The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07.19.99 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR July 19, 1999 6:30 P.M. CHAMBER/COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Association of Metropolitan Municipalities - Presentation b) Energy CENTS Coalition - Presentation 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) a) Everest Path Traffic Concerns 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (7/6/99) (Regular) b) Transient Merchant License - Chamber of Commerce c) Adopt Resolution - Approve Eagles Club Gambling Permit d) Adopt Resolution - Supporting No Parking - Akin Road Parking Restrictions e) Adopt Resolution - Property Easement Settlement - Southeast Sanitary Sewer Project f) 2nd Quarter Building Permit Report g) School and Conference - Finance Department h) Dakota County HRA Rental Housing Survey i) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT a) Adopt Resolution - Daisy Knoll Park Project (Supplemental) 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Submittal to Met Council of 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update b) Executive Summary - Empire Township Comprehensive Plan Update c) Initiate Utility Easement Vacation - Industrial Park 1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Facilities Task Force - Appointments b) Request to Revise 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update - Wenzel Property Action Taken 14. ADJOURN 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Schedule Joint Cities - School District Meeting (Carry-over) b) East Farmington Traffic Concerns c) Fairview Lane and Heritage Way Stop Sign Request d) Confirmation of Legislative Meeting Date City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 50., TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities - Presentation DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) represents approximately 73 cities in the metropolitan area on a variety of local government issues. Membership in the AMM would have distinct benefits and value for the City relative to interactions with the Metropolitan Council on community development and growth issues. DISCUSSION Mr. Eugene (Gene) Ranieri, AMM Executive Director, has been invited to make a brief presentation to Council on the AMM and potential City membership in the year 2000, and answer any questions Council may have on the AMM. A separate packet of information has been included for Council, along with a current membership list. AMM membership would provide a number of significant benefits for the City in the area of legislative relations, municipal revenues, metropolitan agencies including the Metropolitan Council, housing and economic development and transportation. The AMM also produces a number of informative publications that the City has been fortunate to receive on a complimentary basis, and was also represented by the AMM during this past legislative session on a number of bills that would have affected the City in general. BUDGET IMPACT Membership fees for the City in the year 2000 would be approximately $3,023. If Council supports City membership in the AMM, this amount would be included in the proposed 2000 City Budget. ACTION REQUESTED To receive Council feedback on potential City membership in the AMM in the year 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 56 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Communications - Energy Cents Coalition DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City has received a request from Energy Cents Coalition, an advocate for low and fixed income energy consumers, requesting Council support for state legislation that would create a universal service fund. According to the attached information, this fund would be established to provide bill payment and conservation assistance to low and fixed income Minnesotans. DISCUSSION While the goal of providing affordable electricity service to low and fixed income energy consumers is certainly a straightforward and laudable goal, policy implications associated with the anticipated deregulation of the electric utility industry needs to be explored. As both Dakota EI~ctric and NSP provide electric service in the community, their viewpoints should be considered in conjunction with any formal support by Council on this issue. In conversations with Eldon Johnson, President/CEO of Dakota Electric, Mr. Johnson expressed support for the concept of universal service and need for a universal service funding mechanism in a deregulated market environment. However, Mr. Johnson indicated that a number of critical issues and questions remained unanswered by the legislature at this time. For example, where would the funding come from to underwrite the costs associated with a universal service fund? Who would pay and in what form would these fees be assessed are still unknown and should be viewed as important policy considerations. According to Ms. Marshall, Director for Energy Cents, other states have adopted legislation that requires all electric consumers to pay a surcharge or user fee on their electric bills that is collected by the electric service provider. These funds are then transmitted to a state or non-profit agency for distribution to qualifying program participants-similar to the existing Fuel Assistance program. While information on this initiative would suggest that low and fixed income consumers would benefit from this type of program, who will bear the cost is a fundamental policy consideration. Along those lines, should cities across Minnesota support this program at this time, with the '~. ~. legislature still considering the entire deregulation issue? A worst case scenario could develop that would prompt the Legislature to require cities to either collect a special levy or administer program reporting requirements. While this scenario is somewhat unlikely, the legislative environment in 2000 will be unpredictable, and may be unfriendly to city concerns on this particular issue. Ms. Pam Marshall of Energy Cents Coalition is requesting an opportunity to address Council at the July 19, 1999 meeting on her agency's efforts to recruit local jurisdiction support and answer any questions Council members may have relating to this legislative initiative. BUDGET IMPACT Unknown at this time. ACTION REQUESTED In review of the information submitted to the City, it is recommended at this time that this issue be tabled until more information can be obtained relative to how the legislature plans to enact a universal service program and address program funding. As issues associated with electric utility deregulation in Minnesota are still being debated by the industry, rate payers and the legislature, Council may wish to postpone any action on the request by the Energy Cents Coalition. Given the fact that funding questions are still unknown, Council may wish to consider one ofthe following three options: I) Postpone any action on this item until additional information is available, most likely until a review of proposed legislation can be conducted by City staff during the 2000 Legislative Session. 2) Council could direct staff to draft a revised resolution that would include specific language relative to Council positions on the most appropriate funding sources for a universal service fund and how this fund should be administered. 3) Council could direct staff to draft a revised resolution simply stating support for universal energy access as a concept, without any specific reference or support for the creation of a universal service fund. Respectfully Submitted, Cc: Mr. Eldon Johnson, President/CEO, Dakota Electric Cooperative Ms. Pam Marshall, Director, Energy Cents Coalition EnergyCents TO: FROM: RE: DATE: John Erar, Administrator, City of Farmington Pam Marshall, Director Universal Service Agenda Item June 21, 1999 ENERGY CENTS COALITION I am writing to request that the City Council hear a resolution sponsored by the Energy CENTS Coalition regarding universal service support in a deregulated electric utility market. As you may know, deregulation of this industry threatens to shift costs onto residential customers. Low and fixed income consumers already spend an average of about 17% of their income on annual energy bills (median income households spend about 3% of household income for energy). Any electric utility cost increases would further undermine the ability of these households to maintain access to electric service. Other potential adverse effects of utility restructuring may include false marketing claims, inadequate consumer protections, customer confusion about choosing a supplier, and decreased quality of customer service. Energy CENTS has a ten-year history of advocating on behalf oflow and fixed income Minnesota energy consumers. Our organization is active in regulatory and legislative processes regarding electric utility restructuring. Coalition members believe it is important to carefully construct universal service provisions and other consumer protections before any changes are made to this industry. Ifwe do so, our more vulnerable citizens may be more likely to participate in any benefits from introducing competition among energy providers. I am requesting a few minutes on an upcoming agenda (perhaps in July or August) to provide you with some information about the problem of unaffordable energy and to seek your support for the enclosed resolution. . . For your information, the cities of Stillwater, Cottage Grove and Champlin have passed this resolution. White Bear Lake and Bloomington have tabled the resolution but we intend to request that they revisit it sometime later this summer. I hope you will look favorably upon this request. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, f~~ Pam Marshall 823 East Seventh Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106 Telephone 651.774.9010 Fax 651.774.0445 Email. centspam@mtn.org .~. I .. .. The following background information is an excerpt from Energy CENTS Coalition comments to the Legislative Electric Energy Task Force (9-15-98). A full copy of the comments is available by calling (651) 774-9010. Threats to Universal Service in a Deregulated Electric Utility Industry Deregulation threatens the ability of low and fixed income households to maintain access to utility service. Rate increases, market-based pricing, cost-shifting, de-averaging of rates, and unbundling of services and prices that are less subject to state regulation, all threaten the affordability aspect of universal service, particularly since low-income customers struggle under the current system to afford electric utility costs and to maintain access to electricity. Under the current regulated utility system, large and small customers contribute to the local utility's cost of providing service. Allowing competitive energy.suppliers to compete for the customers of existing utilities, however, requires the fragmentation of the utility's current customer base. Market segmentation is required to allow energy suppliers to offer different services to different customers at different prices. This segmentation is also required in order to allow for customer choice among providers and products and, deregulation proponents argue, to improve technological innovation and to provide additional energy-related services. Accordingly, different marketing strategies will be used to attract differently situated consumers. Logically, power suppliers will seek out the most profitable customers and seek to avoid customers who are perceived to be a credit risk. "Unless specific measures are adopted to overcome these obstacles [to universal service], market forces will drive competitors in the electric industry to either (a) avoid low-income customers altogether or (b) provide poorer service to low-income consumers at higher prices." 1 As demonstrated in other industries, such as (health care, insurance, and telecommunications) . . . , competitive markets "frequently serve to exclude rather than to include those who are either unwilling or unable to pay. . . [and] will frequently. . . raise prices to those least able to pay. . ., Failure to pursue universal service is based on decision-making considered to be not only rational by the industry, but dictated by the economics of the industry and its 2 . consumers. ECC recommends that the question of universal service receive the attention of Minnesota policy makers with or without changes to the utility industry. Minnesota's temperature extremes place an inordinate burden on the ability of at least 20% of our state's population (number of households at 150% of the federal poverty level and below). Within the parameters discussed I Carl K. Oshiro. "Universal Service in a Restructured Electric Industry: Can we ensure that all consumers have access to affordable electric service?" The Consumer Research Foundation, 1997, p. 13. 2 Roger Colton, "The 'Obligation to Serve' and a Competitive Electric Industry." for the Office of State and Community Programs, U.S. Department of Energy, DE-A-C05-960R22464, July 1997, p. 25. below, ECC recommends that the Task Force create an Universal Service Working Group to design low income bill payment and conservation assistance and customer education efforts. ECC recommends that the Legislature initiate an universal service funding mechanism now, regardless of utility industry changes. There are several reasons why such an approach makes sense. First, ongoing federal funding for LllffiAP at a meaningful level does not look good. In part because states are beginning to fund energy assistance programs of their own and in part because federal deregulation efforts will likely change LllffiAP, Minnesota can not continue to rely only on federal funding to provide energy assistance. Secondly, deregulation of the electric utility industry is likely to result in higher cost service to households who can least afford it. These adverse impacts from changes to the industry can be prevented if universal service funding is pursued now. Third, as will be discussed further below, there are many more households who need assistance than those who presently receive help through LIHEAP. In fact, the Minnesota's LIHEAP does not even reach one-half of the Minnesota households at or below 100% of federal poverty. Finally, helping low income people pay for energy is far cheaper than paying for the alternatives (preventing senior citizens from living independently in their homes, health, safety and nutritional costs, homelessness, etc.). The best way to ensure universal service is to allow adequate time to design workable solutions to the problem of unaffordable energy and to ensure that low and fixed income customers are not further burdened within a deregulated industry. ',i. ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY DEREGULATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Energy CENTS Coalition Q. How is the current electric utility industry structured? A. Right now, you purchase all utility services (generation or power supply, transmission of power across high voltage lines, and distribution through local poles and wires to your home). Distribution services also include billing, metering, customer service, etc. All private utilities are "vertically integrated"--that is, they o'\n all three functions--generation, transmission and distribution systems. Even rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities, while they may purchase power from another entity, own transmission and distribution systems. All utilities operate within exclusive, monopoly service territories with specific regulatory oversight and an obligation to serve all customers in their territories. Q. How is the utility industry changing? A. Through federal action, utilities must allow energy suppliers other than their O\\TI to move that power across their transmission lines. The industry must be separated into distinct functions or businesses (generation, transmission and distribution) in order to introduce competition in the generation sector. When proponents of deregulation talk about "competition" or "customer choice," they are referring to choice of generator or power supplier. In addition to separating the three main business functions into three entities, often referred to as GENCOs (generation), TRANSCOs (transmission) and DISCOs (distribution) utilities will begin "unbundling" the rates charged for each of these services. Some analysts believe that metering and billing functions may also be provided by separate entities, sometimes referred to as ESCOs (Energy Services Companies). Most believe that transmission and distribution systems will continue to be regulated. Many current regulations must be changed in order to introduce competition and to separate the industI)'. Utilities will no longer be obligated to serve all customers within specific service territories and retail customers will not have to purchase power supply from the incumbent utility. DISCOs will have the obligation to connect all customers to service but competitive suppliers will not be obligated to provide power to any customers. Q. What risks does deregulation pose to small electric customers? A Higher residential rates. Iflarge customers can "shop" for power and leave an host utility's system, the customers who are left will have to pay for that lost revenue. Larger customers will be able to use market power to negotiate the most favorable rates and utilities will offer those customers the most favorable terms, leaving more expensive power supply for smaller customers. Utility plants that are deemed "uneconomic" or non-competitive in a market-driven industry will cause those generation owners costs which are "stranded." Utilities argue that stranded costs must be paid for before any restructuring to take place. Increases in customer bills are likely if utilities are granted "stranded cost" recovery. Because 75% of the current electric industry is privately owned, many believe that competition will not exist