The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/12/16 City of Faiinii igton A Proud Past-A Promising 430 Third Street Future Farmington,MN 55024 Committed to Providing High Quality, Timely and Responsive Service to All of Our Customers AGENDA PLANNING COMNIISSION January 12, 2016 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (a) Approve Planning Commission Minutes (December 9, 2015) 3. DISCUSSION (a) 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (b) Beekeeping Ordinance (DRAFT) 4. ADJOURN 7y4iAR41/4,0 City of Farmington 430 Third Street \s7,,,,,,,..._ Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 -"r*,, oa' ' www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Approve Planning Commission Minutes (December 9, 2015) DATE: January 12, 2016 INTRODUCTION Attached, are the minutes from the December 9, 2015 regular meeting. DISCUSSION NA ACTION REQUESTED Approve the minutes from the December 9, 2015 regular meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Backup Material December 9, 2015 Regular Minutes 4c'FARM,y� City of Farmington 7 430 Third Street Farmington,Minnesota ' 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 A41'.4 no www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update DATE: January 12, 2016 INTRODUCTION 2016 and 2017 will be a very active time for Community Development staff as we begin the process of updating the City's Comprehensive Plan(2040 Comprehensive Plan). DISCUSSION As the Commission is aware,the Comprehensive Plan is a document that: • Helps to establish a vision for the community; • Reflects regional policies AND important local goals and objectives; • Serves as a compass or resource guide for the development of the community; The City is governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapters 462(Municipal Planning Act)and 473 (Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act). Chapter 462 states that Cities can do planning and sets forth a process for plan adoption and amendment(i.e., at least 1 public hearing must be held and must be approved by at least 2/3rd vote of Council Members). Chapter 473 requires cities in the 7-county Metro Area to establish a Comprehensive Plan and to update that plan every 10 years. Chapter 473 also requires that Wan official control(i.e., zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, zoning map, etc.)is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan as a result of an amendment to said plan, the affected official controls must then be amended by the City within 9 months following approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment so as not to be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The 10 year Comprehensive Plan cycle officially started once the Metropolitan Council issued System Statements for every community in the 7-county Metro Area. System Statements were issued on September 17,2015. Attached, for the Commission's reference, is Farmington's System Statement. The System Statement is a customized document for each community that informs how the community is affected by the Metropolitan Council's policy plans for regional systems and to assist in amending its Comprehensive Plan. The System Statement includes forecasts for population,households, and employees as well as provide affordable housing goals. Once System Statements have been issued, communities have 3 years to complete the update and have it approved by the Met Council. Staff wanted to provide the Commission with this information as a precursor to the February 9th regular meeting in which the City's Sector Rep from the Met Council(Patrick Boylan)will be in attendance to give a presentation. The presentation will generally cover the following talking points: • Background; • Required Elements • Optional Elements; • Expectations /Timeline for completion ACTION REQUESTED None. This is being provided for information purposes only. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description o Backup Material 2015 Metropolitan Council System Statement 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT FOR CITY OF FARMINGTON September 17, 2015 Regional Development Plan Adoption In May 2014, the Metropolitan Council adopted Thrive MSP 2040. Following adoption of Thrive, the Council adopted the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan, the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, and the 2040 Housing Policy Plan. The Metropolitan Council is now issuing system statements pursuant to State statute. Receipt of this system statement and the metropolitan system plans triggers a community's obligation to review and, as necessary, amend its comprehensive plan within the next three years, by the end of 2018. The complete text of Thrive MSP 2040 as well as complete copies of the recently adopted metropolitan system and policy plans are available for viewing and downloading at http.