HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.30.12 Council Retreat City of Farmington Mission Statement
430 Third Street Through teamwork and cooperation,
Farmington,MN 55024 the City of Farmington provides quality
services that preserve our proud past and
foster a promising future.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
April 30, 2012
6:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION/GOALS
4. CITY ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE
5. ADJOURN
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session,all discussions shall be considered fact-finding,hypothetical and unofficial
critical thinking exercises,which do not reflect an official public position.
Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy
position. Only official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of
the City's position on any given matter
4imut4t, City of Farmington
a 430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
e,,� 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899
""° www.cilarmington.mn.us
DATE: April 30, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: David J. McKnight, City Administrator
SUBJECT: City Council Goal Setting/Retreat
The City Council has scheduled a goal setting/retreat for Monday, April 30, 2012. The
purpose of this meeting is to allow you time to discuss and set goals for the council for
the remainder of 2012 and beyond. In addition I see this as an opportunity for you to
bring up any issues you have questions on or would like to discuss with the City
Council.
The last set of goals that I can find for the City Council were included in the recruitment
for my position that occurred last year. The goals are listed for 2011 but I am told they
may actually be the goals were set in 2005. These goals are listed below:
1. To stimulate and promote increased industrial and commercial development and
redevelopment.
2. To address the City's transportation needs.
3. To develop a short term (two year) work plan.
4. To continually work on maintaining good communications with the public (being
honest and realistic).
5. To improve the City's municipal buildings.
6. To improve communication and collaboration with other public jurisdictions.
7. To continue to provide a positive work environment for employees.
8. To develop a mid to long term plan (5-10 years) vision, goals and work plan for
the City.
9. To improve internal communication and teamwork.
10.The need to promote and maintain citizen involvement and volunteerism.
As you recall, during my six month review you set the following goals for me for the
remainder of 2012:
1. 2013/2014 budget process.
2. Completion of liquor store study.
3. Economic development team progress.
4. 2013 new council orientation.
5. Continue organization review/potential reorganization.
6. Culture change.
7. City hall space use.
8. 2013 union negotiations/PTO and merit pay groups.
9. Continue community outreach.
10.Employee communication/education.
11.2012 elections.
12.Continue countywide work.
13.Goals set by the City Council.
I am hoping this goal setting/retreat will be the start of the City Council setting the
goals/direction for the city for the years to come. As you are aware, the school district
recently spent two days updating the strategic plan they put in place five years ago. I
have included the draft results of their update with this memo only as something for you
to review.
If time allows I would like to get direction on a number of items that are listed below. I
have included a summary memo on each topic so you have some background on the
issue.
1. Veterans Memorial Donation(s)
2. Railroad Crossings/Horns
3. Housing Maintenance
4. Tree Board
5. Storm Water Ponds
6. Logo Signs
If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you for your time on this
important matter.
2
RTO
II
—3 •REA: s ,••LS
Wi ll■
11111111,111 :I !
tipp6VJ l
2012Strategic Plan
The Tarthiln - tor ,-Area Public Schools
„cl.rioY' II ;,i Revised March 2012
„.. I. Belief Statements:
We Believe That:
• Each person has the capacity and desire to learn.
• Each person has inherent, immeasurable worth.
• All people develop best in a nurturing environment.
• All people deserve to be treated with respect.
• The well-being of future generations depends on our stewardship of the
environment.
• Communities thrive when all members are informed and involved.
• Each person is responsible to serve his or her community.
• Mutual communication is fundamental to effective relationships.
• Each person is responsible to do his or her best.
• Innovation and risk ignites learning.
• Diversity enriches both the individual and community.
• Integrity is critical for trusting relationships.
II. Mission Statement:
The mission of Farmington Area Public Schools, the center of inspiration and the
cultivation of ideas, is to ensure each student reaches his or her highest aspirations
while embracing responsibility to community through a system distinguished by:
• Supporting individuality while understanding our interdependence
! -- - • Developirfg'wisdom and integrity of each individual
°'° • Nurturing'the will to succeed ink each student
�
I'°''tl''dv 11 ii ,p,pifrl,lll9r,t� Ii ufi,i::,19 � "I ,
• Customized learning environments
''''•,,I! eepomrnuny,collaboration-
• III-.-- . Parameters:
� ,. .,, • 'We will not co!npromise excellence,
iI'gi;°�i'I�i ;',, ^vb;ll,iil„,I,v y;i; '”
• All decisions will be made based on the best interests of the student
• We will not accept or continue any program that is not consistent with our mission
and objectives
• We will uphold the dignity of each person
• We will honor the values and traditions of our community
IV. Objectives:
• All students possess the capacity and the resiliency to create opportunities and
master challenges
• All students continuously achieve their academic and personal goals
• All students are active and responsible participants in their society
• Each student influences positive change in a global context
•
• V. Strategies:
Strategy#1:
• We will create a culture of innovation in which students and staff are encouraged to
take risks in order to ignite learning
Strategy#2:
• We will create organizational systems whose only purpose is to serve the needs and
highest aspirations of each student
Strategy#3:
• We will ensure students identify and achieve their inner genius
Strategy#4:
• We will create aR1Ity,rebyfiivhic11,:traff are free to act by using their talents, passions
„„,,,,., ,
,',',','''1111''''''''''''''''':'''.''''I., ' • ''''' '
a 4,creativity for64/4ithirpotti"'lii6of nourishing each student's spark
. ,
.;_
Strategyfq,
fi: ' ' '''!1'''111■. 11j.'il 1.4 i IA
'4111r I, • vve*,,,, rovide fOr -ach student cust mimed learning experiences based on student
strerigth and aiPi(,tions
/1
•,
'14 Ill ill 11111
II
Strategy
1101,1:11,,41,■1,:,,',,,„,,,Il4;11,1;:.1,,:;,:..ii, rilli
,,,„.,,,
• We will velo ,relationshipd'and a culture of interdependence throughout all
' l''10,1'1A1
corMU7iti es fo Hir ual benefit
t'
,o011'1'0'
eg ,:l
StratY"07;,'y
t,,,,,,,, :,r- ' ','.11,1:11111',1'•°J.LCt'rri 1Np-will develotai' ers throughout the'-soliool community.
' ,
Independent School District 192
F'-'I 11■ITO
a�+ • Farmington, Minnesota
U c$,oo�s
1
Mr. Jay Haugen, Superintendent
District Service Center Phone: (651) 463-5013
421 Walnut Street Fax: (651) 463-5010
Farmington, MN 55024 www.farmington.k12.mn.us
District 192 Resident:
Hopefully you've had an opportunity to attend one of our Community Round Table meetings,
and have heard about our intent to renew our district strategic plan. The plan,which guides our
decision making,was created originally in 2006 with the help of many staff members,parents
and residents and is reviewed each year.
After this year's review,the Strategic Planning Task Force recognized that many of our previous
strategies had been realized,and saw a need to update our strategies within our new context(see
page 2). Our next step is to create Action Plans to purposefully define our work as an
organization. These action plans are the specific tasks the District will undertake in order to
fulfill the strategies and the plan as a whole.
So far,the plan has been successful in guiding our efforts to improve, and we believe one reason
is because it was developed with contributions from so many people who truly care about our
students. We hope that will be the case again this year, so we're asking you to consider serving
on one of the teams that will develop new action plans.
We will begin the process the evening of April 30 at 5:30 PM at the High School with the intent
that action plan teams will complete their work in early summer. Each team will work with one
of the strategies, and the teams will consist of 15-20 staff members,parents and other residents.