sufficiently to push costs dO\\n. In fact, competitive markets may not operate at all within the residential customer class or in certain geographic areas. Lack of competition and regulation may encourage substantial price increases. Finally, MN is a low cost state relative to the rest of the nation. A national market clearing price for electricity is likely to increase Minnesota rates by 6-7%. Safety and reliability. Many observers of restructuring believe the current transmission lines can not handle the increased transactions that competition is likely to encourage. Overloaded lines cause power ;. outages. As utilities continue to cut costs in order to be competitive, the maintenance of plants and lines may not be maintained. These changes will affect the safetyofworkers and consumers. Workers believe that the labor force will be downsized within the industry in order to make companies as competitive as possible, further eroding an already strained workforce and negatively affecting customer service quality. In fact, over the last 5 years, the industry has laid off about 70,000 workers, some of them plant and line maintenance workers. Consumer protections. Consumers will need a whole host of new consumer protections to protect against fraudulent marketing practices, for neutral complaint resolutions, to govern credit and collection policies and to ensure accurate information about electric suppliers and their rates. More stringent credit histories, unrealistic deposits and other conditions placed on obtaining electric service will make it more difficult for lower income customers to maintain that service. Customer confusion. If customers do choose an alternative supplier, they will get one bill from the power supply company (GENCo) and one bill for distribution services from a DISCo. Several questions get raised about the relationship between these two companies and between them and the consumer. For example, what if a customer can not pay a bill? Who pays, the DISCo or GENCo? What if a supplier does not live up to the terms of the contract with the customer? Will the DISCo be able to offer default service? Who can disconnect service for non-payment? Who will resolve any billing disputes? Public benefits. In a private, market-driven electric industry, current public benefits ensured by regulation, such as protection against cold-weather rule service disconnections, plant and transmission line citing, low income assistance and conservation programs and research and development projects may be undermined. Q. What consumer interest provisions should be included in any deregulation ~egislation? A. Access to universal and affordable utility service. Provisions must be made to ensure that customers who do not or can not choose an alternative energy supplier have access to affordable, continuous utility service. The obligations of a default provider or a standard service offer must be clarified and included in any changes. An universal service fund must be established to assist low and fixed income Minnesotans to pay for essential energy service and to manage energy usage. Protections against cost-shifting and price increases. Assurances that the gap between lowering industrial customer prices and raising residential prices is "capped" at a certain level. Rate decreases and freezes should benefit all classes of customers. Aggregation. Local units of government and other non-profit organizations must' be allowed to aggregate small customers in order to increase bargaining power in a deregulated market and to assert local control over terms and conditions of electric service. Customer service quality standards. Appropriate service quality measures and penalties for failing to achieve standards for billing. meter reading, service restoration, etc. must be in place and must apply to new, competitive power suppliers as ,veIl as incumbent utilities. Protection against fraudulent and deceptive marketing; practices. Deregulation legislation must include policies that require competitive suppliers to register to provide power in Minnesota and to demonstrate fiscal integrity and the ability to supply power to end-use customers. RESOLUTION TO ENSURE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE ENERGY WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature and the Public Utilities Commission will consider proposals to deregulate the electric utility industry; and \VHEREAS, changes to the electric utility industry will affect how electric service is provided and priced; and WHEREAS, competitive electric suppliers may not actively seek to serve residential customers, particularly low and fixed income customers; and WHEREAS, electric utility deregulation may shift costs onto residential customers, increase prices and overall bills; and WHEREAS, low and fixed income Minnesotans devote an average of 17%of their income for energy costs (energy burden); and WHEREAS, the energy burden of low and fixed income Minnesotans causes hardship and suffering; and WHEREAS, access to affordable energy service is essential to the health and safety of all Minnesotans; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT access to affordable energy service should be declared an essential requirement in any legislation or proposal to deregulate the electric utility industry; and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT universal service must include provisions for default and provider of last resort service; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a universal service fund be established to provide bill- payment and conservation assistance to low and fixed income Minnesotans; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the goal of the universal service fund is to assist as many income-eligible households as possible; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT universal service funding levels should be based on reducing the energy burden of households at a defined level of need; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT universal service funds should be raised on a consistent basis to meet the determined need; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT universal service funds should be administered in the most efficient manner possible to provide the most significant benefit to low and fixed income Minnesotans. ~a..., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrat~C: FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Everest Path Traffic Concerns DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION Citizens in Nelsen Hills have petitioned the Council to review their concerns regarding speeding vehicles along Everest Path, north of 190th Street. At the July 6th City Council meeting, several citizens were in attendance and forwarded additional concerns. DISCUSSION The traffic counts needed for the stop sign analysis are not complete at the time of the writing of this memo. The results will be forwarded to Council at the next meeting. At the July 6th meeting, the residents that were present requested that the trail crossing on Esquire way Gust east of Everest Path) be reviewed for installation of trail crossing signs. Staff does not recommend installation of trail warning signs and a crosswalk at this location. There are no sight distance issues and the addition of a crosswalk would tend to give pedestrians a sense of right-of-way that could, in effect, make the situation less safe. It is recommended, however, to install stop signs on the trails at the street to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of the need to stop and look both ways before crossing the street. The residents present also asked if signs could be erected warning motorists of handicapped individuals that live on the street. Staff indicated that documentation should be submitted and then the City would review the request. In addition, the residents asked the City if Everest Path could be plowed sooner due to the handicapped individuals that live on the street. The City has designated plow routes with priorities established. The priority routes are collectors that facilitate getting people out to the main roads as soon as possible, which benefits all citizens. BUDGET IMPACT The stop signs for the trails are estimated to cost approximately $100 for two signs and two posts. City staff would supply the labor. The funds would come from the Street Division's operational materials and supplies budget. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~YJ1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Citizen petitioners ...~~ . ~~ t.t.J ... o z: 7 1-2 . II = ~ To whom it may concern: ~.J~ t;;:~?" 77~~ ~ ~~ 6~'<L:;(- 6/17/99 This letter is being submitted on behalf of the concerned citizens residing on block 2 of The Nelson Hills Farm sub-division, fifth edition, (Everest Path). The people in our neighborhood have a growing concern for the safety and well-being of their children. The problem is people excessively speeding on Everest Path. It is our belief as a neighborhood that if some measures are not taken soon someone will end up hurt. The street itself is rather wide and has long stretches without any stop signs. It is our belief that most people end up speeding unconsciously. The fact remans that if people are driving in excess of 40 mph and up on residential streets people are bound to get hurt. As concerned citizens living in a newer neighborhood we feel it is our job to bring this danger to a halt. One other issue to consider is that there is a woman in this neighborhood who is permanently in a wheelchair. People such as her deserve the common 'courtesy of using the streets just like anyone else. It seems some people are taking this freedom away from not only her but from our kids as well. Below is a list of people who could not come to the meeting but are concerned and are hoping some measures can be taken to stop this before someone gets hurt or even worse killed. Jeff ~ k. < j ,41,,-<- b<:? (" , rs7e'h - ~ At 7' JG..d;;,7 ~. ~~ . ~ /'t538Et/~r~ /, . . O/"'/1_ec//SanC' 4 Jc:~~\e -t -\=C\.\-\.\ 00~\l~IC ) '6~?.) \ L,\i'L~\C:.J 'r R,~ 1 ./~ ~ ~a/J ?I~ 1F:O,'l6:e,?sf AJ ., ~ t (]~ ttfr:;'52 I 1.57/ ~t'~d f?A7!I ..-hJ (Jrqd<6- !"C/",..,;KC d ~5J~ -O-~./ . !<",,.uko .(J~ IGJ~ 8 S- ClIf"IU:.f.T /;)117/1 ~l- }ld?( r4.w~~c~ / Y I; 00 E l/t.r-CJ ~ /4: r..,tr.--; 7/6; b 6~L c1,.;-J I r~()t.J ?t/Lr-C.5 f h- t/.p Stw t~ V~LJ;nlU-- ~l&)l EvU'tsK p~ /~&').7 Sincerely Jeff Huber 18538 Everest Path ~)e.. {Lilt- i..),J)e- /&s-~7 Y Cl/c/i?-5i 1l-f0 ~/~61JJ-+ ~V\~,~ ;hC)1J\~Y) &:f"Y .,.. !3<:,..<-rb '~C7,? / "?'S$I'..3 Z"vcr-esT ~D<75'~r6 ~.....~ ~~~ ,'.1 .,,- ~ ~ ,,-,- / ,. ':/- ~j ~~,:)r~'.p" I CC'S3 3 ~r/cr".r w"'J' ?~ COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR July 6, 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, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch Cordes City Administrator Erar, City Management Team 4. APPROVE A GENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Everest Path Speeding Concerns Mr. Brad Beggs, 18585 Everest Path, Mr. Jeff Huber, 18538 Everest Path, and Mr. Bill Asmus, 18599 Everest Path, stated they received a letter from the City stating there would be increased police patrols and traffic counts would be taken. Mr. Beggs stated the problem is speed, not the number of cars. He wanted to know why the City cannot just place a stop sign at the corner. Staff will check into borrowing the speed control monitor from the State Patrol. Part of the analysis for a stop sign is obtaining a traffic count. Placement of a stop sign is contingent upon the number of cars coming through an intersection and when the cars meet at the intersection. The residents also stated there is a bike path on Esquire Way and there is an intersection at the bottom that is not marked. The residents have seen the patrol cars in the area, but would like to see a patrol car at busier times. Staff encouraged residents to get the license numbers of speeding cars. Mr. Jeff Huber, inquired if there are specifications for stop signs, what are the specifications for handicap signs? Staff replied documentation should be sent to the City and the request will be reviewed. The residents also inquired about Children at Play signs. Staff replied the more of those signs that are put up, the more they are ignored. Typically, it is the City's policy not to put up Children At Play signs. Staff will review all of the issues discussed. Council Minutes (Regular) July 6, 1999 Page 2 b) Pine Ridge Forest Site Grading c) Speed Bump Request 7th Street Council received information on the status of these requests. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (6/21/99) (Regular) b) Approved Temporary 3.2 Beer License - Big Tickets Softball Team c) Approved Fire Department By-Laws Amendment - Position Qualifications d) Adopted RESOLUTION R66-99 accepting donations - Senior Center e) Received information on City Financial Advisor - Consultant Services f) Received information on School and Conference - Administration g) Received information on School and Conferences - Administration h) Received information on Capital Outlay - Administration i) Approved Blasberg Fountain Agreement - Deer Meadow j) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Jamnik arrived at 7:30 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Creation ofTIF District 13, Dalsin Manufacturing The HRA Board is requesting City Council approval of the creation of a Tax Increment Financing District to facilitate the development of a 70,000 square foot manufacturing facility for Dalsin Manufacturing on Lot 1, Block 1, Industrial Park Second Addition. The type of district that is being proposed is an Economic Development TIF District. The maximum duration is nine years of captured increment or 11 years from the date of approval of the district. The TIF District would be established as a "Pay-as-you-go" TIF District whereby the Developer would finance the eligible public costs including land acquisition and would be reimbursed with available tax increments over an II year period. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to adopt RESOLUTION R67-99, approving the creation of Economic Development Tax Increment Financing District No. 13 for the Dalsin Manufacturing Project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT a) Adopt Resolution - Sanitary Sewer SCADA Project (Supplemental) One bid was received for the Well No.5 Pumping Facility and SCADA Systems project in the total amount of $587,400. The bid amount for Part 4, the Sanitary SCADA System, was received at $86,000. The estimated total project cost based on the bid for the Sanitary SCADA system is $120,100, which would be funded through the Sanitary Sewer fund. MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg to adopt RESOLUTION R68-99 accepting the bid for Part 4 - Sanitary SCADA Council Minutes (Regular) July 6, 1999 Page 3 system, of Municipal Builders Inc and awarding the contract. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Henderson Storm Sewer Project - CIP Project Status In April of 1997, the City Council received a feasibility report on the Henderson Storm Sewer project. The project was proposed to resolve storm sewer drainage issues between 7th Street and 10th Street along the alignment of Hickory Street, including poor drainage along Trunk Highway 3. The City Council decided not to move forward with the project. In 1998, the Council directed staff to study the option of installing a storm sewer lift station at Hickory and 8th in order to address the ponding issue in that area. Council elected not to move forward with the lift station due to cost and other undesirable project elements, and directed staff to include the project in the 1999 CIP. In order for the project to move forward, the feasibility report will need to be updated and then the CIP Project Development and Process Authorization schedule would be followed. Staff will also need to contact MnDOT to determine if MnDOT is willing to fund their portion of the project. If Council moves forward with the project, the feasibility report would be updated and project hearings would be initiated. Ifthe project is ordered, construction would occur in 2000. The estimated project cost in the 1997 feasibility report was approximately $400,000. The estimated special assessments to the benefiting property owners were $1,531 per single family residential unit and $6,568 per acre for multi- family and commercial properties. Council instructed staff to obtain an updated feasibility report and upon Council approval of the feasibility report, hold a neighborhood meeting. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Proposed Dakota County 2000 - 2004 CIP - City Project Request A list of projects in Farmington included in the draft 2000 - 2004 County CIP was presented to Council. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Verch authorizing staff to forward the recommended requests to the County for preparation ofthe Dakota County draft 2000 - 2004 CIP. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) TH3 Median Update Posts were installed, however there were gaps and MnDOT will install more posts. b) Stop Sign Request - Fairview Lane and Heritage Way Traffic counts will be forwarded to Council. Council Minutes (Regular) July 6, 1999 Page 4 c) Schedule Joint Cities - School District Meeting This item was tabled until the July 19, 1999 Council Meeting. Councilmember Strachan: Commended staff on Mountain Dew Days. Councilmember Soderberg: Asked if East Farmington is on the list of speed checks. He has noticed speeding cars through the area. A resident also mentioned speeding traffic and non-compliance of signs. Councilmember Soderberg will forward specific locations to the Police Department. City Attorney Jamnik: The property owner on the storm sewer issue provided the background information requested. The easement documents will be brought to Council. The Progress Land complaint has been amended to allege negligence on Mr. Israelson's behalf. City Administrator Erar: Work is continuing on the Cable TV issue with the cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount to utilize a single source. Community Development Director Olson: Staff received the Empire Township Comprehensive Plan Update. It is being reviewed and will be forwarded to Council with a summary. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, };~/n~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 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, City Administrato~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Transient Merchant License-Request to waive fee-Chamber of Commerce DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Chamber of Commerce is requesting the City Council waive the fees for a Transient Merchant License for a Farmers Market. DISCUSSION Since 1997 the Chamber of Commerce has conducted a Farmers Market in the parking lot of the Farmington Library. The Chamber feels this venture has been successful in providing a market for local farmers to sell their produce, along with bringing customers to Farmington to shop. It is their hope that the market will continue to grow and become more prosperous. The Chamber is requesting a permit for the period of Mid-July through October and will continue to coordinate and manage its operation, advertise and secure insurance coverage. BUDGET IMPACT A Transient Merchant License is $50.00 per quarter and $25.00 issuance fee. The Chamber is requesting the fees be waived as they have in the past two years. ACTION REOUESTED The license application does not require City Council approval, however, waiver of the fee does. It is recommended the fee of $75.00 be waived as in the past. 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~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Gambling Premise Permit DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Farmington Eagles is requesting a Gambling Premise Permit at 200 3rd Street. DISCUSSION Pursuant to State Statute and pertinent City Code, an organization must first obtain a resolution from the City, granting permission for gambling to occur at a specific location. The Farmington Eagles is requesting approval to conduct gambling activity at 200 3rd Street. The appropriate application and fees have been received and the application has been reviewed by the City Attorney. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUIRED Adopt the attached Council Resolution approving a Premise Permit at 200 3rd Street. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager . RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING A MINNESOT A LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR FARMINGTON EAGLES 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 19th day of July, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, pursuant to M.S. 349.213, the State of Minnesota Gambling Board may not issue or renew a Gambling Premise Permit unless the City Council adopts a Resolution approving said permit; and WHEREAS, the Farmington Eagles, has submitted an Application for a Gambling Premise Permit to be conducted at 200 3rd Street, for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Farmington City Council that the Gambling Premise Permit for the Farmington Eagles to be conducted at 200 3rd Street, is hereby approved. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 19th day of July, 1999. Mayor Attested to the _ day of ,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 7c1 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Akin Road Parking Restrictions DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City has received requests to restrict parking along the east side of Akin Road south of 20gth Street. DISCUSSION During sporting events at the middle school, cars are parked on the east side of Akin Road along the right turn lane south of 20gth Street. City staff has received requests to prohibit parking in this area. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends the prohibition of parking along the turn lane. Parked cars along the turn lane introduce safety issues for pedestrians and vehicles in the turn lane. BUDGET IMPACT Akin Road is currently a County road and the cost of the no-parking signs would be borne by the County. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution requesting that Dakota County prohibit parking along the right turn lane on the east side of Akin Road at 20gth Street. Respectfully submitted, 0& Yf1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file RESOLUTION NO. R -99 REQUESTING DAKOTA COUNTY TO PROHIBIT PARKING ALONG AKIN ROAD IN THE VICINITY OF 20STH STREET Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council and the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 19th day of July, 1999 at 7:00 p.m.. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, the City has received requests to restrict parking along Akin Road in the vicinity of 208th Street; and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the request and investigated the circumstances in the area; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council that the City hereby petitions Dakota County to prohibit parking along the right turn lane on the east side of Akin Road at 208th Street. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council ill open session on the 19th day of July, 1999. Mayor Attested to the 19th day of July, 1999. SEAL City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminaton.mn.us /e TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ Joel J. Jamnik, City Attorney FROM: SUBJECT: SE Sanitary Sewer Project DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION As part of the SE Sanitary Sewer Project the City instituted condemnation proceedings to acquire permanent and temporary easements. In a continuing effort to close out these proceedings, we have reached agreement with two property owners regarding compensation for the easements. Staff is requesting Council approval of the settlements and authorization for payment. DISCUSSION Both parcels are located east of Highway 3. One of the parcels is owned by Ms. Linda Bormann, the other by Mr. Tim Giles. The proposed settlement for the Giles easement is $6,000, plus interest from September 15, 1995 through the date of final payment at the rate of7% per annum. The proposed settlement for the Bormann easement is $4,070, which includes compensation in full for trees, moving expenses, and interest. BUDGET IMPACT These proposed settlements are part of the projected costs for the SE Sanitary Sewer Project and will be paid out of those project funds. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution authorizing settlement and payment for the above-discussed easements. Respectfully submitted, p~ Joel Jamnik City Attorney 74153 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING SE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT SETTLEMENTS 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 19th day of July, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City in 1995 undertook a sanitary sewer construction project designated as the SE Sanitary Sewer Project; and, WHEREAS, the project necessitated the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements for constructing the sanitary sewer lines; and, WHEREAS, the City instituted "quick take" condemnation proceedings to acquire the easements in a timely manner; and, WHEREAS, the Dakota County District Court subsequently granted the City the requested easements; and, WHEREAS, the City has subsequently reached agreement with the property owners regarding payment of just compensation for the property taken by the City for the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Farmington hereby agrees as follows: 1. To compensate Linda Bormann in the amount of $4,070.00 for the sanitary sewer easement. 2. To compensate Timothy Giles in the amount of $6,000.00 for the sanitary sewer easement plus judgment rate of interest from the date of the take for the sanitary sewer easement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that payment of these sums is conditioned on execution by the property owners and recording of any required stipulation for dismissal or other documents necessary to dismiss the pending condemnation proceedings. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the_ day of , 1999. Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator (SEAL) City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us 71' TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrato~ Michael Schultz rv {) Associate Planner Y FROM: SUBJECT: Second Quarter 1999 Building Permit Report DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The following is a report summarizing the new construction permits issued during the second quarter and the first half of 1999. DISCUSSION During the second quarter of the 1999 building construction season the City issued 85 new single- family detached housing permits; no new attached or multi-family (townhomes, twin homes) building permits were issued during the quarter running between April 1 5t and June 30th. The 85 single-family permits issued during the second quarter of 1999 are an increase of 6 permits over the same period last year. Although second quarter permits are up, overall new single-family housing starts are 21 units lower through the first half of this year than last year. Last year there were 151 new single-family permits issued in the first six months of 1998 compared to 130 through the first half of 1999. No new commercial or industrial permits were issued during the second quarter. Two (2) institutional building permits were issued for St. Michael's Church. One permit for the footings and foundation and the other for the remainder of the structure. ACTION REOUIRED No action is required, for City Council information only. City of F-~.. .1ington Building Summary 1987 to 1999 City of Farmington 1988 1988 1990 1990 Type of Permit Permits Valuation Permits Valuation Residential 117 7,749,900.00 67 4,687,800.00 Multi-unit/Townhome 2 103,000.00 0 Comm/lndusUlnst 10 425,375.00 1 253,000.00 Other 114 478,314.00 169 1,509,859.00 TOTALS 243 8,756,589.00 237 6,450,659.00 1992 1992 1994 1994 1996 1996 Type of Permit Permits Valuation Permits Valuation Permits Valuation Residential 84 6,312,900.00 260 24,794,125.00 334 33,576,803.00 Multi-unit/Townhome 1 30,000.00 45 6,480,000.00 35 1,948,300.00 Comm/lndusUlnst 3 317,250.00 6 2,808,000.00 4 1,813,000.00 Other 140 754,242.00 177 1,395,815.00 272 6,587,718.00 TOTALS 228 7,414,392.00 488 35,477,940.00 645 43,925,821.00 Type of Permit Residential Multi-unit/Townhome Comm/lndusUlnst Other TOTALS 1998 Permits 276 14 2 461 1998 Valuation 29,753,801.00 1,288,000.00 15,636,400.00 2,001,953.00 753 48,680,154.00 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION City of Farmington 325. Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us o Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Robin Roland, Finance Director GFOA Conference Attendance July 19, 1999 Attendance at the Minnesota Government Finance Officers Association Conference, held September 22-24, 1999 at the Radisson Arrowwood in Alexandria is being planned. DISCUSSION This conference is an annual event for Government Finance Officers within the state organization. Conference events include sessions on financial reporting, internal control, debt structuring, bond ratings and TIF reporting. This conference qualifies as continuing education for professional finance personnel. BUDGET IMPACT ACTION REQUIRED The adopted 1999 budget includes funding for this conference. For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~#J Robin Roland Finance Director I I. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7~ TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Dakota County HRA Rental Housing Survey DATE: July 19,1999 INTRODUCTION The Dakota County HRA conducts a rental housing market survey for Dakota County on an annual basis. Attached is the 1999 Survey results for the City of Farmington. DISCUSSION The attached survey gives both summary information for vacancy rate and average rent amounts for the City as a whole. There is also information provided on the individual rental properties including their location, owner, and number of units. As the summary information indicates, the overall vacancy rate for rental housing in Farmington is .87% in 1999 which is down from 2.14% in 1998. The vacancy rate is lower in Farmington compared to the average for the County as a whole. 'The summary information also indicates that average rental rates increased between 3.4% to 8.7% from 1998 to 1999 depending on unit size. The average rents were as follows: One Bedroom $534 Two Bedroom $643 Three Bedroom $775 ACTION REOUESTED For information only. ~3~~ David L. Olson Community Development Director - .,. "" .... v - '" -;;. -- " ..:; -. ."", :,~ ~.~ ~ ~ ;..~ f'~ r~ r [ E E E 1;- I.. L.. E SUMMARY OF FARMINGTON'S RENTAL MARKET* 1999 AVERAGE RENTS 1999 AVERAGE RENTS AND AMOUNT OF INCREASE OR (DECREASE) FROM 1998 Unit Size 1999 Average Rents Dollar Amount of Change Percent of Change Efficiency One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three Bedroom $387.50 $534.35 $643.43 $775.00 $30.94 ($15.38) $20.97 $35.00 8.68% (2.80%) 3.37% 4.73% The increase in average rent for 1999 was $2.61 or 0.46%. Average rents for all size bedroom units were lower when compared to the County. VACANCY RATES The overall vacancy rate for Farmington in 1999 was 0.87%, down from 2.14% in 1998. Vacancy rates were lower for all bedroom units when compared to the County. Vacancies in Fannington account for 0.80% of the vacancies county-wide, see Graph 31. SPECIAL NOTES Farmington has 1.14% of the rental market in the County, see Graph 32. Fannington has one senior housing development. Trinity Terrace, containing 55 units. See "Senior Housing" section for details. For trend information for 1995 - 1999, regarding the number of rental units, average rents and vacancies, see Graphs 33-35. SUMMARY OF FARMINGTON RENTAL DATA - 1999 OBR 1 BR 2BR 3BR TOTALS Number of Units 6 134 88 3 231 Percent of Market 2.60% 58.01% 38.10% 1.30% .100% Average Rent $387.50 $534.35 $643.43 $775 $575.21 Number of Vacancies 0 1 1 0 2 Vacancy Rate 0.00% 0.75% 1.14% 0.00% 0.87% *Units represented refer to units identified through responses to the survey 1:4~ E r r~ ~ ~ ~~ '" t: ~ L~ ~ [ ..~ [~ ~ FARMINGTON % OF COUNTY'S RENTAL MARKET 1999 Vacancies Eli BR 1 UNITS - 50.0% &22 BR 1 UNITS - 50.0% COUNiY-W1DE FARMINGTON GRAPH 31 - no 0 br or 3 br vacancies ~~ Rental Units ~ ~ ~ DO BR 6l,JNITS - 2.6% Eli BR 134 UNITS - 58.0% 132 BR 88 UNITS - 38.1% .3 BR 3 UNITS -1.3% ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ :::-~ ~ ~ COUNiY-W1OE FARMINGTON GRAPH 32 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . Units represented refer to units identified through responses to the survey. .....-- , '" " r. ,. - A -- III - .'>0 ,- i~ III _.._-.,;:f' ... ~ ... .......- ....,...... 1If"". ........-.... f '.. L .. I r: r:~ [,... C C ["..'X~ ,.4lIj FARMINGTON TRENDS 1995 -1999 RENTAL UNITS 250 200 150 ------ 100 ------------------------------ 50 ------------------------------ o 1995 1996 1997 1998 -a-Rental Units Gnph 33 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 VACANCIES 6 p8lll8Olag8 5 -------------------------------- 4 - ------------------------------ 3 --- ---------------------------- 2 o 1995 1996 1997 1998 GrIph 35 1999 AVERAGE RENT BY BEDROOM SIZE MonlhIY Rent o BDRM 1 BORM 2 BORM 3 BORM .1995 D1996 111997 .1998.1999 Gnph 34 1999 * Units represented refer to units identified through responses to the survey. Dot# Name/Address Elm Street Apartments 515 Elm Street 2 Fairview Apartments 1020 3rd Street 3 Farmington EstateS LLP 1320 & 1330 Centennial Dr 4 N/A 10 Oak Street 5 N/A 26410 Galaxie 6 N/A 303 Pine Street 7 N/A 3667 Upper 204th Street 8 N/A 900 8th St 9 N/A 917 9th Street 10 Red Oak Manor 315 Spruce Street 11 Towerview Apartments 18 Walnut Street 12 Townsedge Apartments 811 8th Street 13 Trinity Terrace. 3330 213th street W. # of Units 18 KEY TO THE F AR.Ml1'IGTON MAP Location of Rental Housing Units 'I L 17 n I' I' 11 r .1 r 32 Ii .,. II 4 j' j I . ! 4 4 37 ~ i 'I Ii I .' ,I I I 4 6 6 27 17 55 . .. ... See Senior Housing Units for additional infonnation See Tax Credit Housing Units for additional infonnation See Congregate and Assisted Living Housing Units for additional infonnation 'l :\ I ~i ~ ~ ~ .'. '. . .' . . . . . :. '. :.' .. . . . ~ . . . ': .' . ..:..... . . .... - : .', . '.. ..' '.: . :'0, ....... ........: .... ....< ...,....: ...:., ...... ..'.... .... '.' ..... ....., :.:":':.: .,' . ...... .':' .... . .'. ': ...>,,: :.:.... .: .... " , . ,. '" ". '. ,',' " '.:' .:...' . : .' '" ::..'< .....,'....:... .'. . ". .: '::...., :..' ., '. : : .,' ...... . .... .... >:' I '. '. . ..';. .... ',:' .' :.'. ... ..'. . .' "::':', .... ' ., ",. . ".' .,.. '. .'; :.'..,., .'. ...; :. .' '. '.'- .' , ',,' ..". ". ...-:, :..... ". '. :'" ". ',:' .','.?;": . .... .. .'. <..:': '. "., .' ": .,':' ''-.' ." ...:., '. .... " ,,:- .:' . '. ....i ::- ': ..,..." .', '. . " , .'. ,,' .....". '" :' '.',' " ..' .": ',..' . . .' . ". " .: '" . .... .', -. .' '....... }"':'~ . ",' ':': ":. r ;, './' '.,' -i'....,., I . ..... ..... ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '4lli ,-- ~ ~ '4\ - ~ ~ ~ ~ .:. ,. ~ ~ ..:;...:. it . .. . . , . .. , ... , , !9 . .. .. .. . ...::......:. ~ .' . . .' -C-:', , I . ..... ""'. "'. ....'., I .' ....' '. ..', ..' .'. '., ........... ....'. . I .'. ..' '. .,: ".,'..' '. '.' '.. .-...:....:; .,' <.