//www.metrocouncil.orq/Communities/Planninq.aspx. Paper copies are available by calling the Council's Data Center at 651-602-1140. System Statement Definition Metropolitan system plans are long-range comprehensive plans for the regional systems—transit, highways, and airports; wastewater services; and parks and open space—along with the capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater services, transportation, and regional recreation open space. System statements explain the implications of metropolitan system plans for each individual community in the metropolitan area. They are intended to help communities prepare or update their comprehensive plan, as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act: Within nine months after receiving a system statement for an amendment to a metropolitan system plan, and within three years after receiving a system statement issued in conjunction with the decennial review required under section 473.864, subdivision 2, each affected local governmental unit shall review its comprehensive plan to determine if an amendment is necessary to ensure continued conformity with metropolitan system plans. If an amendment is necessary, the governmental unit shall prepare the amendment and submit it to the council for review. Local comprehensive plans, and amendments thereto, will be reviewed by the Council for conformance to metropolitan system plans, consistency with Council policies, and compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units. Updated local comprehensive plans are due to the Council for review by December 31, 2018. What is in this System Statement The system statement includes information specific to your community, including: • your community designation or designation(s); • forecasted population, households, and employment through the year 2040; • guidance on appropriate densities to ensure that regional services and costly regional infrastructure can be provided as efficiently as possible. • affordable housing need allocation; Page-1 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION In the following sections, this system statement contains an overview of each of the system plan updates and specific system changes that affect your community. The sections are: • Transportation, including metropolitan highways, aviation, and transit • Water Resources, including wastewater, surface water, and water supply planning • Regional parks and trails Dispute Process If your community disagrees with elements of this system statement, or has any questions about this system statement, please contact your Sector Representative, Patrick Boylan, at 651-602-1438, to review and discuss potential issues or concerns. The Council and local government units and districts have usually resolved issues relating to the system statement through discussion. Request for Hearing If a local governmental unit and the Council are unable to resolve disagreements over the content of a system statement, the unit or district may, by resolution, request that a hearing be conducted by the Council's Land Use Advisory Committee or by the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of considering amendments to the system statement. According to Minnesota Statutes section 473.857, the request shall be made by the local governmental unit or school district within 60 days after receipt of the system statement. If no request for a hearing is received by the Council within 60 days, the statement becomes final. Page-2 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Regional Development Guide The Council adopted Thrive MSP 2040 as the new regional development guide on May 28, 2014. Thrive identifies five outcomes that set the policy direction for the region's system and policy plans. r1 - X20 Building on our region's history of effective stewardship of our resources, Thrive envisions a prosperous, equitable, and livable ; region that is sustainable for today and generations to come. The Council is directing its operations, plans, policies, programs, and resources toward achieving this shared long-term vision. Three principles define the Council's approach to implementing regional policy: integration, collaboration, and accountability. These principles reflect the Council's roles in integrating policy areas, supporting local governments and regional partners, and promoting and implementing the regional vision. The principles define the Council's approach to policy implementation and set expectations for how the Council interacts with local governments. Thrive also outlines seven land use policies and community designations important for local comprehensive planning updates. The land use policies establish a series of commitments from the Council for local governments and uses community designations to shape development policies for communities. Community designations group jurisdictions with similar characteristics based on Urban or Rural character for the application of regional policies. Together, the land use policies and community designations help to implement the region's vision by setting expectations for development density and the character of development throughout the region. Community Designation Community designations group jurisdictions with similar characteristics for the application of regional policies. The Council uses community designations to guide regional growth and development; establish land use expectations including overall development densities and patterns; and outline the respective roles of the Council and individual communities, along with strategies for planning for forecasted growth. If there are discrepancies between the Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designations Map and the Community Designation map contained herein because of adjustments and refinements that occurred subsequent to the adoption of Thrive, communities should follow the specific guidance contained in this System Statement. Thrive identifies Farmington with the community designation of Emerging Suburban Edge (Figure 1). Emerging Suburban Edge communities include cities, townships and portions of both that are in the early stages of transitioning into urbanized levels of development. Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities of at least 3-5 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. In addition, Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to target opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments at densities and in a manner articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. Specific strategies for Emerging Suburban Edge communities can be found on Farmington's Community Page in the Local Planning Handbook. Forecasts The Council uses the forecasts developed as part of Thrive to plan for regional systems. Communities should base their planning work on these forecasts. Given the nature of long-range forecasts and the planning timeline undertaken by most communities, the Council will maintain on-going dialogue with Page-3 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION communities to consider any changes in growth trends or community expectations about growth that may have an impact on regional systems. The Thrive forecasts for population, households, and employment for your community are: 2010 (actual) 2014(est.) 2020 2030 2040 Population 21,086 22,386 24,300 28,300 32,500 Households 7,066 7,557 8,500 10,100 11,800 Employment 4,438 4,595 5,600 6,200 6,800 Housing Policy The Council adopted the Housing Policy Plan on December 10, 2014, and amended the plan on July 8, 2015. The purpose of the plan is to provide leadership and guidance on regional housing needs and challenges and to support Thrive MSP 2040. The Housing Policy Plan provides an integrated policy framework to address housing challenges greater than any one city or county can tackle alone. Consistent with state statute (Minn. Stat. 473.859, subd. 2(c) and subd. 4), communities must include a housing element and implementation program in their local comprehensive plans that address existing and projected housing needs. The Council has also determined the regional need for low and moderate income housing for the decade of 2021-2030 (see Part III and Appendix B in the Housing Policy Plan). Farmington's share of the region's need for low and moderate income housing is 441 new units affordable to households earning 80% of area median income (AMI) or below. Of these new units, the need is for 240 affordable to households earning at or below 30% of AMI, 77 affordable to households earning 31%to 50% of AMI, and 124 affordable to households earning 51%to 80% of AMI. Affordable Housing Need Allocation for Farmington 7,41,MAK�� „ ,�,.,. �_ . . u�w. � . lar,V.MMMalkaTnail, At or below 30% AMI 240 31 to 50%AMI 77 51 to 80%AMI 124 Total Units 441 Specific requirements for the housing element and housing implementation programs of local comprehensive plans can be found in the Local Planning Handbook. Page-4 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT-FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Figure 1.Farmington Community Designation ( i Apple ! Burnsville j Valley i Rosemount ( -- 1 I , w I Coates mat— j Lakeville , 4111114 Empire Farmington r r New Market Eureka Castle Twp. Twp. Rock Twp. i s Extert of Main Map I I Community Designations Outside Council planning authority Emerging Suburban Edge Agricultural Suburban Edge I'---rte, Rural Residential Suburban I t a Diversified Rural Urban Rural Center Urban Center I � 1''.. c I ::.3 County Boundaries L.... City and Township Boundaries Lakes and Major Rivers Page-5 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT–FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STATEMENT City of Farmington The 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) is the metropolitan system plan for highways, transit, and aviation to which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement summarizes significant changes to these three systems, as well as other changes made to the Transportation Policy Plan since the last 2030 TPP was adopted in 2010, and highlights those elements of the system plan that apply specifically to your community. The TPP incorporates the policy direction and the new 2040 socio economic forecasts adopted by the Metropolitan Council in the Thrive MSP 2040, and extends the planning horizon from 2030 to 2040. Federal Requirements The TPP must respond to requirements outlined in state statute, as well as federal law, such as some new requirements included in the federal law known as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). For instance, metropolitan transportation plans must now be performance based, so the TPP now includes goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in chapter 2. In previous versions of the TPP the strategies were known as policies; while some are new, the wording of many strategies are similar to the wording of policies in previous plans. Performance measurements for this plan are also discussed in Chapter 12, Federal Requirements. Federal law requires the long range plan to identify regionally significant transportation investments expected to be made over the next two decades, and to demonstrate that these planned investments can be afforded under the plan's financial assumptions. Both costs and available revenues have changed since the last plan was adopted in 2010, resulting in many changes in the plan. Federal law does allow the plan to provide a vision for how an increased level of transportation revenue might be spent if more resources become available, but the programs or projects identified in this scenario are not considered part of the approved plan. The TPP includes two funding scenarios for the metropolitan highway and transit systems: the "Current Revenue Scenario" and the "Increased Revenue Scenario." • The Current Revenue Scenario represents the fiscally constrained regional transportation plan, which assumes revenues that the region can reasonably expect to be available based on past experience and current laws and allocation formulas. • The Increased Revenue Scenario represents an illustration of what be achieved with a reasonable increase in revenues for transportation. Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, local comprehensive plans are expected to conform to the Current Revenue Scenario, which is the official metropolitan system plan. Potential improvements in the Increased Revenue Scenario can be identified separately in local plans as unfunded proposals. A more detailed description of how to handle the various improvements in this category is included under Other Plan Considerations. In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire 2040 Transportation Policy Plan to ensure that your community's local comprehensive plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan transportation system plan. Chapter 3, Land Use and Local Planning, has been expanded and all communities should carefully review this chapter. A PDF file of Page-6 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION the entire 2040 Transportation Policy Plan can be found at the Metropolitan Council's website: http.//www.metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Planninq-2/Key-Transportation-Planninq- Documents/Transportation-Policy-Plan-(1)/The-Adopted-2040-TPP-(1).aspx. The format of the plan is slightly different than past Transportation Policy Plans. An introductory Overview, Chapter 1: Existing System and Chapter 10: Equity and Environmental Justice have been added to this version of the TPP, in addition to the changes noted in the first paragraph. Please note some modifications have been made to the appendices as well. Key Changes in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in January 2015, the revised 2040 Transportation Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: Metropolitan Highway System - Chapter 5 The Metropolitan Highway System is made up of principal arterials, shown in Fig 1-1 of the TPP and also attached to this system statement. Although no new highways have been added to this system in the 2040 TPP, the last incomplete segment of this system, TH 610, is now under construction in Maple Grove. • The TPP acknowledges that congestion cannot be eliminated or greatly reduced. The region's mobility efforts will need to focus on managing congestion and working to provide alternatives. The majority of resources available between now and 2040 will be needed for preservation, management and operation of the existing highway system. • Due to increased costs and decreased revenue expectations, many long-planned major projects to add general purpose highway lanes are not in this fiscally constrained plan. While the preservation, safety, and mobility needs of these corridors are recognized, investments in these corridors will be focused on implementing traffic management strategies, lower cost-high benefit spot mobility improvements, and implementing MnPASS lanes. Some specific projects have been identified in this plan, but funding has primarily been allocated into various investment categories rather than specific projects. The highway projects specifically identified in the Current Revenue Scenario are shown in Figure 5-8 of the TPP which is also attached to this system statement. • Modifications were made to Appendix D-Functional Classification Criteria, and Appendix F— Highway Interchange Requests.Appendix C—Project List is new and contains all of the transit and highway projects that have been identified between 2014 and 2023. Transit System - Chapter 6 The transit system plan provides an overview of the basic components of transit planning, including demographic factors, transit route and network design factors and urban design factors that support transit usage. Local governments have the primary responsibility for planning transit-supportive land use, through their comprehensive planning, and subdivision and zoning ordinances. • The TPP includes updated Transit Market Areas (shown in TPP Figure 6-3, also attached)which reflect 2010 Census information and an updated methodology that better aligns types and levels of transit service to expected demand. These market areas identify the types of transit services that are provided within each area. • The TPP includes limited capital funding for transit expansion and modernization. Opportunities primarily exist through competitive grant programs such as the regional solicitation for US DOT Page-7 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION funding. These opportunities are guided by the strategies in the TPP and the various elements of the Transit Investment Plan. • The TPP includes an updated transitway system plan that more clearly articulates which projects can be funded within reasonable revenue expectations through year 2040 (Current Revenue Scenario as shown in TPP Figure 6-8, which is also attached). The plan includes five new or expanded METRO lines, three new arterial bus rapid transit lines, and three corridors under study for mode and alignment but identified in the Counties Transit Improvement Board's (CTIB) Phase Program of Projects. This system was developed in collaboration with CTIB, a major partner in regional transitway expansion. • The TPP does not include operating funding for transit service expansion beyond the existing network of regular route bus, general public dial-a-ride, and Metro Vanpool. • The Increased Revenue Scenario (shown TPP Figure 6-9, which is also attached) illustrates the level of expansion