If you are interested in being part of this exciting and important process,please call or e-mail
Lori Jensen in the Superintendent's Office by April 25. She can be reached at(651)463-5013 or
lj ensen@a,farmington.k 1 2.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Jay Haugen, Superintendent Barb Duffrin, Strategic Plan Facilitator
Serving all or parts of Farmington, Lakeville, and Castle Rock,
Eureka, Empire, Hampton, and Vermillion Townships
Page 2
Strategic Plan
Strategy#1:
• We will create a culture of innovation in which students and staff are encouraged to take
risks in order to ignite learning
Strategy#2:
• We will create organizational systems whose only purpose is to serve the needs and
highest aspirations of each student
Strategy#3:
• We will ensure students identify and achieve their inner genius
Strategy#4:
• We will create a culture by which staff are free to act by using their talents,passions and
creativity for the worthy purpose of nourishing each student's spark
Strategy#5:
• We will provide for each student customized learning experiences based on student
strengths and aspirations
Strategy#6:
• We will develop relationships and a culture of interdependence throughout all
communities for mutual benefit
Strategy#7:
• We will develop leaders throughout the school community.
Serving all or parts of Farmington, Lakeville, and Castle Rock,
Eureka, Empire, Hampton, and Vermillion Townships
�o``�` iy�► City of Farmington
c3� 1a 430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
CkallIPO a 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899
www ci.farmmgton.mn.us
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: David J. McKnight, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Veterans Memorial Donation Request
DATE: April 30,2012
INTRODUCTION
During the preparation of the 2012 city budget we received a request for a financial contribution
to the Farmington Area Veterans Memorial that will be constructed in 2012 and 2013. The
financial request of the city and surrounding townships was$10,000 per entity. This financial
request was in addition to requests for assistance in the area of land,utility access, etc.
DISCUSSION
The Farmington Area Veterans Memorial Committee has made a request for assistance of the
city in a number of areas. City staff is working with this committee on their request for space for
the memorial along with access to electricity and other services. In addition,the city has been
requested to donate$10,000 for the construction of the memorial.
I am very happy with the work that Randy Distad has done with this committee to encourage
other community partners to become involved in the construction of this memorial. The city has
been generous in offering the land that that memorial will built on and the eventual maintenance
we will incur as it becomes a part of Rambling River Park.
If the City Council does want to consider contributing to this project,funds would be taken from
the$141,000 reserve line item that was created in the Administration budget as a part of the 2012
budget.
BUDGET IMPACT
To be determined.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff needs direction on if the City Council is interested in contributing financially to the
construction of the Farmington Area Veterans Memorial. No matter what the answer,we will
notify the committee of the City Council's desire.
Respectfully submitted,
David J. McKnight
City Administrator
F City of Farmington
iv, Z 430 Third Street
.��` Farmington,Minnesota
651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899
www.cilarmington.mn.us
TO: David McKnight,
City Administrator
FROM: Lee Smick, City Planner
AICP, CNU-A
SUBJECT: Railroad Quiet Zone
DATE: April 30,2012
INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION
The following information deals with Railroad Quiet Zones. For everyone's safety,federal
regulation requires locomotive horns to sound for 15-20 seconds before entering all public grade
crossings,but not more than one-quarter mile in advance. This federal requirement preempts any
state or local laws regarding the use of train horns at public crossings.
Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] rules provide a mechanism to evaluate how Cities may
minimize the noise caused by trains. The rules provide for communities to create quiet zones
where trains are exempt from horn regulations.
There are three basic options for Cities to reduce noise, they are:
1. Permanently close or grade separate(bridge)the roadways from the tracks.
2. Install wayside or stationary horns at a crossing
3. Comply with the FRA rules for a full-time or nighttime quiet zone
The FRA quiet zone rules allow a community to establish a quiet zone provided a series of
conditions be met. A community has the options of a 24-hour per day zone or a nighttime zone
that is in effect between 10 pm and 7 am.
On April 27, 2005 the FRA adopted Final Rules that preempt any state or local laws related to
locomotive train horns. The Final Rules have four distinct parts:
1. Railroads must sound the horn 15 to 20 seconds prior to a train's arrival at a grade
crossing,but not more that'A mile in advance of the crossing.
2. The rules describe a minimum and maximum volume level for a train horn.
3. The rules outline a new test procedure to determine horn compliance.
4. The rules have provisions for local communities to establish quiet zones,where railroads
are exempt from blowing the locomotive horns.
There are six types of quiet zones. Four of these quiet zone types provide for a transitional
process for preexisting train horn bans (Farmington would not qualify for these). Farmington
would qualify for a 24-hour quiet zone or a partial nighttime zone. The partial quiet zone would
run from 10 pm to 7 am. The requirements for either a full-time or a partial nighttime quiet zone
are the same. The City can choose which type to establish. Generally, communities that have
chosen the part-time zone reasoned that the risk associated with no train horns were greatly
reduced at night because of the decreased traffic volumes.
The FRA has incorporated flexibility in the process to create quiet zones,but has also made the
process complex. The concept utilizes a risk index approach that estimates expected safety
outcomes. Risk is averaged over the railroad crossings in the proposed zone and compared to a
national risk level. This risk analysis computes a Risk Index with Horn and a Quiet Zone Risk
Index. This analysis determines what crossing improvements are needed for a community to
establish a quiet zone. At a minimum, all new quiet zones must have railroad signals with gates.
There are five predetermined engineering improvements called supplementary safety measures
(SSM)that can be used to lower the Quiet Zone Risk Index and bring a crossing into automatic
conformance with the rules. The five SSM's include the following:
1. One-Way Streets with Full Gate Coverages—one-way streets allow for the gate(s)to be
placed on the approach lanes of traffic, and vehicles cannot go around the gates. Vehicles
also cannot get trapped between the gates.
2. Nighttime Closure of a Crossing—the roadway would be closed by the use of some type
of barricade(s)that can completely close off the crossing. This would be used if only a
part-time quiet zone is requested. The closure must include a process that will verify that
a crossing has been closed for the night. Other cities have used an automatic barricade
that is locked into place and provides a warning light to the train that the crossing is
closed.
3. Permanent Closure of the Crossing—the roadway would be closed and barricaded
permanently. The railroad signals and surface would be removed. Under the FRA risk
computations,the closure allows a credit in risk assessment that may allow other options
at the remaining crossings in the zone.
4. Raised Center Medians—raised center medians a minimum of 60 feet long(100 feet is
preferred) are installed to prevent vehicles from driving around the gates. If the median
is less than 6 inches tall,traffic delineators are required. If a roadway is of sufficient
width,medians are relatively inexpensive to install. The disadvantage of medians is the
disruption to local access.
5. Four Quadrant Gates—Four quadrant gates are regular railroad gates with two additional
gates being added to the exit traffic lanes. This will completely close off the crossing.
The exit gates are a delay that will allow a vehicle to clear the crossing before
descending. Traffic loop detectors may be required to detect if a vehicle is stopped on
the tracks. The advantage of this SSM is that no additional roadway work is usually
needed for the gates to be installed. The disadvantage is that there is a potential to trap a
vehicle,they are expensive to install,the City may assume maintenance of the loop
detectors, and the City may be responsible for the extra maintenance for the extra gates.