- " . . , . . . . FARMINGTON - Surveyed Market Rate Rental Housing N + 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 I Miles Rental Units by Location 3-25 26-75 76 - 175 176 - 300 . Sources: Dakota County Housing & Redevelopment Authority . . II1LAWRENCE Group More Than 300 . (See Key for Information About Individual locations) April 1999 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: John. F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: July 19, 1999 . It is requested that the July 19, 1999 agenda be amended as follows: AWARD OF CONTRACT 9a Adopt Resolution - Daisy Knoll Park Project Staff is requesting Council accept the bid from Braun Turf for construction of Daisy Knoll Park in the Nelsen Hills Addition, and award the contract. Respectfully submitted, . 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 9a., To: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director From: Subject: Adopt resolution - Daisy Knoll Park Project. Date: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION Sealed bids were opened on Thursday, July 15 for the Daisy Knoll Park construction. DISCUSSION Two valid bids were received and reviewed by staff. The base bid consists of grading the site, constructing a ball field and seeding the entire area. Staff also included in the bid document, the seeding of the water tower area and repair of the drainage easement at the rear of the adjacent homes. The additional activities would be funded separately by the appropriate revenue sources. The following is the bidders list: Contractor 1. Braun Turf 2. Friedges Landscaping Total $84,698.00 $89,505.00 BUDGET IMPACT .The $55,221.00 for the park portion of the project falls within the $60,000 budgeted in the Capital Improvement Plan and will be underwritten by the Park Improvement Fund. The remaining costs associated with seeding of the water tower site, and drainage easement work will be funded by the Water Board and the Storm Sewer Fund, respectively. Total construction costs of the entire project if awarded to Braun Turf is $84,698.00. Consistent with past park improvement projects, the City is proposing to waive engineering, administration and legal fees on the portion of work related to the grading and construction of the new park site. All other work would be subject to normal project administration fees. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution awarding the contract to the low responsible bidder, Braun Turf Company, to perform the work. Staff has worked with this contractor before. Respectfully submitted, ~6.Q~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director PROPOSED RESOLUTION No. AWARD OF CONTRACT - DAISY KNOLL PARK 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 19th day of July, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has a need for a neighborhood park in the Nelsen Hills Addition; and, WHEREAS, the City has received a quotation to grade, construct a ballfield and seed the park, and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to construct such park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby awards the contract to grade, seed and construct a ballfield to Braun Turf. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 19th day of July, 1999. Mayor Attested to the day of July, 1999. City Administrator SEAL ~ ~ III 16 l!! e c ~ i~e g~l a~~ .= U fa E ,~l1. ~~:a 8!. ~ '0 ~ ~ 'Ii (3 Q ~ ~ e .~ : ] 'S '(s> ~ ~ s~ B e t-@- i1 ! {3. '" II ~ ~ ll. ~ iO ~ J!l ! l " " ~ ~ g. JI '" gggggg8g8g8 8 ~~~~~~~~~g~ cD . lI'i~"':"':~lD"':;:M'!iN en ~ <D 0- ~ ~ .....,......................... ... oOOOOOOOOlOO Oll'lOOOOOOO(01I') 3 g;i~~~~~gg~t: '" 0..... MNIl'I .. on ,..:.. c ~ ~ :l I- gooooo 0 88 0 u.. 00000 '" ~~~~~~ 5 ~~ N . ..; <( J "':.n ":~-ri"': ;i <D I en <Ii 0::: N i ....................""'.....w ... C 3 g5':8ggg8gg~:?l ;r ~~~~~t::~gg;ti tit.. "'N It) ~ :li ""~ :l ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ J 5 .~ l!i t; .s ~ 1! >J ~ ;: 8 g:;: 0 0 ~ ~ oig ~ co :lj", ..; .. :;; J! {3. N . u '" .. .. . :l OOOOOOOOOIl'lO 0100000000(0'" 8'.. ori cO"'; C'1 ci ci c:i"": co) ..............(',1(011).... 0.... ..Nil) lI'i "';W ~ ~ . ~ 00 00 00 :::0\ rifli gggg~gSil ggg~~~:! CD Nlt) CO."., N ~It)-,..-oo-rioi...: ~ .. . U '" .. ~ :l g:?lggggggg~:?l ~i~~~:t~gg;a o MW t/tNIO lti ...;" ~ ~ ! ~ {3. g a "'~~~~~~:}:~g i 1: ~ i. ~ a ~ NOOOOOOcnooo ~E~e;x~ :::: ~Il) I ~ S g ~ a .000000......0(") M 1l'I1I1 0 0: cid .. o ~ ~ .. ! a 0000000.,,(1)(1)0..... ~~ ~~~tO:~~ ~ :l l/)>)-u.>u.ZUU>>- ..JOO..JU..J~c(c("'CI) ~ " ~ ~ ~ Ul G ~ ~ ~~ ~ 65 it Om ~ :iffi ::j"f!e ~~5~ U)W...JO n~~ ......(0010 :Ii w !:: > ~ i~ e ~oc w ~ ~:3 C) e z() ~ ~ ~~~ffi ~ - ~oo- i5 ~ll~~ ~ d .- t\I M II) Z ... o "! ~ N N .,; II) ... I- CI) 8 ... ~ ~ ~ o j:: o :;, I: ~ o o m m '" ~ City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOa." TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrat~ FROM: Lee Smick, AICP /'v 17 Planning Coordinator!J^ SUBJECT: . Response to Dakota County and City of Lakeville Comments DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The City of Farmington has been involved throughout the past year in updating the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Metropolitan Council. A draft of the Comprehensive Plan must be submitted to adjacent governmental units and school districts for a 60-day review and comment period. The City of Farmington submitted the plan on April 14, 1999 to the City of Lakeville, Empire Township, Castle Rock Township, Eureka Township, Independent School District #192 and Dakota County. The City has recently received comments at the end of the 60-day review period on June 15, 1999 from Dakota County and the City of Lakeville. No other jurisdiction submitted comments to the City. The attached information includes responses to both governmental units concerning their comments. City staff is currently gathering feedback from both the Planning Commission and City Council concerning the responses. At the July 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners recommended approval of the response to comments as drafted and directed staff to present this information to the City Council at their July 19, 1999 meeting. Upon approval of the responses by the City Council, City staff will submit the responses to each respective governmental unit. Mr. Steve Juetten of Genstar Land Company Midwest has also reviewed the response to comments as an interested developer in the comprehensive planning process. As evidenced by his attached letter, Mr. Juetten has responded favorably to the City's remarks concerning the comments from the Dakota County and the City of Lakeville. Once each governmental unit receives the responses, City staff will submit the final draft of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council on or before July 30, 1999. / ACTION REQUESTED 1. Approve the attached response to comments and direct staff to submit the responses to each respective governmental unit. 2. Adopt resolution authorizing the submittal of the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update including comments received from surrounding jurisdictions and staff responses to the Metropolitan Council. Respectfully Submitted, ~~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTION OF THE 2020 FARMINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 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 19th day of July, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member _ seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the Final Draft of the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update on the 23rd day of March, 1999 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended favorable action by the Council to accept the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update; WHEREAS, the City Council accepted the Final Draft of the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update and directed the City Administrator to distribute copies of the plan to surrounding jurisdictions for a sixty-day review on the 5th day of April, 1999. WHEREAS, at the July 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting the Commissioner's recommended approval of the staff prepared response to comments as drafted; WHEREAS, the staff, Planning Commission, City Council and other interested parties considered proposed responses to comments from surrounding jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby adopts the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update authorizing the submittal of the plan including comments received from surrounding jurisdictions and staff responses to the Metropolitan Council. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 19th day ofJu1y, 1999. Mayor Attested to the _ day of July, 1999. City Administrator .' Office of Planning Lynn Moratzka.A1CP Director Dakota County Western Service Center 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55 124 612.891.7030 Fax 612.891.7031 www.co.dakota.mn.us . o Printed on recycled paper with 30% post-consumer waste. AN EQUAl Of'PORTUNIlY EMPlOYER ~~~ June 15, 1999 David L. Olson Community Development Director City of Farmington . 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for giving the Dakota County Office of Planning the opportunity to comment on the draft review version of the City of Farmington Comprehensive Plan. Our comments on the plan follow the sequence of plan chapters. We hope that you will find our comments to be helpful in finalizing the City's comprehensive plan. Chapter 3 - Land Use Element General Policv Decisions ReaardinaLand Use Page 1 0 - Maintain Working Farms. The plan describes how the City will limit development in the areas of "working farms. to 1 unit per 40 acre densities. However on page 39 the plan suggests that land owners in District 6 (West Rural) may desire higher densities and that these situations will be handled on a case by case basis. We recommend that the City either allow the West Rural district to develop at suburban densities or protect the area as farmland by using a 1/40 development density. The Dakota County Comprehensive Plan discourages new large lot development in rural transitional areas, because of th~' high costs of infrastructure and the barriers that it can create for future urban expansion. Growth Staaina Element Page 40: The city's proposed annexation MUSA expansion plan for District 2 (North East) creates some land use planning and transportation challenges: (a) The proposed expansion district will be isolated both from District 1 (North Central) and from District 5 (downtown). (b) The large wetland and floodplain area depicted on Map 3.1 between District 1 and District 2 creates a barrier to necessary local street connections. City of Farmington Draft Comprehensive Plan, page 2 More importantly, Distrid 2 is entirely dependent on State Hwy 3 to move people from the proposed MUSA expansion to downtown Farmington. Map 9.1 (2020 thoroughfare plan) shows a lack of streets between the proposed MUSA expansion and the downtown. Opportunities to build local collector streets that would allow intra-city travel between these areas appear limited, so long as Empire township separates these two areas of the city. . Page 75: Map 9.2,2020 Functional Classification System. There is a discrepancy between one of the A Minor arterials recommended on Map 9.2 and the adopted Dakota County Transporlation Policy Plan. CR 64 is classifJed as a B-Minor Arterial in the County transportation plan and is recommended as an A-Minor Arterial on Map 9.2 in the City's plan. We suggest that the City's classification for this road be revised to be consistent with the adopted county plan. As the text of the plan states, there are differences between Map 9.1, Thoroughfare Plan, and the County transportation plan, which classifies CSAH 50 from the west city line to TH 3 as an A-Minor Arterial. The criteria of flow of traffIC, continuity, and connectivity of roadway all require that the classification of CSAH 50 as an A-Minor Arterial be continued through to TH 3. We suggest that Map 9.1 be revised. The other difference between Map 9.1 and the County transportation plan is the City's recommendation that Pilot Knob Road from CSAH 50 to Ash Street, and Ash Street from Pilot Knob Road to Denmar1<. Avenue be classified as future minor arterials. Although the Dakota County Plat Review Needs Map shows a future need to reserve a two-Iane right-of-way on these alignments, the County transportation plan has not assigned any future functional classification to the two road segments. The County will welcome the City's participation in the discussion in the future when the functional classification is determined. City of Fannington Draft Comprehensive Plan, page 3 Lanes Per Roadway Page 79, Map 9.3, Lanes Per Roadway. The City plan shows the extension of Pilot Knob Road from CR 64 south to CSAH 50 as a two-Iane divided highway. The County is now constructing the road as a two-Iane roadway. At the City's request, the Dakota County Road Plat Review Needs Map shows it as a four-lane divided roadway, in order to reserve right-of-way for the City's forecasted long tenn road needs. 2020 Thorouahfare Plan Page 81, County State Aid Highway 31/Pilot Knob Road. Same issue as above. The Dakota County Road Plat Review Needs map shows the need for a four-lane divided highway on the extension of Pilot Knob Road from CR 64 south to CSAH 50, nota two lane road as indicated in the City's plan. We suggest revising Map 9.3 accordingly. Pages 81 and 82. In regard to extensions and/or realignments of east-west alignments (including CR 64, CSAH eo, et at), the Dakota County Transportation POlicy Plan states on page 90 that "A study is recommended to analyze alignments and connections of east-west roadways in the Lakeville-Fannington and surrounding area. The study would be bounded by a lin$ south of CR 46 on the north, CR 70 on the south, 1-35 on the west, and TH 52 on the east The need is to create dired connections across the Lakeville and Fannington areas. Specific issues likely to be studied include a possible new east-west alignment of CR 60 west of Pilot Knob Road. "A part of the issue is CR 64 west from CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Rd.) to CSAH 9, and east from CSAH 31 to TH 3. A realignment and extension in this area would provide a needed link between Lakeville and Fannington. Improved geometries are also an issue. A new alignment in this area would meet spacing requirements and meet long tenn planning and preservation perspectives. . "Another issue is CSAH 70 from CSAH 23 to CSAH 50. The extension of this alignment would provide for easier east-west movement on this major route. Some type of connection would encourage more trips using the CSAH 70 interchange withl~35 and provide relief for northem interchanges with the interstate. The study would recommend alignments and extensions to create a series of parallel roadways to handle traffic from the most rapidly growing area of the county." The study is listed in the Dakota County Capital Improvement Program. City of Fannington Draft Comprehensive Plan, page 4 Pages 83, 84. The proposed north-south collector on the Flagstaff Street alignment should prove to be very beneficial to the traffic circulation needs of the City. We suggest that the City could also benefit from having a north-south collector In the eastern part of the City, specifically between Pilot Knob Road and TH 3. Ideally, this road would extend from 20Sth Street north to the city limits Chapter 11 - Parks and Recreation Element Statement of Goals. Obiectives. Policies and Action SleDS Page 112 - Goal 1 : Explore a Centrally Located Community/Regional Park Facility and/or Recreational Public Lake. Pedestrian and bikeway facilities should be an important component of the .community green" linking the downtown area and the residential area to the north, as well as connecting to the proposed residential area to the northeast of the city. These trails can serve both a recreation and transportation function, linking the developed areas of the city to each other and with a recreational and open space area. If developed, the community green facility should be connected to the proposed trails in Figure PM-1. Page 117 - GoalS: Work with Dakota County, Independent School Distrid 192, Surrounding Communities, the City's Boards and Commissions and Private and/or Non- Profit Organizations on Developing Joint Ventures for Recreational Parks, Open Spaces, Facilities and Trail Systems. Dakota County supports the City of Fannington's position on seeking joint ventures for providing park and open space opportunities, including trails. The County encourages the city to continue to work with the County in providing pedestrian and bikeway facilities along County Roads and the connection of these facilities into the city's trail network. Also, the County encourages the city to look for joint ventures with the County in providing park and recreation programs. Groups such as the South of the River Recreators can help built partnerships that support everyone's efforts to provide opportunities for outdoor education and recreation. . City of Farmington Draft Comprehensive Plan, page 5 In conclusion, we congratulate the City on its efforts to revise the Comprehensive Plan. The Office of Planning will continue to work with you and the City of Farmington to coordinate the County's Comprehensive Planning initiative with the City's plans. The opportunity to review and comment on Farmington's draft comprehensive plan supports the coordination of our planning with that of the City. We look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with you for the future of our area as the City revises its plans. Sincerely, L~ O~~.~~ Office of Planning cc: Joseph A. Harris, Commissioner, District 1 Brandt Richardson, County Administrator louis J. Breimhurst, Director, Physical Development Robert Overby, Physical Development Planner Richard Thompson, Metropolitan Council .. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ct.fanJ1ineton.mn.us TO: Dave Olson, Community Development Director FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Dakota County Comments DATE: July 7, 1999 The following information addresses the comments made by the Dakota County concerning the City of Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update: Chapter 3 - Land Use Element General PolicvDecisions Regarding Land Use Page 10 - Maintain the West Rural District with densities of 1/40 units per acre rather than allow higher densities such as large lot development. In Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update, the West Rural District is designated as urban reserve. The urban reserve area will be maintained inapost-2020 holding zone for future urban service and development. The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint requires the following: · Residential densities should be no more than one unit per 40 acres. · Land uses and development patterns should be consistent with a rural lifestyle. . Overlay-ghost platting should be required of any large lot development and tied to a capital improvement program. On page 51, the Regional Blueprint also states the following: . "provisions for residential densities greater than one unit per 40 acres is acceptable if the development will be clustered. Such clusters will be considered temporary until full urbanization occurs around them. Local plans and ordinances will need to require that the temporary clusters be connected to central sewer and other city services when they become available and that the temporary clusters be designed and laid out in accordance with local subdivision regulations, including dedication of future utility and infrastructure easements." Therefore, the City of Farmington would like to continue with this provision for the West Rural District. The wording in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update will be revised to reflect the above requirements in order to insure that clustering will be limited to meet the provisions. Growth Staging Element Page 40 - The proposed annexation of the North East District creates some land use planning and transportation challenges. The City realizes that the floodplain and wetlands of the North Branch of the Vermillion River creates land use planning and transportation issues because of the supposed isolation from the downtown and north central districts of Farmington. However, through proposed transportation routes the North East district can become connected. The construction of 195th Street to the south of this proposed annexed area provides the key to linking the North East district to the west. This proposed linkage is shown on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. Trunk Highway 3 is an under-utilized roadway system and can provide an additional north-south route to connect to the downtown district. There are plans to reflect a north-south local street between Akin Road and Trunk Highway 3; however, they have not been designated on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan due to the fact that Empire Township property separates the north east and downtown areas. Chapter 7 - Historic Preservation Element The City will send a copy of this chapter to the Dakota County Historical Society for their comments. Chapter 9 - Transportation Element Functional Classification System Page 73 - Provide a transportation policy that addresses the need and commitment for access management by the City of Farmington. The City will include the following statement in "the vision and policies for transportation in Farmington" section on page 72 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. "The City of Farmington will comply with the Dakota County Access Spacing Guidelines specified in the Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan." Page 75: CR 64 will be illustrated as a B-Minor Arterial on Map 9.2, 2020 Functional Classification System Plan to be consistent with the Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan. . CSAH 50 will be illustrated as an A-Minor Arterial from Akin Road to TH 3 on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. Pilot Knob Road from CSAH 50 to Ash Street and Ash Street from Pilot Knob Road to Denmark Avenue will be illustrated as a "future roadway" on Map 9.1, 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. These roadways were originally classified as future minor arterials because they were extensions of CSAH 31. However, the City will illustrate the routes as "future roadways" and work with the County to determine the functional classification of these systems in the future. 2 Lanes Per Roadwav The extension of Pilot Knob Road between CR 64 and CSAH 50 will be illustrated as a four-lane divided roadway on Map 9.3, Lanes Per Roadway. 2020 Thoroughfare Plan Page 81 - Map 9.3, Lanes Per Roadway will be revised to illustrate a four-lane divided roadway between CR 64 and CSAH 50. Pages 81-82 - The information stated in Dakota County's comment letter (6/15/99) will be included in the Transportation Element in regards to the extensions and/or realignments of east- west alignments (CR 64, CSAH 60, etc.). Pages 83-84 - A brief description of Flagstaff Avenue will be included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update to show the future benefits of the north-south collector. Provide a north-south collector in the eastern part of the City between Pilot Knob Road and TH 3; ideally extending from 208th Street. The City agrees with Dakota County's comments concerning the north-south collector between Pilot Knob Road and TH 3. There are plans to reflect a north-south local street between Akin Road and Trunk Highway 3; however, they have not been designated on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan due to the fact that Empire Township property separates the north east and downtown districts. Chapter 11 - Parks and Recreation Element Statement of Goals. Obiectives. Policies and Action Steps. Page 112 - Goal 1: Explore a Centrally Located Community/Regional Park Facility and/or Recreational Public Lake. Pedestrian and bikeways trails are shown on Map PM-1. The trails show the connection of the "community green" with inter-linking trails running north and south throughout the community. The Community Green area is identified on Map PI-12 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The discussion of the trail linkages is also included in the Land Use Element on pages 2 and 21. . Page 117 - Goal 8: Work with Dakota County, Independent School District # 192, Surrounding Communities, the City's Boards and Commissions and Private and/or Non-Profit Organizations on Developing Joint Ventures for Recreational Parks, Open Spaces, Facilities and Trail Systems. The City will include a brief description of the County's comments concerning joint venture opportunities with the County under Goal 8 of the Parks and Recreation Element. 3 June 15, 1999 David L. Olson, Director Community Development City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: City of Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Dave: Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. Administration, planning and engineering staff have reviewed the document and offer the following comments: Land Use Plan . . Proposed land use designations on the common boundaries of Lakeville and Farmington appear to be compatible with the Lakeville 2020 Land Use Plan with the exception of the "floating zones" of medium density residential and business designations in District 2 - North East. At what point will the exact location of these land uses be determined and how will the City of Lakeville have the opportunity to comment? . In contrast to the recently received draft Southern Dakota County Planning Collaborative comprehensive plan which designates the "Seed/Genstar" property for agricultural land uses, the Farmington comprehensive plan designates this area for urban residential and business uses. The Empire Township comprehensive plan has not been received yet. Which comprehensive plan will have legal standing? Do agricultural uses have more long term viability in this area than in District 6 - West Rural? . The Farmington comprehensive plan identifies a need for an additional 750 residential MUSA acres to accommodate residential development through the year 2020. This need is proposed to be met through annexation. At the same time, 797 acres of vacant land already in the City of Farmington will be designated for Urban Reserve. Expansion of urban development beyond already established municipal boundaries appears to be inconsistent with the Regional Blueprint. Transportation Plan . The Farmington plan identifies the alignment of County Road 60 just north of the Lakeville city boundary through the North Creek wetland complex, including the wetland banking site constructed as part of the CSAH 31 roadway project. The City of Lakeville has previously identified an alternate alignment from what was proposed on the final draft Dakota County Road Plat Review Needs map. City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue · Lakeville, MN 55044 · (612) 985-4400 · FAX 985-4499 Recyckd paper. soy ink City of Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update The alternate alignment at 195th Street avoids the wetland complex and provides more appropriate spacing from County Road 46. . Lakeville proposes a minor collector east of Cedar Avenue to tie into 190th Street in Farmington. The Farmington 2020 thoroughfare plan does not show a future collector on 190th Street west of Flagstaff Avenue. . The classification of 195th Street in Farmington as an "A" minor arterial is consistent with the Lakeville Transportation Plan. A complicating factor to the aforementioned classification is that the Metropolitan Council identifies 190th Street as the "A" minor arterial. Surface Water Mana2ement . We read with interest Farmington's proposal to create 496 acres of industrial and business park uses through 2020. We could find no specific reference supporting a partnership with other communities in the Vermillion River Watershed, including Lakeville, to pursue best management and low impact development site design practices within the South Creek trout stream designated area. Sanitary Sewer Plan . Population forecasts for Farmington by the Met Council keep increasing, which will speed up the need for more sewage treatment capacity. See table below: 2010 2020 1994 Re2ional Blueprint 12,900 16,200 Revised October, 1996 16,000 22,300 Revised October, 1997 19,000 26,500 Farminmon's 2020 Plan 20,160 27,090 . Was Farmington's draft Sanitary Sewer Plan based on these projections? . Sewage flows and projected population follow most recent Met Council projections. Of concern is the higher 130 gallon per capita per day used by Farmington's projected flow as compared to 102 gallons per capita per day used by Lakeville. We assume that Farmington's base flow is higher than normal due to inflow/infiltration in the older portions of their system. Under our assumption, it would be expected that the average base flow will decrease in the future as new construction expands the system with tighter sanitary sewer. . Metronolitan Councll Preferred Flows Farminlrton Comp Plan Farminlrton Lakeville Sewer Flow lMGy) 2000 518 639 1622 2010 894 974 2240 2020 1263 1319 2781 Population 2000 12460 12000 42500 2010 20160 19000 59500 2020 27860 26500 73500 Increase 2000-2020 Flow 745 680 1159 Population 15400 14500 31000 Per Canita Flow 132 gpcpd 128 gpcpd 102 gpcpd 2 City of Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update . The Farmington comprehensive plan identIfies that there are 735 acres of undeveloped residential land in the MUSA. Based on your projection of 275 homes per year built at a density of 3.3 dwelling units/acre, this represents a nearly nine year supply of existing residential MUSA acreage. . Table 4.1 - MUSA Staging Plan proposes that 1,225 (68%) of the total residential acreage needed to serve residential growth through 2020 be brought into the MUSA by the year 2005. What assurance do the cities currently served by the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant have that their allocation of the existing 12 million gallons per day capacity will not be prematurely consumed by non-staged growth in Farmington? . Farmington is proposing to illustrate the proposed MUSA areas as "undesignated MUSA reserve" rather than staged MUSA expansion areas identified in Lakeville's plan. As indicated previously, the City of Lakeville would be opposed to the annexation of the SeedlGenstar property (989 acres) under the "undesignated MUSA reserve" (Lino Lakes) method. Provided the following issues can be addressed, City staff felt that the document was very reflective of current conditions in this area. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (612) 985-4421. Respectfully yours, ~. Michael Sobota, Director Community & Economic Development MS/ram cc: Lakeville Mayor and City Council Robert Erickson, Lakeville City Administrator Keith Nelson, Lakeville City Engineer Roger Knutson, Lakeville City Attorney Dick Thompson, Metropolitan Council John Erar, Farmington City Administrator .. 3 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.~i.fanninlfon.mn.us TO: Dave Olson, Community Development Director FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Lakeville Comments DATE: July 7, 1999 The following information addresses the comments made by the City of Lakeville concerning the City of Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update: Land Use Plan . Floating zones in District 2 - The "floating zones" were located to show possible areas of medium density and business development within District 2. However, the zones will not be finalized until portions of that property are annexed into the City and approved through the Planned Unit Development process. This process includes the review of a schematic plan, approval of a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the property. Comments will be requested from the City of Lakeville when the property in District 2 abuts the City of Lakeville. . The draft for the Southern Dakota County Planning Collaborative comprehensive plan designates the "SeedlGenstar" property for agricultural uses while the Farmington comprehensive plan designates the property for urban residential and business uses. Which plan will have legal standing? - The Southern Dakota County Planning Collaborative comprehensive plan does not reflect the recent approval in May of 1999 by the Minnesota Municipal Board to accept the orderly annexation agreement between Farmington and Empire Township for the Seed/Genstar property. Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update should set the precedence for the type of land uses proposed on this property, since the area will be annexed into the City in the next few years. A comment letter has been sent to the consultants for the Southern Dakota County Planning Collaborative comprehensive plan to reflectthese changes on their plan. .. Do agricultural uses have more long-term viability in District 2 than in District 6? Both areas have the potential in producing valuable agricultural products, however, additional criteria was also reviewed in determining the future growth areas for the City. The following information will be included in Chapter 3 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update in order to address the reasons for developing District 2 over District 6: District 2 - North East This district is currently not within the City limits; however, the State of Minnesota Municipal Board approved an orderly annexation agreement between Farmington and Empire Township in May of 1999. The district consists of 989 gross acres ofland and with the approval of the orderly annexation agreement, the property will be annexed into the City sometime after the year 2001. The property currently resides in agricultural preserve and this designation will expire in the year 200 I. The Metropolitan Council requires that comprehensive plans illustrate land that has already been annexed into the City at the time of plan review by the Metropolitan Council or there is an orderly annexation agreement between the City and Empire Township. The City determined the following reasons for illustrating growth in this location: . 1. The owner (Seed Family) desires to develop the property in the future. 2. The Seed property is adjacent to Trunk Highway 3, which is an under-utilized traffic corridor and will provide existing access to a minor arterial roadway. 3. Dakota County has proposed the location of County Road 60 to be north of the City limits, creating a highly desired east-west corridor from 1-35 to Trunk Highway 3. Therefore, major traffic corridors will be located on the north and east boundaries of the Seed property providing adequate corridors for moving traffic. 4. An existing "48" trunk sanitary sewer interceptor line is located within the proposed property. However, the line would need to be extended to the east under the existing rail line to serve the eastern portion of the property. S. The Water Distribution Plan proposes a 16" water line along with an underground water storage tank within the Seed property. 6. The Surface Water Management Plan shows the need for ponding areas along North Creek and the rail line. These areas are required to meet the Surface Water Management Plan. 7. A wetland plan shows a large wetland area along North Creek on the western side of the rail line. A wetland boundary survey is required at the time of development. These areas will provide natural habitats as well as require the need for clustering developments throughout the Seed property creating a variety of land uses. 8. The vision of providing an agricultural buffer on the western side of the City adjacent to the City of Lakeville will be met by showing growth on the Seed property and fulfilling the 753 acres of residential land needed by the year 2020. 