for the bus and support system and transitway system that might be reasonable if additional revenues were made available to accelerate construction of the transitway vision for the region. • The plan includes updated requirements and considerations for land use planning around the region's transit system. This includes new residential density standards for areas near major regional transit investments and an increased emphasis on proactive land use planning in coordination with the planning of the transit system. Aviation System - Chapter 9 The Metropolitan Aviation System is comprised of nine airports (shown in Figure 1-9 of the TPP and also attached to this system statement)and off-airport navigational aids. There are no new airports or navigational aids that have been added to the system in the 2040 TPP. • The TPP discusses the regional airport classification system as well as providing an overview of roles and responsibilities in aviation for our regional and national partners. The investment plan in includes an overview of funding sources for projects, and an overview of projects proposed for the local airports that will maintain and enhance the regional airport system. • Modifications were made to Appendix 1— Regional Airspace, Appendix J—Metropolitan Airports Commission Capital Investment Review Process, Appendix K—Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plans and Appendix L—Aviation Land Use Compatibility. Other Plan Changes Regional Bicycle Transportation Network - Chapter 7 The 2040 TPP encourages the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation. To that end, the TPP establishes for the first time a Regional Bicycle Transportation Network(RBTN). The goal of the RBTN is to establish an integrated seamless network of on-street bikeways and off-road trails that complement each other to most effectively improve conditions for bicycle transportation at the regional level. Cities, counties, and parks agencies are encouraged to plan for and implement future bikeways within and along these designated corridors and alignments to support the RBTN vision. Page-8 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Freight - Chapter 8 Most aspects of freight movement are controlled by the private sector, so unlike other sections of the TPP, there is not a specific plan adopted for future public sector investment in freight facilities. However, the discussion of the need for a safe and efficient multimodal freight system has been updated and expanded in the TPP to recognize challenges and opportunities for freight movement as well as the future direction of freight by mode. It acknowledges the closure of the Minneapolis Upper Harbor in 2015, leaving St Paul and Shakopee as the region's major barge terminal areas in the future. The plan also acknowledges the increase of trains since 2010 carrying oil from North Dakota on BNSF and CP rail tracks, which is expected to continue into the future. Although railroad trackage in the region was significantly decreased over the last 20 years to"right size"the system after federal deregulation, communities should not expect much additional rail abandonment. Many tracks that appear to be seldom used are owned by the smaller Class III railroads that serve local businesses by providing direct rail connections from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution facilities to the major national railroads. The major Class I railroads are approaching capacity and actually adding tracks in some locations. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Farmington should consult the complete 2040 Transportation Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In addition, Farmington should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the current version of the Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its comprehensive plan. Specific system plan considerations affecting Farmington are detailed below. Metropolitan Highways There are no principal arterials located within Farmington. Transit System Farmington includes the following Transit Market Areas: Transit Market Market Area Description and Typical Transit Services Area Market Area IV Transit Market Area IV has lower concentrations of population and employment and a higher rate of auto ownership. It is primarily composed of Suburban Edge and Emerging Suburban Edge communities. This market can support peak-period express bus services if a sufficient concentration of commuters likely to use transit service is located along a corridor. The low-density development and suburban form of development presents challenges to fixed-route transit. General public dial a ride services are appropriate in Market Area IV. Farmington should identify and map existing transit services and facilities in the local comprehensive plan. Farmington should also work with transit providers serving their community to identify potential future transit service options and facilities that are consistent with the TPP and the applicable Transit Market Areas. Communities can find further maps and guidance for transit planning in the Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook. Transitways Current Revenue Scenario Transitways The TPP's Transit Investment Plan does not show any transitway investments planned for Farmington in the Current Revenue Scenario (TPP Figure 6-8). Page-9 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Increased Revenue Scenario Transitways The TPP Increased Revenue Scenario shows additional transitway corridors beyond the scope of the plan's adopted and fiscally constrained Transit Investment Plan (the