If SSM are not practical, Alternate Safety Measures (ASM) can be proposed to the FRA for
individual crossings. These ASM can be non-engineered solutions, such as traffic enforcement,
photo enforcement, or education programs. Other engineering solutions can be proposed if
shown effective in improving safety. These may include different styles of medians or a new
type of warning device. A community is required to provide documentation that an ASM is
effective. This documentation may require video camera installation,review of police efforts to
enforce crossing violations, or a record of public service announcements.
The two most popular ASM are:
1. Photo Enforcement of Traffic Violations—this system is a system of cameras that
monitor the railroad crossings and will issue traffic tickets to violators. In Minnesota,
this is against state law.
2. Increased Traffic Enforcement—this is a program that targets traffic violations near
railroad crossings. The quiet zone submittal would outline and document what the City
has done to enforce traffic violations.
The FRA rules require communities to notify the FRA,the state Department of Transportation,
and the railroad that they are interested in creating a quiet zone and provide a process for these
interested parties to comment. The process has some built in time periods that take 4 to 6
months to implement. If SSM's are installed according to the rules at all crossings,the
community will receive automatic approval for a quiet zone. If ASM's or other exceptions are
needed,the FRA review and approval will be needed.
City of Rosemount Quiet Zone
Rosemount's Quiet Zone recently came into effect on January 6, 2012. Rosemount started the
process to get quiet zones in 2008. During that time there were a number of meetings with the
FRA, CP Rail and Union Pacific. The project's total cost was over$1 million dollars with four
quadrant gates installed for between$200,000 and $250,000 each. The medians were installed at
$100,000 each. The project was funded with all Municipal State Aid monies.
The quiet zone is in effect 24 hours a day and covers all at-grade crossings from Akron Avenue
to 160th Street West. The crossing on Bonaire Path just east of Akron Avenue is outside the
quiet zone;trains will continue to sound their horns at this location.
In some cases,train horns may still be heard in the quiet zone. Engineers will be allowed to
sound their horns if they see an emergency situation, such as a person or vehicle on the tracks.
Engineers are also required to sound their horns to warn crews working on the line,or if crossing
arms or signals are malfunctioning.
The city completed the Notice of Establishment on Friday, Dec. 16. Because the FRA has the
authority to update the safety requirements at any time,the process for establishing and
maintaining a quiet zone is constantly changing.
Two of the rail lines operating in Rosemount, Canadian Pacific and Union Pacific Railroad(also
in Farmington),have formally notified the city that they are aware the quiet zone is taking effect
and that they will abide by it.
Signs are posted at crossings in the zone to warn vehicle drivers that they may not hear the horn
of an approaching train. Police will strictly enforce the rules against crossing the tracks when
signals are flashing. Rosemount has improved several crossings in the last few years to qualify
for designation by the Federal Railroad Administration of a quiet zone. Further improvements
will be constructed with raised center medians at the crossing at 160th Street and CSAH 42,but it
has not delayed the launching of the quiet zone.
BUDGET IMPACT
Establishing quiet zones not only creates a public safety risk but also is a potential cost burden to
taxpayers. Public authorities are responsible for the cost of preliminary engineering,
construction, maintenance and replacement of active warning devices or their components,
including wayside horn systems installed at crossings to meet quiet zone standards.
For instance,public authorities are required to execute a preliminary engineering agreement with
Union Pacific to reimburse the railroad for all project development and engineering design costs.
This agreement requires the following deposits:
• $ 5,000 per wayside horn location
• $10,000 per crossing signal location
Public authorities are required to guarantee reimbursement to the railroad for all actual costs
associated with the installation and maintenance of the railroad improvements required for the
quiet zone by means of a project agreement executed by the parties. This may include quiet zone
warning devices,wayside horns or both.
Examples of costs as estimated by Union Pacific:
• Four-Quadrant Gate Systems-$300,000 to $500,000
• Basic Active Warning System* - $185,000 to $400,000
(*Includes Flashing Lights and Gates, Constant Warning Time,Power Out Indicator and
Cabin.)
• Basic Inter-Connect-$5,000 to $15,000
• Annual Maintenance- $4,000 to $10,000
Funding of this potential project in Farmington may come from Municipal State Aid however;no
money has been set aside for this type of project because all State Aid funds are going to the
195th Street Project for the next few years.
ACTION REQUIRED
Information only.
Respe 11 _.ubmi ,,
Lee Smick, City Planner
AICP, CNU-A
�o``�` iyc�► City of Farmington
�� 430 Third Street
`., 1 1 Farmington, Minnesota
\`/A'�6 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899
.""xos* www ci.farmington.mmus
DATE: April 30, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: David J. McKnight, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Housing Maintenance
During my time in Farmington we have received a few complaints about the condition of
a number of houses in the city. These homes tend to be ones that have aged to the
point of needing significant repair or they have been a state of reconstruction/repair for
a number of years.
Staff has discussed this issue on a number of occasions both before my arrival in
Farmington and since. While we understand the concern of neighbors in having to look
at the properties they have concerns about, the issue is not easily resolved.
To simply put some kind of housing maintenance ordinance in place to deal with the
handful of properties that fall into this category has some risks. In discussing this issue
with the Building Official he estimates the number of homes in the serious category at
about a dozen. The question that it comes down to is this a serious enough concern in
Farmington today to develop, approve and enforce some type of housing maintenance
ordinance.
The two homes that I use as an example in this area are both located in the older
portion of Farmington and have been in a state of remodeling for years. They currently
do not violate any of our city ordinances because they keep their building permit current
and are making progress on their projects. You will all be familiar with the homes when
we discuss them at the retreat.
There are budget implications to enforcing an ordinance of this kind. I would not put in
a new ordinance in this area if we were not going to enforce it. It is important to keep
this impact in mind as we discuss this issue.
I am simply looking for your thoughts on this issue so staff can discuss possible options
if this is something that you would like us to do some work on.
If you have any questions on this information please let me know. Thank you for your
time on this important matter.
2
719 City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
GSA-410■ 651.280.6800 Fax 651280.6899
mil•A PRA `a wwW cLf mmggton. .us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator
FROM: Kevin Schorzman,P.E., City Engineer
SUBJECT: Tree Board
DATE: April 30, 2012
INTRODUCTION
During the Walnut Street Project, residents attended several Council meetings indicating that
they were in favor of the creation of a Tree Board. From their perspective,the Tree Board would
be responsible for reviewing and commenting on project plans that involve tree removal. The
residents were also under the impression that to remain a"Tree City USA" city, a tree board was
required.
DISCUSSION
Staff has discussed a Tree Board and what their duties and responsibilities might entail. The
following is a list of possible Tree Board responsibilities:
• Review of construction plans that involve the removal of trees
• Review of development plans that involve the removal of trees for the development and
the landscaping plan for the planting of trees after development
• Review of City ordinances related to trees
• Administration of the City's Tree City USA program
• Possible oversight of the trimming and removal trees within the City boulevards and
parks
• Review of ordinances related to arboreal diseases and infestations
Other items to consider:
• The City currently employs a Natural Resource Specialist that works in all of these areas,
and the need for this employee would not be eliminated by the creation of a Tree Board.
• The amount of work for a Tree Board would not be such that regular meetings would be
necessary.
• There is the potential that a Tree Board and the City Council would frequently be at odds
related to budgetary matters.
