mr. Tschohl also asked how long the mining permit for the Huber property was for and how long has the City allowed the mining operation? Commissioner Larson asked Mr. Huber when he would be mined out? Mr. Huber stated that he renews the mining permit every year administratively and he has one more year to mine his property. Commissioner Larson asked that within that year, the property would be mined out and restored? Mr. Huber stated that that was correct. Chair Rotty stated to Mr. Tschohl that the conditional use permit was not a clean and simple application. He continued to state that at the last meeting the Commission became aware of new information such as the building would be located on leased land, that the building would be owned by a cooperative, not by one individual. Mr. Tschohl stated that building would be owned individually, but the co-op itself would have members. Chair Rotty continued to state the Commission had trouble with the parking and lighting of the property and he hoped that at the last meeting the applicants were aware of the number of problems with the application. Mr. Tshohl stated that the property was in the middle of nowhere. Commissioner Ley asked Mr. Tshohl if the property was in the City of Farmington? Mr. Tschohl answered that it was in the City of Farmington but it was the most desolate area that you could pick. Commissioner Ley stated that it was still in the City of Farmington. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to deny the conditional use permit. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Tschohl stated that he had two questions. 1) Can he appeal this to the City Council? Chair Rotty stated yes. 2) He wanted to know how the mining operation next to him was approved without him knowing about it? Chair Rotty stated that he could take that up with City staff. Planning Coordinator Smick presented information to the audience concerning their request to discuss Mr. Todd Cao's property on Flagstaff Avenue. She stated that she spoke to him and that he was required to remove the cars from outside of the building. Mr. Cao stated that he would store them in the building. 4. Chair Rotty in duced the next public hearing statin t Bernard Murphy and Farmington Luther Church are seeking approval to one property located on the east side of Akin Road n h of the Vermillion Riv om the existing C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to -1 (Low Densi esidential). explained that the appli 3 to 5 years. Planning Commission Minutes Special October 26, 1999 I. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Larson, Ley, Johnson Members Absent: Dougherty Also Present: Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz Chair Rotty opened all scheduled public hearings at this time. 2. Planner Smick presented the proposed amendments to Title 2 Chapter 9 and Section 10- 6-}4 of the Farmington City Code concerning the Landscape Ordinance. The revisions to the xisting landscape ordinance involve allowable boulevard tree plantings, tree maint ance on City boulevards and screening requirements. Additions to the existing landsca ordinance involve the need for a purpose statement, definitions concerning the landscape requirements, the requirement for a registered landscape architect and/or architect, h iculturist or landscape designer to prepare the plan, perimeter and interior parking lot r uirements, screening, planting specifications, builder fustallation of City boulevard tree tree protection in construction zones and overhe utility line planting requirements. Planner Smick spe 'fied that most of the reVISIOns and dditions to the landscape ordinance address co mercial and industrial sites only nd the City boulevard tree requirements address re irements for residential subdiv' Ions. Commissioner Johnson que 'oned whether it was the Planning Commission's or the Planning Coordinator's discre . n to determine th cost that the developer is required to absorb on landscaping his parti lar site. Pia mg Coordinator Smick replied that the reason for requiring certain pI material very forty feet is because there is no discretion in the calculation of plan . gs. I developers will have to abide by the same planting requirements rather than usin a ercentage formula. Commissioner Johnson also questio d e need for a registered landscape architect or architect because of costs to the d elope. Planning Coordinator Smick replied that a landscape architect, architect, ho lculturist 0 landscape designer has a better knowledge of the functions of plant mate al to locate th in the most advantageous locations to keep them alive or away fr possible safety oblems. Planning Coordinator Smick also added that she wou review and make reco mendations to the developer if the plants proposed are no uitable in their proposed loca . ons. Commissioner L questioned why a certified arborist uld not be part of the list of designers. PI ning Coordinator Smick replied that thl was a good proposal and Planning Ch . Rotty stated that this proposal be placed withi the motion. Planning Coordinator Smick also added that a landscape brochu would be provided in eac7velopment packet if the ordinance were approved at the Ci Council. Commissioner Larson mentioned that he had concerns over the requirement for interior planting islands concerning potential snow removal problems within a parking lot. />3. Planning Coordi tor Smick stated that the City Counc' . also concerned with this requirement, howev she will propose this require to the City Council. Planning Coordinator Smick reported that Mr. John Tschohl and his son Matthew are seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use (Climbing wall) and Equipment and Maintenance Storage (Car repair) within a proposed 42' x 60' building. She continued to state that pole buildings are permitted within the A-I district per Section 4-5-4 permits. The site plan showed that the applicant proposes to construct the building 30 feet from each of the property lines. However, per Section 10-4-2, the required front yard setback is 50 feet considering that Fairgreen A venue and 210th Street may become future roadways. Therefore, both sides of the building facing the property line are considered front yards and require 50-foot setbacks. The Tschohl's propose to use the building for the storage and repair of cars and the construction of a rock-climbing wall for recreation. As the Tschohl's stated in a letter, they feel that the storage of cars should be considered the same as the storage of boats, which is a permitted use within an A-I district. The City Attorney has approved this venture as a permitted use. The climbing wall is considered a commercial recreation use because monthly dues will be required for non-owner participants to use and maintain the facility identifying this as a commercial use. The