Current Revenue Scenario). These corridors are listed on page 6.63 of the TPP, and TPP Figure 6-9, which is attached, shows the complete transitway vision for the region. If Farmington believes it might be directly impacted by transitways in the Increased Revenue Scenario (for example, because they are participating in transitway corridor studies or feasibility analyses), the transitways may be acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan. These additional corridors are or will be under study for mode and alignment recommendations, but they are not included in fiscally constrained plan. However, they should be clearly identified as not funded within the currently expected resources for transitways. The Council recognizes the important planning work that goes into a corridor prior to it becoming part of the region's Transit Investment Plan, especially if increased revenues were to become available. Similar to Current Revenue Scenario Transitways, communities should identify known potential stations along planned transitways and consider guiding land use policies, station area plans, and associated zoning, infrastructure, and implementation tools that support future growth around transit stations. These policies can also influence station siting in initial planning phases of transitway corridors and influence the competitiveness of a transitway for funding. Communities can find further guidance for station area planning in the Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook and the Transit Oriented Development Guide. Communities not in the Transit Capital Levy District Farmington is not within the Transit Capital Levy District as shown in Fig 1-3 of the TPP(Existing Transit System with Transit Capital Levy District). Regardless of the Transit Market Area or transitway corridor planning, the only transit services provided in this type of community are Transit Link dial-a-ride service and various ridesharing services. A list of Transit Link service areas and communities can be found on the Council's website: http.//www.metrocouncil.orq/Transportation/Services/Transit- Link/Transit-Link-Service-Areas.aspx?source=child If Farmington is interested in additional transit services and a need for transit services can be identified, Farmington would first have to agree to pay the regional transit capital levy, as defined in MN Stat. 473.446 and 473.4461. Aviation All communities must include an aviation element in the transportation sections of their comprehensive plans. The degree of aviation planning and development considerations that need to be included in the comprehensive plan varies by community. Even those communities not impacted directly by an airport have a responsibility to include airspace protection in their comprehensive plan. The protection element should include potential hazards to air navigation including electronic interference. Farmington is within the influence area of Airlake Airport. The long term comprehensive plan (LTCP)for this airport shown in Appendix K of the 2040 TPP has not changed from the LTCP included in the 2030 TPP adopted by the Metropolitan Council in 2010. However, updated LTCP's are anticipated prior to 2018. Communities influenced by this airport should review the LTCP to assure that the updated comprehensive plan developed by the community remains consistent with the airport plans. Consult the Local Planning Handbook for specific comprehensive planning requirements and considerations such as airport zoning, noise and other environmental mitigation, airport development and economic impacts, ground access needs, infrastructure requirements, and general land use compatibility. Page-10 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Other Plan Considerations Regional Bicycle Transportation Network TPP Figure 7-1 shows the RBTN as established for the first time in the 2040 TPP. The network consists of a series of prioritized Tier 1 and Tier 2 corridors and dedicated alignments (routes). The process used to develop the RBTN, as well as the general principles and analysis factors used in its development, can be found in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Chapter of the TPP. The RBTN corridors and alignments make up the "trunk arterials" of the overall system of bikeways that connect to regional employment and activity centers. These are not intended to be the only bicycle facilities in the region, and local units should also consider planning for any additional bike facilities desired by their communities. RBTN corridors are shown where more specific alignments within those corridors have not yet been designated, so local governments are encouraged to use their comprehensive planning process to identify suitable alignments within the RBTN corridors for future incorporation into the TPP. In addition, agencies should plan their local on and off-road bikeway networks to connect to the designated Tier 1 and Tier 2 alignments, as well as any new network alignments within RBTN corridors to be proposed in local comprehensive plans. Bikeway projects that complete segments of, or connect to, the RBTN are given priority for federal transportation funds through the Transportation Advisory Board's biannual regional solicitation. Figure 7-1 shows that your community currently has one or more RBTN corridors and alignments within its jurisdiction. The Council encourages local governments to incorporate the RBTN map within their local bicycle plan maps to show how the local and regional systems are planned to work together. An on-line interactive RBTN map, which allows communities to view the RBTN