Tree Board
April30, 2012
Page 2 of 2
At this time, staff does not recommend the creation of a Tree Board. Alternatively, it is
recommended that Council direct staff to involve 3 to 5 interested residents within the area of a
project to review tree removals and replacements on reconstruction projects. This involvement
would take place prior to Council approval of the plans and specifications for a project. The
benefit of this methodology would be that we would be able to gather resident input prior to
project approval, and the input would be from residents who will be directly affected by the
project both financially and physically.
c City of Farmington
0 430 Third Street
„ r Farmington,Minnesota
a 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899
www.cifarmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator
FROM: Kevin Schorzman,P.E., City Engineer
SUBJECT: Storm Water Pond Issues
DATE: April 30,2012
INTRODUCTION
At the July 18, 2011, City Council meeting, a resident spoke to Council about issues related to a
storm water pond near his home. At that time, Council asked staff to research the issues and
discuss whether or not a specific storm water facility ordinance would be appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Throughout the fall and winter, staff discussed this issue several times, and the consensus from
staff was to continue to handle these items on a complaint basis as they are not widespread
issues, and because we felt that educational efforts would have a higher likelihood of changing
behavior. Staff identified the following issues related to ordinance amendment:
• Lack of a code enforcement officer
• Regulatory limits on what the City can restrict by ordinance
• Ordinances that are too restrictive require additional staff time to address violations.
• Different Councilmembers have given differing opinions related to the condition of the
Autumn Glen Pond.
• Staff contacted several other cities and none had an ordinance similar to what we were
investigating.
• As with any other"law", an ordinance must be both reasonable and enforceable.
With that being said, as time allows, staff is inspecting ponds, especially ones with trail access,
to determine what if any additional signage may be helpful from an educational perspective.
Additional signs are already in process along the trail near the Autumn Glen pond. An ordinance
outlines what happens when something undesirable has already taken place, while education
focuses on prevention.
Staff does not recommend that the City create a storm water facility ordinance at this time.
4imut4g, City of Farmington
430 Third Street
4.3' Farmington,Minnesota
12:64._41W� 6 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899
•" •o�* www.cifarmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor,Council Members
City Administrator
FROM: Tony Wippler,Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: Organizational Logo Signs in Public Rights-of-Way
DATE: May 14,2012
INTRODUCTION
The Farmington Lions Club has submitted a request (see attached letter from Gerald Henricks — Ex. A) to place sign
structures for organizational logo signs adjacent to the City's existing municipal entrance signs. The current sign code
does not allow the placement of signs(with the exception of the City's entrance monuments and wall signs within the B-2
Zoning District where they are allowed to overhang 15"where possible)within the public right-of-way
DISCUSSION
This topic was discussed with Council in 2004 (please see attached Council memorandum and minutes from the October
18, 2004 meeting—Ex. B and C, respectively). At that time, staff brought a proposed ordinance to Council amending the
City's sign code allowing logo signs within the public right-of-way. The ordinance discussion was tabled to obtain further
information from the Lions Club and never resumed back.
The fact that signage is not allowed in the right-of-way per the City's sign code is not the only issue faced with the Lions
Club's proposal. There are jurisdictional issues involving County and State rights-of-way as well. Each jurisdiction has
specific guidelines as to what can and cannot be placed within their respective rights-of-way. Approvals from these
jurisdictions would be necessary. The last issue that I want to bring to the Council's attention deals with the inherent
constitutional issues that would be associated with allowing some types of signs to be placed in the right-of-way, while
other types of signs are prohibited. Attached, please find additional information (Ex. D)that was provided to staff from
the City Attorney in 2004 discussing the constitutional rights issues that could be raised with such a request as this.
ACTION REQUESTED
Provide staff with direction on the signage request from the Lion's Club. If the Council is amenable to allowing
organizational logo signs within the public rights-of-way an ordinance will have to be drafted and subsequently approved
by the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
W
Tony Wippler,Assistant City Planner
W
, . INTERNATIONAL_r l /,
2' , 111W - : . Y I }'
LIBERTY • INTELLIGENCE • - �u� 1 OUR 4.NATIONS • SAFETY
�
l
FARMING /�'-adpS
TON a-._, MlNNE5OTA
VI °5024
Farmington Lions Club
To: Mayor and City Council Members
City Staff—Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
From: Gerald A. Henricks -'
President Farmington Lions
Subject: Lions and other 501C3 organizational signs
Date: January 5, 2012
Background
Several years ago, the City Council and its Planning Commission examined the
viability and need for a planned structure located in proximity to the "Welcome to
Farmington" signs at the entrances to the City. Unfortunately, for whatever
reason, this effort by the City Council was not completed.
Project
The Farmington Lions proposes to design a sign structure (per City specifications
or approval) to be located at each entrance to the City (Highway 3 North and
South, Highway 50 East and West, Pilot Knob North and Flagstaff). The
Farmington Lions will be willing to meet with the appropriate governmental
organization to assist the implementation of the placement of the structure and its
design.
The Farmington Lions will build the structure with the City Council/City Staff
approval (we will hire a qualified contractor to construct the approved structure).
Once the structure is completed, the approved 501 C3 organizations will have
their approved signs placed on the structure.
The Farmington Lions will maintain the signs and structure on a weekly basis. As
a sign requires repairs or replacement, the owner of the sign will be required to
purchase a new sign or repair the sign to its original approved design. Each
501 C3 organization will be charged a prorated amount for structure and
maintenance costs. At the beginning, the organizations will be charged an
estimated rate for maintenance and the actual costs of the signs and the signs
structure.
When this structure is completed, the groups anticipated to participate in this sign
venture could be such as, Farmington Lions, Farmington Ministerial Society,
Farmington Rotary, etc.
Requested Action
The Farmington Lions request the City Council to take the appropriate action to
modify any policy prohibiting granting of this request. With the approval of this
sign structure and its construction, this will help people to identify non-profit
organizations within the City which could assist in coordinating philanthropic
acitivites for the Community.
/Oe._
o� �f "°Tay City of Farmington
f 325 Oak Street,Farmington, MN 55024
r�.. �.;; �, (651)463-7111 Fax(651)463-2591
' www.ci.farmington.mn.us
.Apo,
TO: Mayor,Council Members,City Administrator
FROM: Kevin Carroll,Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Title 10 Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding Logo Signs in
Public Rights-of-Way
DATE: October 18,2004
INTRODUCTION
The Farmington Lions Club has sought the City's permission to place their emblem signs at all five
(5)Farmington municipal entrance monument locations. The City Code,however,does not allow any
sign to be located within a public right-of-way. There are also jurisdictional issues involving State
and County rights-of-way. Both jurisdictions have strict guidelines as to what can be placed along
State and County roads.These issues are addressed separately below.
DISCUSSION
MnDOT
Three (3) of the locations at which the Farmington Lions want to erect signs are within
MnDOT's right-of-way(at the north and south entrances to Farmington on Trunk Highway 3 and
at the east entrance on Trunk Highway 50). MnDOT has historically been very restrictive
regarding the placing of items within its rights-of-way.
For example, it took the City of White Bear Lake several years and many hours of staff time to
get MnDOT's consent to put the signs of six local service organizations on the City's entrance
monuments. MnDOT took the position that its "Guidelines for Installation of Municipal
Identification Entrance Signs" (see attached Exhibit A) prohibited any sign or message that
contained "advertising for a commercial product or service or any non-profit organization."
White Bear Lake argued that a sign or logo for a local veterans group or service club did not
constitute "advertising" for any such organization. MnDOT refused to change its position, so
White Bear Lake sought an opinion from the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. The
Attorney General's Office concluded,in an opinion dated April 4,2003 (see attached Exhibit B),
that"the placement of logos of veterans and service organizations on the City's entrance signs"
is not prohibited by any law or statute of the State of Minnesota.