car repair and storage falls under the equipment and maintenance storage category as a conditional use. The equipment maintenance and storage definition reads as follows: "A structure for maintenance, repair or storage of equipment on property owned by the owner of said equipment." The owner may repair cars that he owns within the facility, but the repair of cars not personally owned by him for a profit is not allowed in an A-I district. The Planning Commission was requested to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use (climbing wall) and Equipment and Maintenance Storage (car repair) for the proposed 42'x 60' steel storage building at the northeast intersection ofFairgreen Avenue and 2 lOth Street based on the following condition; 1. The number of recreational users be limited to 20 at any given time during use of the climbing wall; 2. Advertising only be permitted for the storage of vehicles, property owner must submit sign application for proper review and approval by Planning staff; 3. Hours of operation for the repair of vehicles and recreational use of the climbing wall be limited to the hours between 7 A.M. to 10 P.M.; - 4. Vehicle or equipment repair is limited to vehicles owned by the property owner; 5. No outside storage of vehicles or vehicle parts is permitted; 6. All uses of the facility and property be limited to the applied uses as described on the conditional use application and property owners letter, any other uses, commercial or recreational, must be approved by the Planning Commission at a separate public hearing; 7. Building location must meet the minimum setback requirements for the zoning district. Matthew Tschohl was present at the meeting and stated that the 50-foot setback requirement was acceptable. He also stated that the climbing wall would be owned as a cooperative with 18 to 20 other men. He would like the hours of the facility to be open from 7 AM to 12 AM. He plans on fixing his own cars in the facility and will not work on cars that he does not own. Mr. Kurt Huber - 9550 206m Street, Lakeville, MN Owner of the Huber farm east of the proposed site. Mr. Huber is concerned about the location of the building. He wants to know where the access to the site will be? Matthew Tschohl stated that his father might have an easement from someone near the site. Planning Chair requested staff to research existing easements to the site. Mr. Huber also was concerned about the 50-foot building setback near 210lh Street and Fairgreen Avenue because potential development in the future would be inhibited by the building being located so close to these roadways. Planning Coordinator Smick stated that these roadways are not addressed on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan but acknowledged that these roadways may be expanded in the future. Commissioner Ley offered that a 100-foot setback would be a more beneficial setback than the required 50-foot setback. Mr. Huber was concerned that he might be assessed for the road to the facility. Planning Coordinator Smick stated that he would not be assessed because the applicant is required to construct the access road to his facility. Mr. Huber continued by stating that he is concerned about the mining traffic on 210m Street and Fairgreen Avenue inter-mixing with traffic to the proposed facility. He is also concerned about theft to his mining operation from the opening of this facility. Mr. Steve Huber - Steve Huber stated that he was concerned about the inter-mixing of traffic on 210m Street and Fairgreen Avenue and also the late hours of operation. Planning Chair Rotty stated that the applicant should provide a clearer site plan showing the access to the facility. The applicant was not clear on whether an access easement was obtained for the property or whether they needed to obtain one from Babe Murphy. The applicant stated at this time that the Mr. John Tschohl no longer owns the property and will lease a portion of his old property from Babe Murphy. Planning Chair Rotty stated that this was new information to the Commission and there was a need for staff and the City Attorney to review how a leased property works with a conditional use permit. Mrs. Elaine Donnelly questioned the building along Flagstaff A venue and why there were so many cars parked outside of the shed. Planning Coordinator Smick stated that the City staffis aware of the situation and will inspect the site to determine if they are not complying with City Codes. -. Mr. Kurt Huber questioned whether they would be notified on whether the proposed building was approved. Planning Chair Rotty stated that the Planning Commission still needed to discuss additional issues concerning the property. Mrs. Tschohl stated that the young men utilizing the facility are good men and they would not cause harm to themselves or others. Mrs. Darlene Donnelly questioned whether the cooperative owners would be owners of the vehicles within the storage building and was concerned that the storage of cars is a business within an agricultural district. Planning Chair Rotty answered that the storage of cars is permitted within an A-I district. The Planning Chair brought the discussion back to the table and stated that in light of the new information shared at the meeting, he did not feel that these new questions could be answered adequately at this meeting. He cited a number of issues that need to be answered including the following: owner/lease issues, easement for access, site plan requirement, cooperative issues, traffic issues, setbacks, Therefore, he requested that the public hearing be continued. MOTION by Ley second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to the November 9, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Planning Coordinator Smick discussed the proposed amendment to Chapter 7 of the Farmington City Code concerning the weed ordinance. She stated that at the October 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners discussed the need to include a defmition for a natural area in order to discern weeds versus natural plant material. The following definition was included in the ordinance: Natural areas on platted lots: Natural areas will be allowed on platted lots in backyards from the most rear corner of the home subject to a six foot (6') setback from the property lines, except in the case where the natural area is adjacent to another natural area or fence. A natural area contains native grasses meaning those species of perennial grasses other than those designated as noxious weeds by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture in 1505.0730 and 1505.0740. MOTION by Ley second by Larson to make a recommendation to the City Council to approve Chapter 7 of the Farmington City Code concerning weed control. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn. Respectfully submitted, Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator Approved City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOa-. TO: Mayor and Council Members City AdministratorfJL Michael Schultz rv () Associate Planner yx FROM: SUBJECT: Application to Rezone Property from C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R-I (Low Density-Residential) DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION Bernard Murphy and Farmington Lutheran Church are seeking approval to rezone property located in the NEY4 of the SEY4 of Section 25, Township 114, Range 20 from the existing C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density-Residential) (see attached map for location). DISCUSSION The applicants are seeking to rezone 16.25 acres of property from the current C-I (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to an R-I (Low Density-Residential) zoning designation for the purpose of a future church site for Farmington Lutheran. The R-l and A-I zoning designations permit churches as a conditional use permit, but the C-I zoning excludes churches within the district. (see attached zoning definitions and 10-3-2: Permitted and Conditional Uses) The property is located northwest ofthe Riverside development and southeast of the Pine Knoll neighborhood, both zoned R-l. The south portion of the property is currently zoned R-l, while the east portion of the property is zoned A-I. The north half of the property is zoned C-l (which extends northward into undeveloped land). The Comprehensive Plan initially had shown the area as "Restricted Development", meaning the area has sensitive environmental qualities for development. If the rezoning is approved, the proposed Comprehensive Plan would be amended to reflect this change. Staff will continue to re- evaluate the area for possible future residential development east of the subject property and north of the Riverside neighborhood as described with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Currently the property contains a farmhouse, seven (7) outbuildings and four (4) silos. Wetlands and woodlands are located in the north portion of the property. The wetlands are classified according to the City's Wetland Classification study as "utilize". Electrical transmission line towers run parallel with the east property boundary (a fifty (50) foot NSP easement exists for the utility company). Surrounding land uses include; single-family housing to the west and south of the property, agriculture is located to the east and Bongaard Trucking is found adjacent to the north property boundary . The property is currently located outside of the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA). Connection to city sewer service will not be permitted until MUSA is designated for the property. Farmington Lutheran has applied for a wavier of plat to split the needed land from the property currently owned by Mr. Murphy. The waiver of plat is reviewed administratively under guidelines contained in the City Subdivision Ordinance. Farmington Lutheran at the time of construction will be required to submit for a conditional use permit and a plat of the property to dedicate any required easements and rights-of-way. Construction of the proposed church is anticipated to take place in 3 to 5 years, but because of the nature of the purchase agreement with the property owner, the City must first approve rezoning of the property before the transaction will occur. The Planning Commission considered the rezoning application at a public hearing on November 9, 1999 forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Council. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance rezoning the property legally described from C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density Residential). ;p~ Michael Schultz Associate Planner cc: Bernard Murphy Farmington Lutheran, c/o Leon Orr CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 099- An Ordinance Rezoning the property legally described below, Town of Farmington, Dakota County from C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density-Residential). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, City staff received a petition to rezone the property on October 21, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on November 9, 1999, recommended approval of the rezoning. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the petition and the Planning Commission recommendation at it's City Council meeting held on December 6, 1999 and concurs with said recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends the City Zoning Ordinance rezoning the legally described property from C-l and A-I to R-l. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: DESCRIPllON OF PROPERTY SURVEYED: That port of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County, Minnesota which lies northeasterly and northerly at the following described line; commencing at the northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 33 minutes 09 seconds West on assumed bearing along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 1034.70 feet to the point of beginning of sold line to be described; thence South 35 degrees 24 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 890.65 feet; thence South 25 degrees 57 minutes 51 seconds East 0 distance of 199.72 feet; thence North 64 degrees 07 minutes 09 seconds East o distance of 53.49 feet, thence northeasterly and easterly a distance of 92.09 feet along a tangential curve concave to the south having 0 radius of 200.00 feet and 0 central angle of 26 degrees 22 minutes 56 seconds; thence South 89 degrees 29 minutes 55 seconds East tangent to last described curve a distance of 295.16 feet to the point of Intersection of the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and 0 line drawn parallel with and distant 870.00 feet South of the North line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section JO, Township 114, Range 19, In sold Dakota County and' said line there terminating. AND ALSO: The North 870.00 feet of the West 150.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section JO, Township 114, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota. Enacted and ordained on the day of ,1999 CITY OF FARMINGTON ATTEST: Approved as to form the _ day of ,1999. SEAL Published in the Farmington Independent the day of MAYOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY ATTORNEY , 1999 Site Location Map Zoning Districts, Wetlands, Buildings and Roadways A-1 R-1 0IIillI CJ Parcel Map N ':x:::~:::::::::::::::1 NWI Wetland * >\ ./ Road Detail W E I I( \/ Buildings s R-3 10-2-2 R-2 R-3 R-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 1-1 C-1 F-1 F-2 F-3 10-2-3 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 floodway but subject to inundation by the regional flood. To minimize flood damage, structures are permitted on fill but with no first floor or basement below the flood protection level. F-3 General Flood Plain District identifies those areas inundated by the 100-year flood but determined by approximate methods with no base flood elevations shown or flood hazard factors determined. It 599 City of Farmington ;::)t:\..t IIVI'''; 1 0-3-1 : 1 0-3-2: Permitted Uses Conditional Uses 1 0-3-1: PERMITTED USES: The permitted uses for each district are listed below. Accessory uses and essential services are also permitted. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-205, 8-15-1988) 10-3-2: CONDITIONAL USES: The Planning Commission may authorize conditional uses as specified below, which will not be detrimental to the integrity of the districts if all the conditions and provisions of Chapter 8 of this Title are met. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-205, 8-15-1988) Permitted Uses (A) A-1 Agricultural 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 Conditional Uses 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 12. Day care center 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; Qrd. 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 1. Two-family dwellings 2. Agricultural service 3. Commercial recreation uses 4. Water recreation and storage 5. Public buildings 6. Public utility buildings 7. Ken.nels 8. Solar energy systems 9. Cemeteries 10. Mineral extraction 11. Equipment and mainte- nance storage 12. Feedlot 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) (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 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 8. Water rec:reatlonand-- water storage 9. Solar energy systems 10. Double and multiple-family dwellings 11. 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, 11-18-1996) 7. Day care facility serving 14 or fewer persons (D) R-2 Medium Density District 1. Agriculture 2. Single-family dwellings 3. Public parks and playgrounds 4. Accessory storage buildings 1. Two-family dwellings 2. Multiple-family dwellings 3. Day care facility serving more than 14 persons 10-3-2 10-3-2 Permitted Uses Conditional Uses 3. Public utility buildings 4. Agriculture 5. Commercial recreation 6. Grain elevators 7. Food product processing 8. Solar energy systems 9. Recycling facility 10. Towers (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 096-382, 10-21-1996; Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996; Ord. 099-423, 3-1-1999) 4. Warehousing 5. Truck terminals 6. Light manufacturing 7. Parking lots 8. Mini-storage units (L) C-1 Conservation District 1. Agriculture 2. Public parks and playgrounds 3. Cemeteries 4. Golf courses 5. Hunting preserves 1. Single-family dwellings 2. Water recreation and water storage 3. Stables and riding academies 4. Mineral extraction 5. Feedlots 6. Public utility buildings 7. Equipment maintenance and storage 8. Solar energy systems 9. Towers Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996; Ord. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. 099-423, 3-1-1999) 899 City of Farmington City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission FROM: Michael Schultz Associate Planner SUBJECT: Application to Rezone Lots Property from C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density-Residential) DATE: November 9, 1999 INTRODUCTION Bernard Murphy and Farmington Lutheran Church are seeking approval to rezone property located in the NEV4 of the SEV4 of Section 25, Township 114, Range 20 from the existing C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density-Residential). Plannin!! Division Review Applicant: Bernard Murphy 6730 Lakeville Blvd Farmington, MN 55024 Co-Applicant: Farmington Lutheran Church 501 Walnut Street Farmington, MN 55024 Attachments: I. Rezone Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Conditional and Permitted Uses 4. Boundary Survey Location of Property: The property on the east side of Akin Road, north of the Vermillion River. Size of Property: 17.5 + acres (ROW = 1.25 acres) Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: AgriculturelFarmstead Suggested Zoning Change: Rezone north portion of property from C-l (Conservation) to R-l (Low Density- Residential) and the eastern section from A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density-Residential). Proposed Development: Future Church site Area Currently Bounded By: Agriculture to the east. Heavy Business to the north (Bongaard Trucking). Single-family residential is across Akin Road to the west. To the south is one residential lot and the Vermillion River. Surrounding Zoning Districts: A-I (Agriculture) to the east; R-l (Low Density- Residential) to the south and west; and C-l (Conservation) to the north. DISCUSSION Bernard Murphy and Farmington Lutheran Church are seeking to rezone the above described property from C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density-Residential) (see attached zoning map). The R-l zoning exists on the south portion of the property and is also located adjacent to the property across Akin Rd and extending north, the Riverside development is also zoned R-l. C-l (Conservation) is defined as: Conservation District is provided to recognize vial environmental resources of the community including steep slopes, wetlands and unstable soil conditions and to allow development only after careful analysis. R-l (Low Density) is defined as: 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. The applicants are seeking to rezone the property for the future location of Farmington Lutheran Church; Farmington Lutheran is currently located on Walnut and 5th Street. Churches are considered a conditional use within both the R-l and A-I zoning districts (Churches are a conditional use in all of the residential zoning districts). Rezoning is only essential on the C-l portion of the property, but for the benefit of keeping the zoning district boundaries consistent the entire property is being considered for rezoning. Construction of the proposed church is anticipated to take place in 3 to 5 years, but because of the nature ofthe purchase agreement with the property owner, the City must first approve rezoning of the property before the transaction will occur. The current land use of the property is agriculture; a farmhouse along with out buildings is located in the southeast comer of the site. Open space is located to the south and southeast, the remainder of the site is comprised of wetlands, old oaks and thick scrub trees. The on-site wetlands are classified as "utilize". Along the east property boundary run electrical transmission lines, a utility easement is already present. The Comprehensive Plan initially had shown the area as "Restricted Development", meaning the area has sensitive environmental