9. The vision of connecting the northern portion of the City to the southern portion will be fulfilled because the Seed property is located closer to the central core of the City as opposed to proposing growth in the northwest corner and creating no connection between the north and the south. Therefore, it is important to note that the Seed property annexation will not create an increase in the amount of projected growth in the City, it will only shift where that growth will occur. The 2020 Land Use Plan will reflect the Seed annexation in order to set aside the 753 acres of residential development in this location, thereby, preserving the northwest corner of the City for agricultural use to the year 2020. 2 District 2 offers a variety of land use choices because of the existing rolling topography and the accessibility potential from Trunk Highway 3 on the eastern border, the proposed roadways of CSAH 60 on the northern border and County Road 64 on the southern border forming boundaries of the property on the north and south respectively. A large portion of the district is proposed for low-density residential as illustrated on Map 3.4. Medium-density residential and business designations are also shown within the district, however, these are considered "floating zones" at this time, because of undetermined development scenarios within District 2. The "floating zones" are being shown in areas where potential transportation access will occur and. along the rail line where medium-density residential uses can provide a buffer between low-density residential and the CP rail line. .. The final land use is the natural open space that consists of the North Branch and its floodplain. This use will assist in buffering the low and medium-density residential areas from the rail line and will provide natural areas for walking trails and passive recreation. The business area is located along Trunk Highway 3 and the proposed location of County Road 60 because of the accessibility potential in this area. The land use will only support smaller neighborhood business uses and will not detract from the downtown business area. This area will provide convenience-type services that may be accessed by walking or through short vehicle trips. District 6 - West Rural This district contains most of the agricultural lands within the community as illustrated on Map 3.8. The district relates to the vision to maintain and enhance the existing rural character of the City and provide a buffer of open space between the developed City of Farmington and the City of Lakeville. The district will be maintained as working farms and is designated as agricultural/urban reserve. The urban reserve areas will not be developed until after the 2020 time frame, however, the owners of property in this area wanted to have the opportunity to develop their property in densities of 1 unit per 10 acres if City infrastructure was available to the property. These situations will be handled on a case by case basis and growth in this area will be limited. . The vision statements for the City determined that this district would remain in agriculture and was unsuitable for growth at this time because of the following reasons: 1. The owners of property in this part of the City have indicated a desire to keep it as an agricultural use, for at least the next IS to 20 years. 2. Flagstaff Avenue would require an extensive and costly upgrade to the City's transportation system considering the condition of the existing roadway and the need to upgrade the entire road (to CR 50) to a collector status as proposed in the City's Thoroughfare Plan. 3 .. 3. A IS" sewer line is proposed for this area, however, the nearest connection for the trunk sanitary sewer facility would be at 195th Street at the northern edge of the Charleswood development. 4. The Water Distribution Plan proposes a 20" water line along with an underground water storage tank in this area. A 16" water line has been constructed at the western edge of Pine Ridge Forest and provides a readily accessible connection for water services in this area. 5. The Surface Water Management Plan indicates ponding in the southeastern portion of the area. These areas are required to meet the Surface Water Management Plan. 6. The Wetland Map illustrates a wetland area on the east side of Flagstaff Avenue. The map also shows a greenway along the eastern portion of the area. A wetland boundary survey is required at the time of development. 7. The vision of providing an agricultural buffer on the western side of the City to the year 2020 will be fulfilled by the 753 acres of residential development proposed elsewhere in the City. The strongest argument for maintaining this district as agricultural is illustrated by the property owners living in the district. Some of the landowners hold large acres of land and expressed their desire to continue farming in this area. An additional argument consists of the lack of adequate transportation routes and available sanitary sewer in this area. The final argument consists of the City's vision to maintain and preserve working farms within the City while providing a natural buffer to the west. . Expansion of urban development beyond already established municipal boundaries appears to be inconsistent with the Regional Blueprint. The December 1996 Metropolitan Council Regional Blueprint shows District 2 to be located within three different classifications. On the west side of District 2, the Regional Blueprint shows the illustrative 2020 MUSA boundary. This boundary will accommodate at least two-thirds of forecasted growth within the 2000 MUSA boundary. It will require the planning of no more than one-third of the forecasted growth within the City to be located within the mutually agreed upon 2020 MUSA boundary. The boundary also requires densities to be closer to historic patterns of the past. The central part of District 2 resides within a urban reserve area, which determines that these lands are to accommodate the region's growth in households to the year 2040. This classification also requires that short-term development conform to eventual urbanization, generally limiting it to one dwelling unit per 40 acres in the interim. And finally, the east side of District 2 is classified as permanent agriculture, requiring that the land be protected from urbanization and development be limited to one dwelling unit per 40 acres. The permanent agriculture area consists of a very minor amount of land along the west side of Trunk Highway 3. District 6 is shown to be located in the urban reserve area on the Regional Blueprint, which is also designated as urban reserve in Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. As the City of Lakeville understands, the December 1996 Regional Blueprint will be revised once all of the comprehensive plans for communities in the seven-county metro area have been reviewed and approved. The December 1996 Regional Blueprint shows the location of land use lines as illustrative only, and local governments and the 4 Metropolitan Council will redefine them when all of the comprehensive plans have been approved. It is also important to note that the expansion of urban area communities into adjacent townships through the mechanism of orderly annexation agreements is consistent with the language contained in the Regional Blueprint, the Council's comprehensive development guide for the metropolitan area. Transportation Plan . Farmington identifies County Road 60 on their comprehensive plan, however, Lakeville has identified an alternative alignment that involves 195th Street to be utilized as the east/west corridor with more appropriate spacing from CR 46. The City of Farmington is in agreement with the City of Lakeville upon the identification of 19Sth Street as an east/west corridor. The City of Farmington understands the difficulties with the location of CR 60 due to wetland mitigation associated with CSAH 31. However, since Dakota County identifies the corridor on their 1998 Road Plat Review Needs Plan, the City determined that the roadway should be identified within the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update until further studies revise the location of this roadway. · Lakeville shows 190th Street east of Cedar Avenue as a minor collector. Does the City of Farmington propose a minor collector west of Flagstaff Avenue to tie into 190th Street in Lakeville? The Farmington 2020 Thoroughfare Plan will include 190th Street west of Flagstaff Avenue as a minor collector and will reflect this change on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. · The Metropolitan Council identifies 190th Street as an "A" minor arterial that is not consistent with the Farmington Thoroughfare Plan. The City of Farmington has no record of a Metropolitan Council map identifying 190th Street as an "A" minor arterial. Dakota County and the City of Lakeville do not identify 190th Street as an "A" minor arterial, and therefore, the City of Farmington will continue to identify 190th Street as a minor collector. However, should Lakeville provide Farmington with information describing 190th as an "A" minor arterial, Farmington will consider this information within an appropriate transportation planning context. Surface Water Management .. . Is there support from the City of Farmington to partner with other communities in the Vermillion River Watershed and pursue best management and low impact development site design practices near South Creek? The Surface Water Management Plan (September 1998) addresses the issues of providing best management practices and low impact development site design within the Vermillion River Watershed. The requirements of the Vermillion Watershed program are stated in Section 2.2 of the Surface Water Management Plan, while agency requirements are presented in Section 2.3 and best management practices are provided in Section 2.4 of the Surface Water Management Plan. A reference to the 1998 Surface Water Management Plan is made in Chapter 6 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update concerning the best management and low impact site 5 design practices. Additionally, partnerships with other communities in the Vermillion River Watershed will be considered as opportunities permit. Sanitary Sewer Plan · Population forecasts have increased creating the needfor more sewage capacity. Was Farmington's draft Sanitary Sewer Plan based on these projections? Farmington's 1996 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan is based on the population projections shown on Figure 4 attached. The sewage flow projections were then revised in the City's MUSA Expansion request to reflect updated population forecasts. The Metropolitan Council approved the sewage flow projections on February 28, 1998 as shown on Table A1 thereby updating the 1996 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Policy. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update shows the most current revision of the sewage flow projections illustrating the estimated sewage flows to continue to be below the required 2.3 MGD flow in the year 2006. · The City of Farmington currently shows a nearly nine year supply of existing residential MUSA. The City of Farmington agrees that there is currently (1999) a nearly nine year supply of residential MUSA acres. The Metropolitan Council has determined that a City should not go below a five-year supply of residential MUSA to insure that growth is staged to meet the needs of the future population. Therefore, by the year 2005, at a growth rate of275 homes per year the City of Farmington will be at less than a two-year supply. To continue to meet the growth rate of 275 per year by 2005, the City determined that an additional 570 acres of residential MUSA be included in the residential MUSA supply to reach the five-year supply needed in 2005. With the additional 570 acres, the City of Farmington will once again be nearing a nine-year supply. By the year 2010, the City will fall to a nearly four-year supply until a request for an additional 470 acres is approved and added to the MUSA. The additional acreage will bring the City to over a nine-year supply in 2010. By 2015, the City falls to a four-year supply once again and with the approval of an additional 230 acres of MUS A, the City will see a seven-year supply of MUS A in 2015. Finally, by the year 2020, the City falls to a two-year supply. The addition of 138 residential acres will bring the City close to a four-year supply. .. Throughout the above scenarios, it is important to observe that the City of Farmington forecasts 5,775 household units to be added to the community over the next twenty years. Therefore, an additional 1,750 acres of residential MUSA is needed along with the existing 735 acres within the MUSA to meet the demands of this growth. · What assurances do the cities currently served by the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant have that their allocation of the existing 12 million per capacity will not be prematurely consumed by non-staged growth in Farmington? The Metropolitan Council has indicated on numerous occasions that no municipality is entitled to a pre-ordained or pre-determined allocation of sewer capacity. The use of sewer capacity is determined by a respective municipality's on-going growth and development, and consequentially, its 6 future needs for expanded capacity within the limits prescribed by its comprehensive plan and regulatory control by MCES. Every municipality has the same basic and equal right to capacity use at MCES Regional Treatment Facilities. Accordingly, no municipality should consider its right to capacity as preeminent to that of another community. The Metropolitan Council has stated that average flows for the City of Farmington must stay below the 2.3 mgd by the year 2006. As Table 10.4 reflects, the estimated average sewage flow in 2006 will be 2.05, meeting the requirement of the Metropolitan Council. The average flow of 2.3 won't be met until through the year 2008. Additionally, the table provided by the City of Lakeville in their comment letter identifies Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan sewer flows and the Metropolitan Council's preferred sewer flows for the City of Farmington. As witnessed in the table, the 2020 Comprehensive Plan sewer flow numbers remain below the Metropolitan Council's preferred sewer flows between 2000 and 2020. · The City of Lakevi/le opposes the "undesignated MUSA reserve" staging option. As discussed on page 3.7 of the Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Handbook, "a community may elect to adopt an undesignated MUSA reserve agreement with the Council." The undesignated MUSA reserve agreement allows a community to designate the number of acres, types and density of land uses for each five-year stage to 2020, with the exact location of each stage unspecified. Table 4.1 and Map 4.1 ofthe Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update identifies this information required by the Metropolitan Council. The City of Farmington elected to designate their staged growth areas under the exact specifications of the Metropolitan Council. The City of Farmington will follow the undesignated MUSA reserve agreement requirements stated in the Local Planning Handbook found on page 3.8. It is unclear why the City of Lakeville would be opposed to the undesignated MUSA reserve option for the staging of growth, since the Metropolitan Council allows this option to exist. . 7 I I, I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I 22 8 20 18 16 Z""""" o tJ) 14. _'"0 h:C ~.~ 12 ::;):::.1 0-0 O~ 10 0-,-", 6 4 2 o 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 YEAR 2000 2010 2020 YEAR CIlY MET COUNCIL 1950 1916 1960 2300 1970 3464 1980 4370 1990 5940 2000 11220 9360 2010 16580 12780 2020 20700 16200 .11. Bone8troo ~ R08ene H Anderlik 4 1\11 A880ciates ~OPULATION PROJECTIONS FARMINGTON. MINNESOTA FIGURE 4 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER POLICY PLAN 14159R02.DWG 4/96 COMM. 14159 Table A 1 Sewage Flow Projections Farmington. Minnesota Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Average Homes Total Added Total Added Total Sewage Flow Added Homes Population Population Employees Employees Mm2 1990 2064 5940 2342 0.85 1991 63 2127 176 6116 1992 84 2211 235 6352 1993 117 2328 328 6679 1994 260 2588 728 7407 1995 309 2897 865 8272 1996 334 3231 935 9208 1997 237 3468 664 9871 2961 1.10 1998 275 3743 770 10641 203 3165 1.21 1999 275 4018 770 11411 199 3364 1.32 3512 :, 2000 275 4293 770 12020 148 1.42 2001 275 4568 770 12790 192 3704 1.53 2002 275 4843 770 13560 188 3892 1.64 2003 275 5118 770 14330 182 4074 ' 1.75 2004 275 5393 770 15100 180 4254 1.86 2005 275 5668 770 15870 176 4429 1.97 2006 275 5943 770 16640 172 4601 2.07 2007 275 6218 770 17410 168 4769 2.18 2008 275 6493 770 18180 164 4932 2.29 2009 275 6768 770 18950 160 5092 2.39 2010 275 7043 770 19720 156 5248 2.50 2011 275 7318 770 20490 152 5399 2.61 2012 275 7593 770 21260 148 5547 2.71 2013 275 7868 22030 144 5690 -- 2.82 770 2014 275 8143 770 22800 140 5830 2.93 2015 275 8418 770 23570 133 5963 3.03 2016 275 8693 770 24340 132 6095 3.14 . 2017 275 8968 no 25110 128 6222 3.24 2018 275 9243 770 25880 124 6346 3.35 2019 275 9518 770 26650 120 6465 3.45 2020 275 9793 770 27420 116 6581 3.56 If BY:GENSTAR MIDWEST ... 7-13-55 ;12:05PM GENSTAR MIDWEST~ 612 4632551;# 2/ 3 , GEIVST.AFl C."sta,. Land ComplUlY Mldltlot 11000 West 78th Slreet, Sui~ 201 Eden Prajri~:.. MirmesOla 55344 Tel: (612) 942-7844 Fax: ((.12) 942.807.5 Memorandum To: From: Subject: Date: City of Farmington Plamling Commission Steve Juetten Comprehensive Plan Update July 13, 1999 .. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the comments YI.)U have received from the City ofLakevillc and Dakota County rcgarding your 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. It continues to be the position of the Astra Gcnstar Partnership, L.L.P., that you have prepared a high quality and thorough Update that will guide the City's future, The proposed plan, as it relates to the Seed/Genstar properties, appropriately represen.ts our CUJTent and future development expectations. This includes the Seed/Gcnslar MUSA lands and the SeedlGenstar Orderly Annexation Agreement lands. The proposed plan, as it relates to the entire City, provides thc appropriate mix. and location of land uses for a successful and prosperous community. Based on this, we concur'with the responses prepared by Ms. Smick and with staffs recomn,endation to submit the proposed plan as drafted. In review of the comments submitted by the City of Lakevi lIe, the primary land use issues appear to pertain to the inclusion of the Seed/Genstar OM lands. thc "floating zones" designation, and the difference between the City's plan and the draft Metropolitan Rluc Print. As for the inclusion of the OAA lands, Ms. Smick accurately and quite thoroughly discusses the City's rationale on pages one through fouT of her July 7, letter. WiUl regard to the "floating zones", this designation appropriately idcntilies the OAA lands for future development and stipulates the mix ofland uses, yet gives the City the ability to capitalize on future market and design opportunities which could be limited i r the fmal land use locations and phasing were set today. Lastly, because Highway 3 will be the major access to the site. it becomes the logical edge of development rather than an arbitraryboundaty located within the OAA lands, as the current draft Blue Print shows. To reiterate our position regarding the OAA lands, over the next scvL'Tal years we will be working with you, your staff and our consultants to complete a master plan that will take all development issues into consideration (land u.c;e. City expectations, natural features. market condhions, etc.). After completion oHhis plan, it is our intent to gain plc\nned unit development approval and to work with the City to remove the "floating zones" through a comprehensive plan amendment. SENT BY:GENSTAR MIDWEST ... 7-13-99 ;12:06PM ; GENSTAR MIDWEST~ 012 ~0325~1;# 31 3 " Page 2 City of Farmington P.C. July 13, 1999 In review u[the comments submitted by Dakota County, it is the position of the Astra Genstar partnership, L.L.P., to work with the City to provide a north south local transportation route from the OAA lands to downtown. We hope the above information is helpful and thank you again for this opportunity to comment. We applaud your efforts on the preparation of a quality comprehensive plan. 4 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.fall11ington.mn.us /O,b TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrat~ David L. Olson, Community Development Director FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Executive Summary - Empire Township Comprehensive Plan DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Empire Township Comprehensive Plan was received by the City of Farmington on June 30, 1999. The Comprehensive Plan was also delivered to the Metropolitan Council on that same date along with deliveries to the City of Coates, City of Lakeville, City of Rosemount, Castle Rock Township, Vermillion Township, Dakota County, Independent School District 196 and 192. A complete copy of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update has been provided to Council under separate cover. DISCUSSION The Community Planning process for Empire's Comprehensive Plan consisted of public meetings with the Planning Commission and Town Board. A formal public hearing for the plan was held by the Empire Township Planning Commission on June 15, 1999 and was approved that evening, with the final approval of the plan by the Town Board on June 22, 1999. Population, Household and Employment Forecasts During the period between 2000 and 2020, Empire Township is forecasted to increase in population by 2,588 persons, increase in households by 1,026 and provide for an additional 110 jobs. While the Metropolitan Council's employment forecasts coincide with Empire Township's forecasts, population and household forecasts differ greatly between the two jurisdictions. The Metropolitan Council forecasts a population increase of 100 people and a household increase of 100 between the period of2000 and 2020. While Empire Township's population and number of households is proposed to increase greatly in the next twenty years, the average household size is proposed to decrease. The Township forecasts an average household size of 2.90 in 2000 and in 2020 the average household size is forecasted at 2.66. Land Use Designations Empire Township has a variety of land use designations including Long-Term Agriculture, University of Minnesota Property, Rural Residential, Future Development Areas, Commercial, Convenience Commercial (floating district), Future Commercial, PubliclInstitutional, Seed Trust/OAA, Conservancy and Mineral Extraction Overlay. While all of the land use designations are important, the following is a summary of the agricultural, residential, commercial and public/institutional land use designations. Long- Term Agriculture Empire Township states that its priority is to preserve agricultural land uses within the township. The township is mostly designated as long-term agriculture. A maximum of one residential unit per 40 acres will be allowed in this district, however, the township will review "special limited exceptions to this density standard" with densities less than one unit per acre in areas located between river or wetland and a highway. The most important point to consider in the long-term agriculture designation is that from 2000 to 2020, 342 acres of agricultural land will be lost to rural residential or the utility service area. Rural Residential The Rural Residential area is proposed to accommodate the forecasted growth anticipated by the township to the year 2020 and will be contiguous to their existing sewered area. The rural residential is proposed to extend to the north of Empire Glen along the east side of TH 3 and spread to the east from the Empire Glen neighborhood as shown on Figure 7. The land use proposes 70% single-family detached dwellings at densities of 2.0-2.5 units per acre and 30% single-family attached dwellings at densities of 4.0-6.0 units per acre allowing for an average residential density of3.0 units per acre. The township is also considering higher densities that would be associated with Planned Unit Developments if infrastructure capacity is available and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The township "is committed to allowing increased densities in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)." Therefore it is apparent that the township proposes to increase its rural residential land area to accommodate the increase in the number of households, while also maximizing its density to provide various housing choices within the township. Future development areas shown south of the Vermillion River and along the west side of TH 3 will allow one unit per 40 acres and will not receive public utilities until after 2020. Commercial Commercial designations consist of commercial, convenience commercial and future commercial land uses. The commercial area includes three contiguous commercial properties located to the south of the Vermillion River. Convenience commercial is proposed to provide a small convenience commercial or neighborhood retail cluster on the east side of Trunk Highway 3. The commercial area may be allowed as a stand-alone operation or be included within a mixed use development within the MUSA. The final commercial designation is future commercial and is proposed on the west side of TH 3 near the water tower. The township anticipates that this area will be developed after 2020 and will remain as agriculture allowing one unit per 40 acres. Public/Institutional This land use designation allows for religious, non-profit, government or other institutional facilities. Public Facilities and Services With the proposed increase in growth, Empire Township will need to provide increased services for sanitary sewer, water, administrative services, public works, parks and public safety. Empire Township has created a utility staging plan (Figure 8) that illustrates the location of new growth areas at five-year increments to the year 2020. Table 12 shows that between 2000-2005 an additional 76 acres of land is proposed for MUSA adding to the 226 acres of sewered area in Empire Township. Between 2006-2010 an additional 101 acres of MUSA is proposed, between 2011-2015 there are 95 acres of proposed MUSA and between 2016-2020 Empire Township proposes 70 additional acre of MUSA. From the period of 2000-2020, Empire Township proposes to add 342 acres of MUSA to its current sewered area of 226 acres. The township is currently completing a 300,000 gallon water tower to accommodate growth forecasts and they are planning to add a third well and booster pump near 2020. With the new water tower and proposal for additional facilities it is once again apparent that the township would like to develop at levels associated with smaller municipalities. The township also seeks to increase staffing within the Clerk/Treasurer's office and maintain contracts with public works services as well as provide additional parks and trails within the area. Finally, they would like to continue to contract with the County Sheriff s Department and possibly propose a fire hall in the community. Transportation Transportation will mostly include local streets within the expanded subdivisions while the major access route to the metropolitan area will be provided by TH 3, which is designated as a "A" minor arterial. Dakota County has recognized that TH 3 is an under- utilized corridor at this time and additional traffic will not impede the traffic flow. Summary It is apparent that Empire Township is interested in urban style development similar to what is usually seen in incorporated cities. This is indicated primarily because of the proposed 342 additional MUSA acres that the township will request from the Metropolitan Council in the next twenty years. Staff will be discussing the proposed plan with other adjoining cities to determine what concerns these cities may have. Staff will complete its review of the proposed comprehensive plan within the next two weeks. ACTION REQUESTED The Council may wish to consider one or all of the following actions: 1. Schedule a Council Workshop to discuss the proposed Empire Township Comprehensive Plan Update to determine the consensus of the Council on various elements of the plan. 2. Request a Joint Meeting of the City Council and Town Board of Supervisors to discuss the proposed plan. 3. Request a presentation from the appropriate Metropolitan Council staff relative to their position on non-municipal urban-style growth occurring in township areas. In addition, it would be appropriate to meet with the City's new Metropolitan Council appointed representative to discuss Council concerns regarding township growth. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ cC42 Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator David L. Olson, Community Development Director - -"'-~ ~.7 _.~ ~-.:.. .... m RESOLUTION NO. R130-95 JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND EMPIRE TOWNSHIP Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Empire Town Hall on Novembp.r 14, 1995 at 8:00 P.M.. Members Present: Members Absent: Kuchera, Galler, Ristow, Fitch, Gamer. None. ... . Member Ristow introduced and Member Gamer l=ip.conded the following: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington (Farmington) has appealed the decision of the Minnesota Municipal Board, dated December 5, 1994, as to land sought to be annexed from Empire Township (Empire); and WHEREAS, Farmington and Empire have met over the past 10 months to discuss issues of mutual concern; and WHEREAS, Farmington and Empire wish to terminate the pending appeal by adopting this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Farmington and the Township of Empire, in an effort to end differences on annexation and community growth interests, Empire and Farmington agree to the following principles and points of understanding: 1. There is a need for joint planning to avoid premature extensions of public infrastructure, duplication of public infrastructure, leapfrog development and the premature conversion of productive farmland to non-farm usel=i. 2. There are common interests in long range planning to evaluate joint utility systems, interconnecting trail systems and mutually beneficial thoroughfare corridors. 3. There are existing jurisdictional interests and community investments by Empire and Farmington in the west halves of Sections 29 and 32, lying south of County Road 66. 4. There is an immediate need for joint planning to evaluate logical, cost effective street and utility systems in Sections 29 and 32, lying south of County Road 66 and consider boundary adjustments that fit community interest and further community investment. s. Neither Empire nor Farmington has existing or planned infrastructure north of 194th Street in Empire. 6. There is a need to jointly evaluate long range community interests, community benefit, cost effectiveness and community capability to provide public infrastructure to that area lying west of Trunk Highway 3. 7. Decisions to explore detailed cost feasibility studies to extend public infrastructure out~ide of the "rural cent~r" boundary in Empire, lying west of Trunk Highway 3 will bp. mutual and bal=ip.d upon substantial financial participation by initiating property owners or benefiting property owners. 10. 11. 1.~ B. In the event Ernpi~e is unwilling or incapable of extending public infrastructure to areas outside of the "rural center", west of Trunk Highway 3, which are contiguous to existing MUSA areas in both communities and consistent with mutually planned and cost effective utility districts, Empire will not interfere with or object to the simultaneous annexation and provision of sanitary sewer and municipal water services by Farmington. The joint evaluation of long term development potential west of Trunk Highway 3 will include the analysis of impacts of development on either community in terms of community identity, service delivery capability, long term agricultural preservation and natural resource protection. A joint planning board will be e~tablish~d within one month of the termination of the annexation appeal. Representation will include one elected official, one staff representative and one resident from each community. The board will meet monthly, hosted alternately by each community. Farmington will not ~nitiate or endorse annexation petitions outside of the planning areas described as long as the joint planning board exists, unless prior review and consent is granted by Empire. In consideration of the undp.rtakings S8t forth h~rein, Farmington shall immediately execute and file a Di~mis~al With Prejudice of the Appeal of the Municipal Board Decision dated December 5, 1994, with the Dakota County District Court in Court File Number C5-95-6034, titlp.d "City of Farmington v. Empire Township, Castle Rock Township, and Dakota County Fair Board." 9. 12. M...." .,:~~j ~:::t [~.~; ~ This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 14th day of November, 1995. . ~ ,,() ~ - L M I' ,~~ /~ Ma~or Attested to the 16th day of November, 1995. SEAL ~on.~ Intp.rim City Administrator ...... City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us IO~ TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrato~~ David L. Olson Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: Initiate Easement Vacation - Industrial Park DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The HRA Board authorized the sale of the lot adjacent to Performance Industrial Coatings (PIC) to facilitate an expansion of their existing facility to north. The proposed expansion will necessitate the vacation of the utility easements along the side lot lines of both lots. DISCUSSION As the proposed site plan for PIC's proposed expansion indicates, the expansion will extend across previously established lot lines and utility easements. In order to facilitate the expansion, the utility easements would need to be vacated. The original need for the easements would have existed if the lots were developed separately. Since they are proposed to be combined into one building site under common ownership, there is no longer a need for the easements. The City Council is required to hold a public hearing prior to the vacation of any right-of-way or "easements. A similar action was taken previously to provide for the expansion of JIT in the eastern portion of the Industrial Park. ACTION REQUESTED Schedule a public hearing for August 16, 1999 to consider the vacation of existing utility easements along the north lot line of Lot I, Block 4, Industrial Park 1 st Addition and the south lot line of Lot 1, Block 4, Industrial Park 2nd Addition. Respectfully submitted, ;' . ~-? -7 ~~ . . Olson ..-a - Community Development Director cc: Wally Sapp, PIC ill Z :J )-- l- ll' UI IL Q II' IL I I I : I II : I I I I I r;3~~) ~L<(. ;,,--- ' , ",:;.....----- - - ---- ----:---- ~- I -- ---- -::..--~_. ~-- 1 I 1 , X , t 6 ~ r I ;~ Co LOTS SHOWN FARMINGTON INDUS" BLOCK ~ LOT I A'; FARMINGTON INDUS' BLOCK ~ LOT I (J.l z+. ~ - CD CD LL 0 0 0 -- .. ~ Ill: 0 ~ i .. 0 a- :z: I It) Do Ii ca Ill: II ::l :. CD Q. c 9^'IiI uOIB3 Ill: tJ ~ n; I UJ - Do ~ Ill: ca ::l :z: :. I ;: -- - 0 a- en .s::. ..... - ~ ... tn e ... :z: IE N ~ .-0 c Ill: ~ -= :z: 0 Do 0 Ill: It) ::l C :. Ill: :z: c: 0 ..... I C) I C I I -- E 13=1 > 1001 - a- - -= I~I - ca CD .- U. .. I NI .. .c ! .c ~ A- I .g I A- N co ILL.I c.";i; j~ I I 0_ -l~ I I :2~ I I ii! 0.