However,the fact that it is not prohibited does not mean that it is automatically allowed under all
circumstances. MnDOT still has the right to impose reasonable regulations on the placement of
signs within its rights-of-way. Mr. Keith VanWagner, the Roadway Regulation Supervisor for
MnDOT's Metropolitan Division, has advised City staff that MnDOT would probably allow the
logos or signs of local service organizations to be attached to the City's existing entrance
monuments. However,the design of our monuments is such that any attachments to the face of
the monument would obscure portions of the text and/or graphics,and would adversely affect the
aesthetics of the monument.
It is clear that MnDOT would almost certainly not approve service club signs attached to
individual posts in the right-of way. There is a slightly greater chance that MnDOT might
approve a single structure (separate from,but near, an entrance monument) to which individual
service club signs could be attached. To explore this possibility,MnDOT will require that a very
specific written request be submitted for review and approval. This is an option that City staff
members are prepared to explore with local service clubs in the future.
Another possibility that can be explored would involve putting service club"sign panels"on the
green"City of Farmington" entrance signs (that is, the signs that show the City's population as
of the date of the 2000 census). MnDOT's Traffic Engineering Manual(see attached Exhibit C)
includes provisions that allow "community recognition sign" panels to be attached to "City
Name Markers" under certain circumstances. This may be a viable alternative to putting service
club signs on or near the City's concrete entrance monuments, if or when the City Code is
amended to allow such signs.
Dakota County
Two (2) of the locations at which the Farmington Lions want to erect signs are within Dakota
County's rights-of-way(at the north entrance to Farmington on Pilot Knob Road and at the west
entrance on CSAH 50). Dakota County's position with regard to the sanctity of its rights-of-way
is slightly less restrictive than MnDOT's policy. According to Gordon McConnell, an
engineering tech in Dakota County's Transportation Division, Dakota County would strongly
prefer that any service club signage be physically attached to the City's entrance monuments
(which raises several related issues of the type addressed in the MnDOT section of this Memo,
above). However, Dakota County is apparently willing to at least consider signs that are not
physically attached to our entrance monuments as long as they are (a) located within the
landscaped areas around the monuments and (b) located outside of the "clear zone" (which is
determined by the speed limit, road design and other factors). As with MnDOT, however, it
appears that Dakota County would strongly prefer a single structure to which individual service
club signs could be attached,rather than a collection of individual posts and signs.
City of Farmington
Even if the requirements of MnDOT and Dakota County can be met with regard to the proposed
Lions signs, Section 10-6-3(C)(6) of the Farmington City Code still currently provides that"no
sign shall be upon or overhang any public right of way." The City Code will have to be revised
in a fashion that will allow certain types of signs to be placed in the right-of-way under specified
circumstances. At the request of City staff, the City Attorney has drafted an Ordinance (see
attached)that is designed to accomplish that objective.
The City Attorney has indicated that there are certain constitutional issues inherent in allowing
some types of signs to be placed in the right-of-way,while other types of signs are prohibited. I
have attached an explanatory memo that the City Attorney has prepared regarding this subject.
Although the attached Ordinance presents some risks, I personally believe that the risks are
outweighed by the many benefits of allowing local civic and fraternal organizations to promote
their organizations through the use of attractive and unobtrusive signage.
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed this issue at its meetings on July 13,2004,August
10, 2004, and September 15, 2004. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
proposed ordinance at its meeting on October 12,2004.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached ordinance regarding logo signs in public rights-of-way.t R tfully :ub 1 ed,
Carr. 1 oho
Community Development Director
AUG. 5.2004 3:19PM W,& IL
. CITY HL NO.BM R.5
1(10 Keith Vanwapner •
Roadway Regulation Supervisor
ota Department of Trnnsprrtation
Metropolitan Division
1500 West Courtly Road 8-2 itenance Bulletin Number 97-2
Roseville,MN 55113 Sep m t b e r 16
MobdetPager:551.775-0404 l r 1 997
Fax: 851-552-1454
OHice• 551-552.1443 SILL WARDEN
TO: ' Area Maintenance Engineers. _ . .
Maintenance Superintendents
Signing Supervisors
Petmit4 Specialists _ /1
FROM: Rodne)A. Roan,P.E. . d�7
State Maintenance Engineer .
SUBJECT; Municipal Identification Entrance Signs
•
The following guidelines for the installation of Municipal Identification Entrance Signs have
been developed by the Traffic Engineering Organization, have been reviewed by the Federal
Highway Administration and have been approved for all Trunk Highway and National Highway
System Routes.
• JD_ Fe _ - T eV • _ _D 1F : is
ENTRANCE S19Na
A Municipal Identification Entrance Sign meeting all of the following guidelines may be.
considered for installation within trunk highway right of way:
• A. The sign(message,color)shall not simulate a traffic control device.
c E The sign shall not be erected or maintained in such a place or manner as to obscure or
otherwise physically interfere with an official traffic control device or a railroad safety
signal or sign,or to obstructor physically interfere with the drivers' view of approaching,
merging or intersecting traffic.
., Distracting flashing or moving lights shall not be allowed [MS 173.15,(7)]. Minnesota
Department of Transportation issued Technical Memorandum 92-35-ES-07 dated
October 1, 1992 which states that"Lighting which presents a new message, pictorial
image or change illumination at a rate less than once every six seconds is determined to
be a flashing or moving light and is in violation of MS 173.15,(7)".
•
r.Er. A sign may be installed'along any two-lane, two-way conventional h' hwa's,or
• expressway with at-grade intersections. •• ' I t
AUG. 5.2004 3:16PM 1.1}3L CITY HALL NO.809 P.6
, •
1
/('-';-"On freeways and expressways with interchanges,signs may be installed only at exit
ramps. i
•
Only one.sign shall be allowed per trunk highway approacht into a municipality.
/r: Signing is only allowed for incorporated municipalities.
A sign shall not be placed any further than 2 miles from the corporate limits and not
before or within the limits of another municipality.
rfr The sign shall face traffic entering the municipality and may be located on the left-hand
or right hati Ida of the roadway.
,' •The sign shat be ground mounted and located outside the clear zone as close to the right-
of-way line as practical. .
KThe sign size, including border and trim,should be no larger than 250 square feet. This
size limitation excludes the sign supports or structure. S"c p' S-ot.�..•�
4 xio
0C The sign may incorporate a logo and a short promotional slogan which has
historically used in identification of the municipality.
M.( he sign messa shall not contain advertising for a commercial product or service or any
non-ncofit oar -ar.;zation..
�` - ,vim c.�s+..�`.�,� V.:.�....,... ;�e•�.�..a.e-�+•�e
r
The sign shall not contain any animated or moving parts.
,Q the sigh shall not utilize flashing disks.
Sign lighting shall be in conformance with MS 173.16,Subd.3.
he sign shall comply with local ordinances. _ S ., �,�,.,,, ,- f
• SPECIAL PROYISIONS
I have attached, for your convenience, special provisions that may be used on any limited use
permit to be issued to a municipality for the erection of a Municipal Identification Entrance Sign
and a copy of Minnesota Department of Transportation form T.?. 1723,currently under revision,
for your information and use.
cc: Mark Trogstad-Isaacson,6A
Mike Weiss,MS 725
•
. AUG. 5.2004 3:1BPM WBL CITY HALL M0.809 P.7 -- . .
r
SPECIAL, PROVISIONS
A. The permit issued to the municipality is granted solely for the purpose of establishing.
maintaining,and constructing the Municipal Identification Entrance Sign at the location
shown in accordance with the attached drawings.