qualities for development. The area in question has been changed on the Comprehensive Plan because of the impeding proposal for future development of the property for a church site along with the proposed sketch plans indicates preservation of the existing wetlands and wooded area. Staff will continue to re-evaluate the area for possible future residential development east of the subject property and north of the Riverside neighborhood as described with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends forwarding an approval to the City Council to rezone the property legally described on the applicants boundary survey from C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density Residential). Michael Schultz Associate Planner cc: Bernard Murphy Farmington Lutheran PETITION FOR REZONING I, the undersigned, am the fee O\\ller of and hereby request that the following described land: (ATI'ACHED ) be rezoned from: to: Agricu1tural-1 (A-I) and Conservation-I (C-I) Residential-I (R-I) 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,9.$" () # ,~ , which I understand further will be refunded if no meeting is scheduled. ~~ Signature It> .-8-/~ 9}J 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 PETITION FOR REZONING I, the undersigned, am the fee o\mer of and hereby request that the following described land: (Fannington Lutheran Church/Hr. Bernard l-1urphy have signed purchase agreement) (A'lTACHED) be rezoned from: Agricu1tural-l (A-l) and Conservation-l (C-l) to: Residentail-l (R-l) I understand that a public hearing is required, as well as attach payment of the fee in the ~ount ofS'()~ refunded if no meeting is scheduled. .~. .~...-- . ..~~. iJiI TANGE STEVEN SWENSON Council President Treasurer F;:!nn; no/f)n T.nt-hpr;:!n rhnrC'h Signature ~ ~ ~ IP-2/-9~ 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: PARAC ULI-~j-~~~~ ~~.i~ HI'<: ul'<:t:t:.N l-LI. O~~ O~~ ~~~J F.~~/~~ pROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF FARMINGTON LUTHERAN CHURCH sn-e That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 114, Range 20, Dakota County, Minnesota which lies northeasterly and northerly at the following described line; commencing at the northeast comer of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 33 minutes 09 seconds West an assumed bearing along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 1034.70 feet to the poInt of beginning of said line to be described; thence South 35 degrees 24 minutes 61 seconds East a distance of 890.65 feet; thence South 25 degr.ees57 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 199.72 feet; thence North 64 degrees 07 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 53.49 feet, thence northeasterly and easterly a distance of 92.09 feet along a tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 200.00 feet and a central angle of 26 degrees 22 minutes 56 seconds; thence South 89 degrees 29 minutes 55 seconds East tangent to last described curve 8 distance of 295.16 feet to the point of Intersection of the East Un. of. sBid Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and a line drawn parallel with and distant 870.00 feet South of the North line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3D, Township 114, Range 19. In said Dakota County and said line there terminating. AND ALSO: The North 870.00 feet of the West 150.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 114, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota. 0:\PR0J\807414t\0060\des 8074041 TOTAL P.02 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. 086-1n, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-205, 8-15-1988; Ord. 093-298, 2-16-1993; Ord. 096-383, 11-18-1996) 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 7. Day care facility serving 14 or fewer persons 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 8. Water recreation and water storage 9. Solar energy systems 10. Double and multiple-family dwellings 11. 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, 11-18-1996) (D) 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 I 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 ~. ~ ~ i ------- "51" .__ --- I I W -I tS (/) 2' ~~ . w >-... ii~a t- ~~t!~ ~t:~~ en ~5~lj iil,..o;.. ~ ~i:~ ~-.~6 :r: !lJ2o~ ",'l~c. ~ ii~i i=~m; ""'" 0'2~l!; 01 ~ -e:::. cnOD..:.: = :ea!!i$! lQ Do . to::!!... F ...:1 .. I t- n:: o z "....., t '-' 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan Update Strategies * Provide for the development of a City Arts and Cultural center downtoWn. * Promote and provide for the location of art, entertainment and cultural activities in downtown. * The downtown streetscape plan should artistically express a cultural, or historic theme that is integrated into Third Street's design standards and articulated through its building facades, signage, street lighting, street furniture, landscaping, public art and other public improvements. Create an aesthetically pleasing downtown environment. * Provide for the establishment of a variety of art and cultural organizations in downtown. * Promote and support public art throughout downtown and along the riverfront. Hold community contests and sponsor commissions. * Promote and support downtown arts and cultural festivals/events. * Require public art as part of new downtown commercial developments. 5. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to create new parks: a 'Farmington Community Green" connecting the northern and southern sections of the City, new mini- and neighborhood parks. Strategies * Create a Farmington "community green" in the central district of the City where the City's natural assets can beautifully converge and connect the northern, western and greater downtown areas of the City. The community green will be a nature-influenced, activity node where natural, residential and recreational uses dramatically combine to provide distinctive residential opportunities, a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities and a unique community gathering place. This "community green" is predominantly natural. It will reflect conservation of the City's natural assets, while providing sensitive design of residential uses and opportunities for recreational uses by residents of all ages and lifestyles. * Create this community green to be an exciting convergence of complementary land uses consisting of the following: 1. a high quality, market rate and high end, golf course/open space residential community where nature and housing are harmoniously woven through: 2. the hub of an extensive multi-user, "green" trail system linking all parts of the City through the environmentally sensitive areas and the river corridor; 3. a focal point of either a small lake with a community center, or a golf course/open space conservation area with a community center; surrounded by well-designed, high amenity housing; 4. active recreation opportunities-soccer, play fields and passive open spaces. * Establish new mini-parks and neighborhood parks in the Northeast, North Central and Central Districts that will support all new residential developments. 