- ts!2 lid 8Jnl":J cae P}:I qou)I 1:Q) 88- Q).2 flJQ) ca(j ~o .. .b- ~'2 0::1 ~E Q)E ::10 ou City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.faQ11ington.mn.us J/~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Facilities Task Force - Appointments DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the June 7, 1999 meeting, Council authorized staff to pursue the creation ofa Facilities Task Force with the following composition: (5) Citizen-at-Iarge and Business Representatives (1) Council Representative (3) City Commission Representatives (HRA, Planning Commission and Park and Recreation) (1) School District Board or Staff Representation (1) Student (1) City Administrator DISCUSSION In response to advertisement for the Citizen-at-Iarge/Business Representatives, staff received six applications: Willard Barnett, resident at 521-1 Oak Street Yvonne Flaherty, resident at 4469 West Del Road James Gunderson, resident at 187'72 Embers Ave. Sue Miller, resident at 19962 Akin Road Randy Oswald, resident at 5875 Upper 182nd St. W. Wally Sapp, business representative, P.I.C. Powder Coating Council should note that staff references do not denote endorsements of particular applicants and should not suggest staff preferences for any particular applicant. City Commission Representatives are: HRA - Michael Matheson; alternate - Sherry Lamb Planning Commission - Dirk Rotty; alternate - Todd Larson Parks and Recreation - Paul Gerten; alternate - Keith Sperbeck School District: Bob Heman, School Board Kelly Kimmerling, Student The Task Force will also be comprised of the City Administrator. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the composition of the Facilities Task Force as presented. Appoint a Council Representative to serve on the Facilities Task Force. Respectfully submitted, ~ ff,~ 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 II/; TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrat~~OJJ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator " FROM: SUBJECT: Request to revise the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update Larry & Doneene Wenzel Property DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City has received a request from Mr. Gary G. Fuchs, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Larry & Doneene Wenzel to re-designate three acres of their property to business on the 2020 Land Use Plan (see attached letter). The Wenzel property lies south of 195th Street and east of the newly aligned Pilot Knob Road expansion. DISCUSSION At the June 21, 1999 City Council meeting, City staff presented the Wenzel request and it was determined by the Council to send the request to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. The Planning Commission discussed the request at their meeting on July 13, 1999. The attached conceptual site plan shows high, medium and low-density designations along with a three acre business designation directly to the south of the City's proposed general maintenance facility. The residential areas generally comply with the 2020 Land Use Plan shown on the Wenzel property with the exception of the business use proposal. City staff recommended that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update remain unchanged due to the policy of maintaining the downtown commercial area that was part of the visioning sessions in July of 1998. The City's position suggested that in order to maintain the downtown area and not detract from it by allowing a large number of neighborhood business centers throughout the City, staff recommended limiting the locations of these uses. Since a 10-acre business center exists at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and 195th Street (Charleswood development) within close proximity to the Wenzel property, staff determined that this area would provide the needed amount of neighborhood business services without detracting from the downtown area. However, the owner (Mr. Wenzel) and the developer (Rottlund Homes) argued that the small amount of business that they proposed would not detract from the downtown business area because of its small acreage. The proposed three-acre site would only allow three to four 3,000 to 5,000 square foot businesses and the spaces would serve the neighborhood. Uses such as a video store, retail or a medical office could serve the Wenzel neighborhood and the neighborhood directly to the south ofthe property. The owner and developer agreed that they desire neighborhood businesses where residents could walk or bike to the businesses and they agreed that the B-4 Neighborhood Business district would work well with their visions of the type of business uses they will propose. They also stated that they understand the Planning Commission and staff s position concerning the elimination of gasoline service stations within this three-acre site and agreed that gas stations would not be allowed. During the review, it was determined by the Planning Commission and City staff that the re- designation of the Wenzel property could be pursued through the Planned Unit Development process rather than an amendment to the comprehensive plan. The PUD process permits any combination of the following uses: single-family, two-family, quad homes, town or row houses and apartments. The PUD also permits commercial facilities that are designed and intended to serve the residents of the planned unit development. However, no commercial use would be constructed until fifty percent of the total dwelling units contained on the entire site is completed. The Commission and staff determined that the PUD process was the most efficient way of re- designating the property to the proposed sketch plan because of the timing of the comprehensive plan approval process. The City will send the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update as previously approved to the Metropolitan Council on or before July 30, 1999. A comprehensive plan amendment would delay the approval process. Therefore, the PUD process will re-designate the uses of the subject site through the rezoning of the property. ACTION REOUESTED Indicate whether the Council would favorably consider the utilization of the Planned Unit Development process on the Wenzel property to allow three acres of commercial development with a B-4 type zoning designation. Respectfully Submitted, /J/ (' r> ('::J~~/.. L.{'e~' Smick, AICP" Planning Coordinator cc: Mr. and Mrs. Larry and Doneene Wenzel Mr. Gary G. Fuchs, London Anderson Antolak & Hoeft Mr. J. Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes London Antolak Anderson oeft, Ltd. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 15 sourn FIFTH STREET. sum 1200 MINNEAPOUS, MN 55<lO2.1~ · U.s.A. TELEPHONE: 612-3384400 . FACSIMll..E: 612.338-4311 June 2, 1999 Mr. David Olson Community Development Director City of Farmington 326 Oak Street Farmington,~ 55024 Re: 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan Larry & Doneene Wenzel Property Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for the time you took last week to visit with me regarding the City's ongoing efforts to revise its Comprehensive Guide Plan and how those efforts affect the land owned by Larry and Doneene Wenzel, my clients. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Wenzel, I request that they and their representatives be placed on the Council agenda for the June 21, 1999 Council meeting for the purpose of presenting a request that a portion of their property that lies south of 195th Street and east of Pilot Knob Road be designated on the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan for future Business uses. We are currently working on identifying the specific portion of the property to be guided for Business use. I will contact you as soon as we have a decision and will give you as much information ahead of time as I can. In the meantime, please place the matter on the Council agenda, and if you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, LONDON ANDERSON ANTOLAK & HOEFT Ga~6. ~ Gary G. Fuchs GG~ cc: Larry Wenzel D:\GGF\OLSON LTR 06-02-99.doc(lmIk) MINNEAPOLIS, MN . ApPLE VALLEY, MN · SPOONER, WI I\, , . 'f -, - J1pj~d' \" - " - e, I:f~t,: I.GP ..Ib; ~ ~ '\. II~ 'JO~ .. lit :f.~ . ~ '. '-.. ~r~ .11;.... ~ . ~kK& ~ . '\ I r" . I ' . " \ ,~ X\ . ,t \YVt . ~ - . . t1.D ~ -1\ .. ,',~~A\itUYtAJpI ..A... t?t$' ~ I"~I ~,l 'N~* PfOP9Pf1/ fa~i~ ~ ft;ftfwJ ~f<<1IlHt City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cl.farmineton.mn.us TO: City Planning commission. /) Lee Smick, AICP .n()/ Planning CoordinatorV' FROM: SUBJECT: Request to revise the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update Larry & Doneene Wenzel Property DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City has received a request from Mr. Gary G. Fuchs, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Larry & Doneene Wenzel to re-designate three acres of their property to business on the 2020 Land Use Plan (see attached letter). The Wenzel property lies south of 19Sth Street and east of the newly aligned Pilot Knob Road expansion. DISCUSSION At the June 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning staff gave a brief presentation concerning this request and mentioned that it would be presented at the next City Council meeting. The request was presented at the June 21, 1999 City Council meeting and it was determined by the Council to send the request to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Currently, this item is at the discussion stage and the Developer is seeking an acknowledgement on whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of revising the Comprehensive Plan to include the three acres of business proposed by the Developer. If the Planning Commission and City Council respond favorably to the request then a public hearing will be held to amend the Comprehensive Plan at a later date. In the February 1998 approval of the MUSA Expansion, this property showed approximately 11 acres of business along the west side of the newly aligned Pilot Knob Road expansion. At the time, the business area was perceived as a logical location for a business strip center in close proximity to dense neighborhoods and along a highly traveled traffic corridor. However, during the Comprehensive Plan visioning sessions held in June of 1998, it became apparent that maintaining the downtown area was a high priority and extensive commercial areas located outside of the downtown business district could detract from the downtown revitalization goals set at the visioning sessions. The Planning Commission and City Council examined this property in March and April of 1999 and determined that the business area shown on the Wenzel property was too large in scale and may detract from the downtown by drawing businesses to this new location. They also determined that since the Charleswood development to the west had already designated the southwest corner of 19Sth Street and Pilot Knob Road as a businesslhigh density residential use, the location of an additional business use to the east on the Wenzel property may become too populated with businesses and further detract from the downtown revitalization goals. Therefore, the business strip was removed from the Wenzel property. Throughout the Comprehensive Planning process, Mr. Wenzel did not comment on proposed changes to the land use designations for his property. However, with the prospects of development on his property, the developers have begun to formulate conceptual plans that include both residential and business land use designations. The attached conceptual site plan shows high, medium and low-density designations along with a three acre business designation directly to the south of the City's proposed general maintenance facility. The residential areas generally comply with the 2020 Land Use Plan shown on the Wenzel property with the exception of the business use proposal. At the City Council meeting, concerns were voiced involving the type of businesses that would be allowed in this location. The Council acknowledged that neighborhood businesses such as in the B-4 District would be more suitable to the area than businesses allowed in the B-1 district such as gasoline service stations. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between various hierarchies of business uses as the zoning ordinance does. But, conversations concerning future uses to the proposed business location should occur at this stage in the planning process. Since the City Council has determined that this is a land use issue and because of the changes proposed for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Planning Commission has been asked to review the request and make a recommendation to Council. ACTION REQUESTED City staff recommends that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update remain unchanged due to the policy of maintaining the downtown commercial area. This policy was agreed upon at the visioning sessions in July of 1998. In order to maintain the downtown area and not detract from it by allowing a large number of neighborhood business centers throughout the City, staff recommends limiting the locations of these uses. Since a 10-acre business center exists at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and 19Sth Street within close proximity to the Wenzel property, staff agrees that this area will provide the needed amount of neighborhood business services without detracting from the downtown area. Respectfully Submitted, -:-./~),r-') ..~~ c. />ra~~ ~~~~ k/ L Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Mr. and Mrs. Larry and Doneene Wenzel Mr. Gary G. Fuchs, London Anderson Antolak & Hoeft Mr. 1. Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /3cz.. TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Schedule Joint Cities/School District Meeting DATE: July 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION Council has discussed the desirability of scheduling a joint city meeting with the Lakeville City Council and School District Board to discuss a variety of issues associated with city growth and the affect this growth is having on the school district and our mutual jurisdictions. DISCUSSION As both cities have essentially completed the comprehensive plan process, this may suggest a timely opportunity to discuss development issues of mutual concern. For example, the expansion of the Empire Treatment Plant is of critical concern to both cities as limited capacity issues will have a significant impact on future growth plans. Other issues could include a general discussion of legislative initiatives affecting cities, the Vermillion River and trout stream issues, transportation planning and private development issues affecting both jurisdictions. In terms of involving the school district, growth in both cities has a profound effect on school district planning, and consequently drives the need for new school facilities and staff. Exploring opportunities to form partnerships and share resources, as well as reviewing existing joint efforts with the school district, may also be beneficial. ACTION REQUESTED Council will need to determine dates and times to schedule a joint meeting, a suitable meeting location, and proposed issues to include on the meeting agenda. If Council wishes, my office can coordinate meeting details with both the Lakeville City Administrator and School Superintendent. Respectfully Submitted, dJ~ jOhn F. Erar File Cc: Bob Erickson, City Administrator Bob Endersbe, School Superintendent C :\DOCS\COUNCIL \workshop\Jntschlcitymeeting.doc City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, M~ 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /3/:; TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police FROM: SUBJECT: Patrol Request DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION A preliminary request for extra patrol was presented to staff during roundtable discussion at the July 6th City Council meeting. Staff has now received the request for extra patrol along with speed and stop sign enforcement in the area of 12th and Walnut Street. This information has been included on the list of requested intensified enforcement areas and was forwarded to Patrol Division staff. ACTION REQUESTED Information only. ~QJ~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us / 3 (!., TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Fairview Lane and Heritage Way Stop Sign Request DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION Council has directed staff to study the intersection at Fairview Lane and Heritage Way to determine if there is a need for a stop sign at any of the legs of the intersection. DISCUSSION Based on the traffic counts obtained, warrants for a stop sign are not met at any of the legs of the intersection of Fairview Lane and Heritage Way. At the northeast corner of the intersection, there is a pine tree in the boulevard that affects sight distance. It is recommended that the tree be trimmed or removed. On the northwest corner of the intersection, the homeowner has planted bushes in the boulevard that affect sight distance. It is recommended that the bushes be trimmed down. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REOUESTED F or information only. Respectfully submitted, ~Yh~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /3d TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Confirm Legislative Meeting Date DATE: July 19, 1999 INTRODUCTION Council has directed that a meeting be scheduled with the City's legislative representatives to discuss a variety of local government concerns. It was Council's preference to meet with the three representatives as a group. DISCUSSION The original intent of this memorandum was to confirm Tuesday, September 14, 1999 as the approved legislative meeting date. However, while initially this date was confIrmed by Representative Ozment's staff, City staff was recently advised that he will be unable to attend this meeting due to a scheduling conflict. To that end, State Senator Pariseau and Representative Holberg have been advised that the September 14th date has been cancelled. New dates have been identified in October that meet with Representative Ozment's schedule as follows: New Dates Council Availability Tuesday, October 5 Wednesday, October 6 Wednesday, October 13 Thursday, October 14 Tuesday, October 19 Wednesday, October 20 Thursday, October 21 ACTION REQUESTED Council to identify new dates to schedule a legislative meeting. Staff will contact the remaining legislative representatives as to their availability and attempt to schedule a new meeting date.