, ''The establishment, maintenance, and construction of the Municipal Identification
Entrance Sign will be the responsibility of the City at no expense to the Department of
Transportation.
It is understood Eind agreed that the City will be allowed access from.the Trunk Highway
roadway for the ptpose of maintaining or repairing the Municipal Identification
Entrance Sign.
r
,„.41,,'"
, ' Approval from the Area Maintenance Engineer will be required for any changes or
deviations from the drawings or special provisions.
,i': The sign shall be located on the top of the backslope near the right-of-way line. The sign
will not be permitted in the clear.zone (as determined by Department of Transportation
standards),on the shoulder inslope,or in the ditch bottom.
,,61--The sign cannot be placed at a location where it will interfere with the effectiveness of
any signing,traffic control devices,or interfere in any way with the safe operation of -.
motor vehicle traffic,or the safety of pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles. e
X The sign installation shall be maintained in good repair. If this requirement is not met,
the applicant will be notified to remove the sign.
,,5K-The City shall be responsible for the installation of temporary erosion control measures
concurrent with the construction operations or as soon thereafter as practicable.
Temporary erosion control measures are;but not limited to,straw bale structures,silt
curtains,sediment traps,or other means to temporarily protect the overall work prior to
restoration of the work site.
The City,upon completion of the Municipal Identification Entrance Sign,shall restore all
disturbed slopes and ditches in such a manner that drainage,erosion control,and
aesthetics are perpetuated.
11'CNo assignment of this permit is allowed and no commercial activities will be allowed on
Department of Transportation right-of-way.
.M
/11-...No advertising in any form,shape,or size shall be constructed or permitted to be
constructed upon the right-of-way subject to this permit.
,,12.The City will preserve and protect all utilities located on the lands covered by this permit
AUG. 5.2004 3:18PM WBL CITY HALL NO.809 P.8�^ -�
•
F
at no expense to the Department of Transportation; and it shall be the responsibility of the
City to call the Gopher State One Call System at 1-800-252-1166 at least 48 hours prior
to performing any excavation or driving any posts.
'3'The applicant is required to preserve all existing survey monuments. If the Minnesota,
Department of Transportation determines that monuments have been disturbed or
destroyed during construction activities,the applicant shall accept full responsibility for
all costs incurred in the re-establishment of monuments.
This permit does not release the City from any liability or obligation imposed by Federal
Law,Minnesota Statutes, local ordinances or otheragencies relating thereto;and any
necessary perrmi relating thereto shall be obtained by the City.
e,.,•r'Aay use permitted by this permit shall remain subordinate to the right-of-way of the
Department of Transportation to use the property for highway and transportation
purposes.
16-This permit shall be subject to cancellation and termination by, the Department of•
Transportation for good cause by giving the City written notice at least 60 days prior to
the date,wheh such termination shall become effective.
IZUpon cancellation of said permit,the City shall be required to remove the Municipal
Identification Entrance Sign_end restore the area to a condition satisfactory to the Area
Maintenance Engineer. Removal shall be at no expense to the Department of
Transportation.
•
o4/UnUG. 5.20047 3:23PNt-.413L CITY HALL - --- N0.810 P.7�6QE
• • D4"/044003 1.8'3 rba asTkaln A A �1 ► c8
STATE OF MINNESOTA
•
. 0311103 OF 013=TOP= tFAMAT,
seseucerassr
swam
hinig a= Aso, APO».
u •
Mr.Roger A.Aneen
Uttamti,Silt,Comvs8& N VtAFAc
1500 Ivitt►nesot a World Trade Center ,un U.B.MAIL
30 t Seventh Street
St.pall.MN 55101
It= Request for/Wormy General's Opinion for City of White Bear Lake-
• Plavwn tt of Service and Veterans Onlanization Way
dentlfleatiatt�n Signs
Your File No.2128.1
Dear Mr.Jaen:
Thy you for your letter dated homy 24,2003 requesting an opinion • Y
General with respect to the place:cant of City of White Beer Lake dine oe state wank _ way
rights-of-way. I apologize for my late response,
PACTS •
You stem that you are the My Attorney for the City of White ate'Lake, Ml, agora
(the"City"), Yon $tie that the City has placed "municipal idenulitadoo°' signs wi state
highway tights-of-Way at principle entrances to the testy. The eigne coma the age
°Welcome to White Hear Lake,City of takes 8a Lids" Below the elga panel coo : that
meaaage is a separate panel containing logos of veteran and service atgaaizedons having .bayous
in the City.including the Rotary,Lions Club,VPW,Amatiese Legion end Masons. YOU y that
officials of the 1V,[fnnaeota Department of Transportation (4nDOT)have taken the ..: - that
inclusion of the logos on the signs is contrary to Minn.Stat. f 169.07,which prohibits in r ei a,
any tic sign or signal beating"corczaercial adVigtisine
You do not believe that Section 169.07 applies to the present situation because City's
entrance signs do not constitute "treffic signs". Moreover,you do not believe that the 1'got for
the wee and veterans organizations canna="coal advertising". You roved at this
• Office provide the City with an opinion That the City's mince sages do not violate a -Stat
§ 169.07.
•
F'a.sinalcn(6973 3.97-12.35•TIY:(65 11 289--2525*MS Pen Limps tDOM 074797(WA.(8001 316-4512(3='C7 _"„
M Equal OPIPIPCM graigstisTWito vaunt Pienssiry , Mod on 50% ice'(t3%...;t oosunw mans)
gap EXm e.7 a
_ _
U41UAU.-5.20041 3:23PM ZZaWBL CITY HALL rose riA'az",WAIrC"rsa NO.810 P,
0:4/04/2103 0:4/04/2103 se-2tBAY atiiiViis�_. AT X OPFt R 4uua
ooa
•
Roger A.Jensen
April 4,2003
Page 2
LAW AND ANAL
Responsibility and authority for management and repletion of the state mn*bi g •Ys+
-including highway ilgbts-cf-way,has been delegated by the legislature to the Cow nits . of
TranspannOon. See, e.g l nn. Star.. H 160.02, subd. 25, 16120, 173.025 (2003). Sin this
Office provides legal advice and representation to the Commissioner in emersion rsion her
duties' we are unable to psuside to yon a formal opinion on this.issue. Notwfthatandin this
Limitation,I believe that I can provide the following comments. which I hope that you • ! find
helpikt)-
It does not appear that the logos of veterans and service Ion constitute "c
eedve i sing" for proposes of Minn. Stat:. §/169.07. 11 . eS�tet. § 169.0r7 dam not e.
u al advertising". As used in common purism*,however,"colon:l ial Is . 1 -At as
"pertaining to, or engaged in commaree." 'The American Herk ge 'Dticrionary 267 ( 9S1}-
"Commeroe"is defined as"the buying or selling of goads;...bumble3ss;trade." Id
The organizations whose logos are placed on the ages entrance signs s . Y
nonptrfit organizations established serve the commnnity and its merobeoa. 'The argarala Lions
do not appear to be engaged in what is commonly thought of s i comma=or business.but er
Philanthropic, membership and community activities. As a result, we do not believe the
placement of their logos on City entrance ate.censt attar"cornroceeiel advertising".
With respect to whether the came signs constitute"trade at m"we do not n--u, to
address that'cute tines we do not believe that the Iogos, in any event, constitute "c•b••i., -
adva2tng".