18 Land Use Element City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOb TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrat01~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Water use Restrictions - Water Board Communication DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the September 27, 1999 Water Board meeting, the Water Board adopted the Water Use Restrictions Policy in response to a Council decision that resulted in a proposed ordinance being tabled for lack of support earlier this year. The Water Board wishes to communicate to the Council its reasons for adopting the policy. DISCUSSION The Water Board first notified the Council of its intent to institute a water use restrictions policy at the June 21, 1999 City Council meeting (see attached memo and minutes). As indicated at that time, the Water Board expressed concerns regarding the need to enact a water use restrictions policy and requested Council support for a proposed ordinance. While the Water Board has the statutory authority to adopt a policy (see attached opinion from the City Attorney), their intent was to inform the Council of the proposed policy action and, if possible, solicit legislative support for an ordinance. In response to Council concerns, the proposed ordinance was revised to exempt activities not directly related to lawn sprinkling and irrigation. In keeping with that previous direction, the water use restrictions policy is modeled after the proposed, but unadopted, ordinance. Purpose for the Policy The Water Board's purpose for adopting water use restrictions is two-fold. First, water use restrictions have the effect of reducing the peak water demand during the summer season when water usage is at its highest. By reducing the peak, the need for additional water supply wells and water reservoirs in the future is reduced, which in turn reduces the capital costs for building those facilities. Reducing capital costs ultimately reduces the cost of water service to City customers. A more immediate concern is that of adequate fire flow. Reducing the peak demands increases the water supply available to fight fires. The days with the highest demand (summer days with the highest heat), are also days with the high fire potential. Second, the adoption of water use restrictions may result in further water conservation, which is a positive benefit to the community. A water conservation plan is a requirement of the City's Water Appropriation Permit that is granted by the DNR. As the City grows and needs to pump more water, the DNR has the authority to regulate the additional amount of water pumped from the aquifer. As part of the approval process, the City must have a water conservation plan in place. As the City grows and needs to appropriate more water, a watering ban would be looked on favorably by the DNR and help the City to obtain approval for increased water appropriations. Future studies of the Jordan aquifer (the aquifer from which Farmington's current and future wells appropriate water) may indicate the need for mandatory water use restrictions by the Cities that draw water from this aquifer. The Water Board is responsible for overall system integrity of public water services and feels strongly that the water use restrictions policy that has been adopted assists in the prudent management of the water distribution system as a whole. In addition, the Water Board feels strongly about being proactive in the area of water conservation in order to facilitate future requests to the DNR for increases in water appropriations that in turn will have a future impact on the level and quality of public water services. Enforcement As indicated in the City Attorney's attached opinion, the Water Board's decision to ask the Council to adopt an ordinance was largely related to enforcement. As an ordinance, enforcement of the policy could include criminal citation. While enforcement by criminal citation has never been the Water Board's intent for routine violations, passage of the ordinance would give the City more options for enforcement if ever needed. At the November 1999 Water Board meeting, the Water board considered the enforcement procedure for the new policy. It was proposed that all public works staff be authorized to issue administrative citations in regard to this policy. In the case of a violation, a notice of violation would be hung on the door and mailed to the offending property owner. The property owner would have ten (10) business days from the date of mailing of the mailed notice to remit the penalty amount to Farmington City Hall. If the property owner wishes to contest the violation, the property owner would need to request a hearing, in writing, within those same ten (10) business days. The Water Board would schedule hearings for regular Water Board meetings and the decision of the Water Board would be final. Penalties not remitted as appropriate would be certified to taxes. In 2000, it is proposed that an educational/warning period be observed since the policy is new. Warnings would be issued for first time violations of the policy until July 31, 2000. After July 31, or in the case of second and subsequent violations before July 31, the administrative citation would be issued with the related penalty. In subsequent years, no warning period would be forthcoming as the restrictions in place are year round and the policy will be well publicized in the City newsletter and water billings. The policy does not apply to the watering of new seed or sod for a period of three weeks from the date of seeding or sodding. Property owners wishing to water new seed or sod every day would need to pick up a permit from City Hall and post it in their front window. The permit would be valid for three weeks from the date of seeding or sodding, during which time the property owner could water at will. It is proposed that the penalty for violating the policy be set at $25 for the first offense in a calendar year, with a penalty of $50 imposed for subsequent violations in a calendar year. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REQUESTED F or information only. Respectfully submitted, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Farmington Water Board CITY OF FARMINGTON WATER BOARD WATER USE RESTRICTIONS POLICY 1. WATER USE RESTRICTIONS: (A) Odd-Even Restriction. Use of the city water supply system for lawn or garden sprinkling or other irrigation shall be limited to an odd-even schedule corresponding to property address effective year round. This odd-even water use restriction shall not apply to the watering of new seed or sod for a period of three weeks from the date of seeding or sodding. (B) Emergency Restrictions. Whenever the Water Board determines it in the public interest, the Water Board may, by resolution, further limit the use, times and hours during which water may be used from the City water supply system, following public notice by publication or posting. (C) Enforcement. Administrative citations will be issued at the direction of the Public Works staff. 