CoNoN'
In light of the above, we do riot.believe that the placement of logos of - and
service organizations on the City's entrance signs is prohibited by n.Sty i 169.07.
Vag truly
•
r•�.err -
r 311
Assistant Attorney Gemini
(6S1)297-1141
•
• AUG. 5.2004 3:26PM• . WBL CITY HALL— NO.BiI P.10 • ' ••
. • .TRAFFIC.ENGtNEERIHSG Fax:651-2054526 .' , • Mat- 8 '01 11:34 • • P.02 . • •. .
, •
Jui 1.2000 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MANUAL ,
Z. Operational Gui , , _•.. .•`utnbet 12 3 s. • tti aactnsll}•be insmlhad at A- T. , ... , , ;
Sign tF ,r). . •
• the actual corporate boundary, subject to the _,. , . •
following guidelines: =y'
•L�ictropolicam •eat • (Seven County •
Minneapolis-St. ' 1.Metro Area and'Duluth) • '• • •
• Install Sign't2-3 or near the corporate limits • 6-9.02.04 Comniunn 'R=, ..•niti'on Sigrps.{par�el&)
on''all. tnnttk ltig ays, including interstate , , , 1.Iitutduction ,. :ackgroun. .
. . • • h way •• , ,,
ii.Minter areas of ne. • ' There,has lea'a continuing tcics of requests by .
cities to attack supplemental sign panels to the City
•
• • Install Ssi_en 123 at • near the.coipor rc limits Name Markers'srgn.The Cotamunity Recognidot• • .
• . a in, ail. trunk high s, excluding interstate • Sign Program allows communities to axpir.�their ,
highways: •• • - , . • • own:ide ty.. pemsfia�. , 4 'i:7, . o of si j,. .• di'alto . :1• •coiitnani, to • 7.
. • c.On interstate high• - ,, the following'criteria • . t .ten•drtac�t ► .••• on , hiphwa
• .. . ..' .apply`: . • . . •, . • . r . . _may ••' 1)If the cc • .limits of a commutiihy are • 2.Restrictions • •• •
. • • • • crossed by - . terstate highway,and theta is .. - ' ' , ' '
no
j %iara L serving'the community,,install•• Community Recogniden Signs will not'be allowed . .
the 'sign on ,e imetetete highway et the ' . on Iflterstata freeways.statewide, or on freecwdys
add expressways.in the seven eounQ►Metro area
• . .corporate haul • •ings; ,
• • • • (Anoka.Carver;Dakota,Reonepht,Ramsey. a;
• ?)If the . •. limits Of a.community are and Washings=counties).
•• • •' trussed'by the ater Late highway.and an •
interchange di •ly serves the coemuuuty 3.General Guidelines • ••• • • .
. and die co • • ,• is not identifier on either' a.Examples of sign' panels that are permitted .•the major in -a, ■ ge guide signs or en a
supplemental s ide sign, install the sign on • • ' t)Nen�profit service oTganiaations .
alto ghw$y at the corporate limit 2y Special prograias, gird. permanent: or
crass temporary:e.g.DARE,Tr:e,C'ay,etc. • •
• - • 3)If the c• ..,. . limits'of a community axe • 3)City Ioga - .•
crossed by interstate'highway..and an• �..._.__�.,. •
interchange • .- ,Iy serves •t a community • •.4)City•recognldon slogans;'e.g. Stare Baseball• •
. •• - and the cow it •is identified on either the Champions. • • _ • • ; •
• • • ' major interch c,e- •guide sirras of on a g�Drsaldtrtg Water Protection Ate sign pared
supplemental tr. sign, do net.install the•
• sign on the in - ; bnghway b:'li The Sian panels shall be initiated and •
• Where proper city n• ; •have two words, it may be ceprdinated by the eonursutsity. .
r
• •desirable to arrange • name on two times Adler Than c. •_,v ;, ••:�. r_•,- of '.• eis• rna he .
•one.'especially when - words are long., C,iry ttames • .• ' • ;eimiued, up to a;dal of 113011 mm
I • • ••.shall not be abbreviate • • •': • en -+ • 'cis sits ..• in 'a C. --' pane
•All ei rea p 'sins. sh include the elation 'pure. •• may, •e ens °moon • ty e er.below the
�'' population fig . City Name Marker sign or, if efc it d,by:the.
The figure used shall • as of the last official Federal ' districr/division.. below an eidsting 'Star City'
•
• or State census. Popul ion figuress are changed only ' sign panel if it is mounted on its own structure. •.
after an o;fcial census: a community decides it does •• s
not v.ant the population hided on this sign.Mn,/,,DOT • . d.The message on sign pads shall not simulate a •
I • w l l•eover this legend.. ' •
egend, 'traffic Control device or contain.directional sign '
• messages. or advertising for .a commercial
• An exception to the ve applies to unincorporated ' product or•service_ • •
comrtutntues which'w. t city name signs. bin for • • •' •
• • 'which population coup ate not aVellehls. The sign e.,Poliitical or commercial advertising will.riot be '• ,
' Installed.at these lo. ,Lions shall carry only the' allowed on sign panels. •
•
community tame: r. The slap panel dssi�ns Ih311 be approved by the
b°411°X. /ill& or ' a.. .. .
district/dtricion traffic engineer. ,. .
. .
. .
. . ,.__ ____,,,., ,,, ,_ ....„
' - -• • •.
- - ' ' • .
0 en
4
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 6 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY
CODE,THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE,CONCERNING SIGNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 10-2-1 of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding the
following definition:
SIGN,LOGO: A sign carrying a symbol,standard,emblem or insignia,identifying a
governmental agency or any civic,charitable,religious,institutional,patriotic,fraternal
or similar non-commercial organization.
SECTION 2. Section 10-6-3(B)(1)of the Farmington City Code is amended by adding a
new subsection(t)to read as follows:
(t)Logo Signs: Logo signs may be permitted within the public rights-of-way if approved
by the City's director of public works,provided that:
i. the logo sign is co-located with the City's entrance signs,and does not exceed 24
inches in height and 24 inches in width(if rectangular)or 24"in diameter(if
round);
ii. the logo sign is sponsored/requested and maintained by the organization's local
chapter,with an office located within the City;
iii. a responsible person of the organization is designated for maintenance issues;and
iv. the organization provides written proof that it has obtained any permits and/or
approvals that are required by any other governmental entities(State of
Minnesota,Dakota County, etc.)for the placement of signs within their rights-of-
way.
SECTION 3. Section 10-6-3(C)(6)of the Farmington City Code is amended to read as
follows:
6.Public Rights Of Way:No sign shall be upon or overhang any public right of way,
except:i)as permitted under section 10-6-3(BXl)(t);or ii)within the B-2 district where
an overhang of fifteen inches(15")is possible.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication according to law.
ADOPTED this day of ,2004,by the City Council of the City of Farmington.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Gerald Ristow,Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
City Administrator
SEAL
By:
City Attorney
Published in the Farmington Independent the day of ,2004.
- - - EX. C-
.