2. Effective Date. This policy shall take effect January 1,2000. 72394 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us /01, -- -,., .. TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City AdministratorF- FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Water Board Communication - Proposed Water Use Restrictions DATE: June 21,1999 INTRODUCTION The Water Board is considering adopting water use restrictions. DISCUSSION The purpose for adopting water use restrictions is two-fold. First, water use restrictions have the effect of reducing the peak water demand during the summer season when water usage is at its highest. By reducing the peak, the need for additional water supply wells and water reservoirs is reduced, which in turn reduces the capital costs for building those facilities. Second, water use restrictions can result in water conservation. Water conservation is a requirement of the City's Water Appropriation Permit that is granted by the DNR. As the City grows and needs to pump more water, the DNR has the authority to regulate the additional amount of water pumped from the aquifer. As part of the approval process, the City must have a water conservation plan in place. As the City grows and needs to appropriate more water, a watering .ban would be looked on favorably by the DNR and help the City to obtain approval for increased water appropriations. Future studies of the Jordan aquifer (the aquifer from which Farmington's future wells will appropriate water) may indicate the need for mandatory water use restrictions in the Cities that draw water from this aquifer. There are two possible means with which to enact water use restrictions. The first would entail the Water Board adopting water use restrictions as a policy. Enforcement of the policy would be through penalties included as a surcharge on the water bill. The Water Board has the statutory authority to enact this type of policy. As the Water Board does not have the statutory authority to pass ordinances, no criminal penalties would be possible under this approach. Alternatively or in addition, the City Council could adopt water use restrictions as an ordinance, which could be ultimately enforced by criminal citation. Attached is a preliminary draft ordinance for discussion purposes. The draft ordinance outlines odd- even water use restrictions, corresponding to property address, effective year round. There is also a clause addressing emergency situations. Nearby neighboring communities that currently have water use restrictions include Eagan, Rosemount and Hastings. It would be the Water Board's intent that, if water use restrictions are to be implemented, they become effective January 1,2000. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REOUESTED 1. Council discussion regarding the issue of water use restrictions; 2. Provide recommendations regarding water use restrictions to the Water Board. Respectfully submitted, ~Yn~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Council Minutes (Regular) June 21, 1999 Page 6 upon the above conditions and approval by the Engineering Division. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Adopt Ordinance - Lamperts Lumber Rezoning Lamperts Lumber is requesting to rezone Lot 3 in Block 16, from R-2 Medium- Density Residential to B-2 General Business in Lot 3. The owner proposes to expand the supply yard to the northwest into Lot 3 and this requires the rezoning of the lot to allow a supply yard as a conditional use in a B-2 zoning district. The property is located north of Lamperts Lumber along the south side of Oak Street. The following issues were addressed and approved by the Planning Commission: 1) Rezone Lot 3 of Block 16 from R-2 to B-2 and maintain the B-2 zone for Lots 1 and 2, Block 16; 2) Pave the parking lot along Spruce Street and provide landscaping in order to fulfill the requirements of the 1993 approval; 3) Screening shall be provided within the expansion area requiring slats to be installed within the proposed chain link fence; 4) Installation of landscaping along Oak Street at the north side of the property is required. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to adopt ORDINANCE 099-435, approving to rezone Lot 3, Block 16, from R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) to B-2 (General Business) contingent upon the approval of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. )t h) Water Board Communication - Proposed Water Use Restrictions The Water Board is considering adopting water use restrictions. Water use restrictions have the effect of reducing the peak water demand during the summer season when water usage is at its highest. Water use restrictions can result in water conservation, which is a requirement of the City's Water Appropriation Permit that is granted by the DNR. There are two possible means with which to enact water use restrictions. The Water Board could adopt water use restrictions as a policy. Enforcement of the policy would be through penalties included as a surcharge on the water bill. The second alternative is the City Council could adopt water use restrictions as an ordinance, which could be ultimately enforced by criminal citation. Mr. Robert Shirley, from the Water Board, stated currently restrictions are enacted in emergency situations, and need to be re-enacted each year. Police Chief Siebenaler stated water usage becomes a public safety issue if there is not enough water to fill the fire hydrants. If this is approved as an ordinance, he requested Council give the Police authority to enforce it. Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to restrict lawn watering only. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Lee Mann From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Joel Jamnik Wednesday, June 17,19989:58 AM Lee Mann RE: Watering Ban High Lee, The City Code, Title 2, Chapter 5 acknowledges the previous existence ofthe water board and 2-5-1 specifies that the Commission shall have jurisdiction over the Municipal water system only and shall have all of the powers granted to it under M.S. 412.361. That statute provides: 412.361. Specific powers Subdivision 1. The commission shall have power to extend and to modify or rebuild any public utility and to do anything it deems necessary for its proper and efficient operation; and it may enter into necessary contracts for these purposes. The provisions of section 412.311 relating to advertisement for bids shall apply to contracts of the public utilities commission. Subd. 2. The commission shall have power to employ all necessary help for the management and operation of the public utility, prescribe duties of officers and employees and fix their compensation. Subd. 3. The commission shall have power to buy all fuel and supplies, and it may purchase wholesale electric energy, steam heat, hot water energy, gas or water, as the case may be, for municipal distribution. Subd. 4. The commission shall have power to fix rates and to adopt reasonable rules and regulations for utility service supplied by the municipally owned public utilities within its jurisdiction. Subd. 5. The commission shall have power to enter into agreements with the council for payments by the city for utility service, compensation for the use by either the commission or the city of buildings, equipment, and personnel under the control of the other, payments to the city in lieu of taxes, transfers of surplus utility funds to the general fund, and also agreements on other subjects of relationships between the commission and the council. As you can see, Subd. 4 allows the commission to establish reasonable rules and regulations for utility service. However, the statute does not authorize the passage of ordinances. Consequently, the answer to your question depends on what penalty is contemplated for the water ban. If the penalty that is proposed is a surcharge on the water bills or disconnection, the water board could adopt a ban, allotment (such as even-odd systems) or other regulation on its own. No criminal penalties would be possible under this approach. Alternately, the Board could recommend that the Council adopt a ban, allotment or other regulation as an ordinance which could ultimately be enforced by criminal citation. Of course, it is also possible to combine these two approaches by having the Board adopt its regulation or rule by Board Resolution and then have the Council specify that a violation of that regulation or rule would constitute an ordinance violation. After you consider these options, please let us know how you want to proceed. We can prepare the Resolution and/or Ordinances fairly easily. -Original Message- From: lee Mann Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 19982:27 PM To: Joel Jamnik Subject: Watering Ban Joel, the Water Board has directed me to inquire from you as to the process for initiating a watering ban. LMM Page 1 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /o(a- TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Acknowledge Interim Maintenance Services - Akin Road DATE: December 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION Over the course of the last several weeks, City staff has received information from the Dakota County Highway Department regarding their desire to have the City accept jurisdictional responsibility for Akin Road. Essentially, the City's jurisdictional responsibility for Akin Road would begin at its northerly intersect with Pilot Knob and southerly terminus at County Road 50. While it remains the City's position that the County continues to own the roadway segment until formal revocation, the City is receiving Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds for Akin Road and could consider the County's request with respect to providing interim and limited maintenance support activities. DISCUSSION A review of the 1995 Preliminary Engineering. Right-of-wav Pre-acquisition and Highway Revocation Agreement signed by the City indicates that upon completion and acceptance of the CSAH 31 Alignment and upon execution of a separate revocation agreement, the City's intent would be to accept jurisdictional responsibility for this roadway. As the revocation agreement will not be completed until some time after the completion of a City feasibility report scheduled for 2000, the County would be forced to maintain both roadways until formal revocation occurs. The revocation process, upon completion of the Feasibility Report, will consist of presenting report findings to Council; holding informational meetings with affected residents on proposed project improvements; meeting with the County to discuss proposed upgrades to Akin Road and negotiating the extent of their respective financial participation; determination by Council of the desired method of underwriting project improvements that is likely to include special assessments to benefiting properties; and, in general, including the revocation project in the City and County's capital improvement planning processes. Consequently, these process considerations could result in a 2001-2002 project reconstruction time period. Given the fact that the City's stated intent has been to accept jurisdictional responsibility for Akin Road pursuant to the satisfaction of previously described stipulations, and has already taken steps to include this segment of the roadway in the City's MSA route calculations, it would appear reasonable for the City to provide interim maintenance services on Akin Road until a revocation agreement is formally adopted by Council. Preliminary discussions with Dakota County staff have suggested that the City would be willing to tentatively consider the provision of limited road maintenance services prior to the formal execution of a revocation agreement. City staff has already indicated to the County that the interim municipal provision of limited street maintenance services on Akin Road should not be interpreted and would not constitute City acceptance of the roadway or of any other maintenance, traffic control, administrative, or additional statutory responsibilities. Further, these limited and interim maintenance services will consist of, at the City's sole discretion, providing basic snow plowing, sanding and street cleaning services on that portion of Akin Road described as beginning at 190th Street parallel, just east of the CSAH 31 intersection, traveling south to the CSAH 50 intersection, but not including the intersection of CSAH 50 and Akin Road. BUDGET IMP ACT The City receives approximately $88,000 annually in MSA funds for this segment of Akin Road. Typically, in addition to other funding sources, the General Fund normally underwrites the cost of providing routine street maintenance services. ACTION REQUESTED Council acknowledgement of the City's intent to provide limited and interim maintenance services on Akin Road beginning at the easterly point of the intersection of Akin Road and Pilot Knob, but not including the intersection, and extending south to the intersection of Akin Road and County Road 50, but not including the intersection. bmitted, File Cc: Brandt Richardson, Dakota County Administrator