Council Minutes(Regular)
October 18,2004
Page 11
by Cordes to approve the draft letter to the Met Council. APIF,MOTION
CARRIED.
d) Approve Joint Annexation Resolution—Giles Development—Community
Development
There is a property currently located in Empire Township,just south of the future
195th Street alignment. It is adjacent to property formerly owned by Bernard
Murphy. Mr.Murphy has petitioned for the annexation of his property. He
agreed to wait for annexation until the property was granted MUSA. Empire
Township has agreed to not oppose the annexation and agreed to execute a joint
resolution. Community Development Director Carroll thanked the people who
served on the EFPAC committee. Councilmember Fogarty thanked Community
Development Director Carroll for his work on the committee and stated this is an
example of what can happen when communities work together. MOTION by
Fogarty,second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R87-04 approving the
annexation of approximately 93 acres currently owned by Bernard Murphy Farms
Limited Partnership and Giles Properties,Inc. APIF,MOTION CARRIED.
A e) Adopt Ordinance—Logo Signs—Community Development
The Farmington Lions Club has indicated an interest in placing logo signs in the
right-of-way next to a number of City entrance monuments. There are two
1 specific changes to the sign ordinance. One is the definition of a logo sign and
the other change specifies the circumstances under which logo signs could be
permitted within the right-of-way. One condition is the sign be co-located with
the City's entrance signs not exceeding 24 inches in height or width or 24 inches
in diameter. The sign has to be sponsored and maintained by an organization's
local chapter with an office located within the City. A responsible person of the
organization has to be designated for maintenance issues. The organization has to
provide written proof that it has obtained any permits or approvals that are
required by any other governmental entities for the placement of signs within their
rights-of-way. Signs would not be able to be attached to the concrete entrance
signs. Staff would like the organizations to work with them to explore the
possibility of getting some sort of structure built near the entrance monuments to
place signs on for a number of organizations. There may be the possibility of cost
sharing between the organizations. Staff recommended 24 inches in size,as that
is what the State requires. Any organization could have a sign attached to the
green entrance signs. The Lions Club has already purchased a sign that is 30
inches in diameter. Council should determine if they want to keep the size at 24
inches or go up to 30 inches. The Lions Club ordered the sign some time ago on
their own initiative. They have explored the possibility of placing the signs on
private property. The County would not object to having free standing signs next
to the entrance monuments as long as it is in the landscaped area on the far side of
the monument. If signs are placed in the middle of the green entrance sign,the
state would require raising the entire sign and would charge a fee.
Council Minutes(Regular)
October 18,2004
Page 12
Councilmember Cordes noted the City Attorney indicated in a letter that the
Council can place a limit on the number of signs allowed. She asked how you
define a service organization. City Attorney Jamnik stated that is his primary
concern with the ordinance and the proposal. You can allow some,but by
allowing some,means you allow all. If an organization can persuade a court they
meet the same requirements as the other service organizations approved,the City
would have to allow them. Staff believes that risk is outweighed by the benefit to
the community by acknowledging the valid service organizations. Once the
ordinance is adopted it would have to be administered in an even handed fashion.
Mayor Ristow stated if the City goes with putting the signs on the green entrance
sign,it would have to be approved by the State. Councilmember Cordes did not
have a problem with the signs,she did not want the clutter. If Council does
nothing,the Lions Club can petition to put them on the State's signs at two
entrances. The ordinance states the signs should be co-located with the City's
entrance signs. Councilmember Fitch wanted to see how it would look
aesthetically before it is approved. The State will not commit to a proposal for a
free standing structure in their right-of-way unless they see what is proposed.
Councilmember Fogarty felt the organizations could come up with some type of
free standing structure on their own rather than staff designing a structure. She
would also like to see a computer-generated drawing as to how it would look.
City Administrator Urbia will talk to the organizations about this discussion and
determine how the organizations want to proceed. MOTION by Fogarty,second
by Cordes to table this item until the next meeting. APIF,MOTION
CARRIED.
f) 2005 CIP Authority to Proceed with Preliminary Planning-Administration
City Administrator Urbia identified the projects for 2005 and the status. He noted
the Council approved the plans and specifications for the Spruce Street project.
He knows everyone on staff has recommended the Council should proceed with
the plans and specifications. That shows everyone is on board with the project.
Council direction was pending on the Fire Station,Prairie Creek drainage way
dredging,and sewer meter replacement. The Prairie Creek dredging is funded by
the storm water funded and is done by City staff. Staff asked for Council to
approve this. There are three sewer meters that need to be replaced. They need to
be brought up to date to receive accurate readings. One meter was installed with
the Main Street project. This would come out of the sanitary sewer fund. For the
Fire Station,the architectural fees for Wold would be 70%of the basic services of
$85,000 equaling$59,500. This would cover the design of the facility and ready
for the City Council with a decision to bid the project. The costs would come out
of the municipal building fund. Another 5%would be for bid services and the
remaining amount would be for the actual construction,administration,
inspection,etc. The second location is located on the campus at 195th Street and
Pilot Knob Road,across from the Maintenance Facility. In the future,with the
build out of the City and the MUSA granted,a third station would be necessary.
A station should cover a 1.5 mile radius. The proposed location for a third station
- — ex.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kevin Carroll
FROM: Andrea Poehier
DATE: 9/10/2004
RE: Farmington/right of way signs
Section 10-6-3(C)(6)prohibits signs on or over the public rights-of way except within B-2
districts where an overhang of 15"is possible. In amending this ordinance to allow signs within
the public right-of-way,the City must consider first amendment issues to avoid the adoption of
an unconstitutional provision.
First,an ordinance that specifically allows the council unlimited discretion in permitting or
excluding certain signs,with no standards,would allow the council by the terms of the ordinance
to act as an unchecked censor and the courts have squarely held that this is impermissible on its
face.
Second,there is an issue of whether and in what ways a City can distinguish between certain
types of speech,i.e.,what are the legitimate grounds for allowing some signs while excluding
other signs. For example,some cities have adopted ordinances which seem to allow all signs
(subject to the council's discretion)except political signs on city rights-of-way. The only
conceivable interest in such a distinction is that the city seeks to avoid actual and perceived
favoritism among political candidates. Where cities have adopted similar exclusions,courts have
only upheld them where the regulation is the least restrictive means toward that interest. A court
might find that since not all right-of-ways carry a close connection between city and message,
there are many less restrictive ways of avoiding the appearance of favoritism than a blanket
prohibition impacting only political signs and applying to all public rights of way.
As a general matter,if a city allows certain commercial signs but does not allow non-commercial
signs,the ordinance will almost certainly be struck down. Similarly,if an ordinance
distinguishes among non-commercial signs,the regulation will also likely fail. The touchstone
for determining validity under the First Amendment is content neutrality. If the regulation
picks and chooses among messages,it is subject to strict scrutiny. If,on the other hand,the
regulation can be construed as a valid time,place and manner restriction,it will be subject to
a less exacting standard. For example,in the leading public property sign case,the Supreme
Court upheld a complete prohibition of signs posted on public property. City Council of the City
of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent,466 U.S. 789(1984). The challengers asserted that the
City's ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to political signs. The Court held that because
the prohibition did not distinguish either between commercial and non-commercial or among
non-commercial messages,the ordinance was content neutral. Further,the Court found that it
was narrowly tailored to serve the"weighty,essentially esthetic interest in proscribing intrusive
and unpleasant formats for expression." Id. at 806.
In short,if the City opens the right of way to some speech,the proper means for regulating it are
generally time,place and manner restrictions rather than any sort of content-based distinction.
Thus,the City could require permits for signs in the right of way,limit the total number of sign
permits,restrict the time period for the signs(as it does now),and further limit the materials and
dimensions of the signs. Alternatively,the city could ban all signs from the right of way or,with
some additional risk,permit only non-commercial signs in the right of way.