links in their community at a much more detailed scale than Figure 7-1, can be found in the Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook. The handbook also includes best practices, references, and guidance for all local bicycle planning. A Minor System/Functional Classification The TPP has always recognized the A minor arterial system as an important supplement to the regional highway system, and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) continues to maintain the official regional map of these roads. The 2040 TPP does include an updated functional classification map (Fig. 1-2 in Chapter 1) and a modified Appendix D-Functional Classification Criteria. Communities should consult the Local Plan Handbook for more information on functional classification, how to reflect the A minor arterial system in their plan, and how to request functional classification changes if necessary. Freight The Council encourages all local governments to plan for freight movement in their communities. Trucks are the major mode of freight movement in the region and across the nation to distribute consumer goods as well as move manufactured goods and commodities, and they operate in every community. Communities with special freight facilities shown on TPP Figure 8-1, Metropolitan Freight System, (attached) should also include those additional modes and facilities in their local plan, and plan for compatible adjacent land uses. Page-11 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Figure 1-1 of the TPP Principal Arterials i N....,,,.1 .7, lialligiii it' -- ------ --,: ON., Principal Arterial- Existing a :r *+,,� Principal Arterial Under Construction IIV . tf :. t 7 , 1 . „.. ., , VI , firowassailifr:saii.....4. .,:f:''. i Reference Items ,y Lakes and Rivers 4 City Boundary ,t l County Boundary r MUSA 2040 MPO Area 0 5 10 20 Miles , ` Nov 2014 l i I I I I I I I 2040 TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN I METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Figure 1-1 METROPOLITAN C O U N C I L Page-12 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Figure 1-2 of the TPP Functional Class Roads jIW. ...1 i i , Reference Items 00 1 I _1;� ,, WA 1 Lakes and Rivers I City Boundary J!! } VICounty Boundary n rii I t �i Principal Arterial Roads ^ •` �`^ �' 6 �y 4 MI MUSA 2040 _ I�i,....► tt'; t . 4. I y�` MPO Area r ? 1i��k�' 1 � 'is.: rig L.111111 _` lIt.a�!� :.. ,1. _ �g*Aris ,� �..� !t '4` �► .- IMIIIIPIJi �°�`I� ilia 1 . e 1, jl; i;go 1 1 ii....11____, 11.11.1.11b a f ■11114101r , iii 121101' N 11 t:....,....?r ...__.;: i ,,, � lJ �111 111gi yn [ 0 5 10 20 Miles Nov 2014 I 1 t I i t 1 t I f Existing Planned Thrive Planning Areas elkkwI Principal Arterial 0"1`''%„Ito Principal Arterial Urban Core&Urban&Suburban "..\„„, A-Minor Augmentor A-Minor Augmentor Suburban Edge& ” Emerging Suburban Edge ,,, A-Minor Reliever ‘ ,:. A-Minor Reliever Rural Service Areas A-Minor Expander ,: A-Minor Expander MPO Area outside the Seven County Area ,N,„,_ A-Minor Connector A-Minor Connector Other Minor Arterial °''"'' ,,,c Other Minor Arterial Page-13 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Figure 5-8 of the TPP Identified Projects* in Highway Current Revenue Scenario I Reference Items �i Principal Arterial Highways 0 1 Anoka '-�Other Trunk Highways d `' ,4.:-�,„' Rivers 3 I 7}} V pit ijl ' t City Boundary '451');'''''"':,- II County Boundary --��_ 0 .1 t < 2040 Urban Service Area `*�. MPOArea 111 ' Qi t `Not intended to represent : all projects until 2040. i 0 Ramsey x ” Includes only those projects 13' .A.:—"----- I identified by May 2014. �`` , 0 Q IV Subject to change and .� amendment. •'..,Q ,: i 1 i it oo coo o >ccco� ',ma __/19rif„mil ,,, . ,, ,.., if, i -_____ , , alliiiiilliP 11■. \-------..- '''''''' t i _ SCOtt €.:..w .;.sit 0 5 10 20 Miles Nov 2014 I I I I I i l t I _.. i 0 2015-2018 TIP Bridges 0%0 Strategic Capacity 4."m0 2019-2024 Pavement Projects 2019-2024 Bridges Roadside Infrastructure sr 2015-2018 Pavement/MnPass ONN•Roadside Infrastructure/Safety r\,2015-2018 Pavement/Safety 2015-2018 TIP Pavement Tier 1 MnPASS Expansion Page-14 I 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT–FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Figure 6-3 of the TPP Transit Market Areas Sherburne , , Anoka , wright i,,,,' ,....____xic.:,,,i . R.,...,rnsey„.51.1;,,,,1-;-„ii - - . e t ct-tt, , ii s\ /2 / St •*-1/./ .4.1141.,.. ■ ' Henne‘pin ‘ iiikt. N ----Vi ..... re ,,, L. : Ll. "t__,,,..t. • / I. /_ . \ ,,, s.,.., 'i,-: ; i [ d4L 0 ? " L - ., 1 I c 1 . 0 - .-\_. 2 ---,4 -;--.'" ,,..., --11, );;,0 .,,,,,,-; _ -( —""-17 ‘ ' 'kt, 2 r) .r .,, ,.... , . , ,4) --vs, t * . It Scott n , 1,, Da kota i 0 5 10 20 Miles I! Nov 2014 Pr'* 14b ' I I I 1 I I I i I Market Area I re7'..' Emerging Market Area III di Market Area II Market Area IV Emerging Market Area II Market Area V • Market Area III Freestanding Town Center r-71 TRANSPORTATION Page-15 I 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON Figure 6-8 of the TPP Current Revenue Scenario Transitways j and CTIB Phase I Program of Projects I Sherburne Wa a -...._ A noka Wright , t Reference Items ,, ' i "-\,.....Principal Arterial Highways i. \,,Other Trunk Highways ,, 1■r Lakes and Rivers .. YE City Boundary "" County Boundary 4 i :} ') c3 IT e i f/ k 2040 Urban Service Area MPO Area } Q OWL n x,Q i' e gor or i. g- ,, ..c CZ t 4114 I x\ :— c 4 di i3 a tn Caiver ti L t,1 ,. 3 scot, i; 1 .1 rifii-f Dakota A 0 5 10 20 Miles Nov 2014 t I I I I I I I r- ... ,,z 1 v„,,;:. 1 Northstar Line ON,/Red Line Arterial BRT OrNadis Blue Line t' Orange Line CTIB Phase I Program of Projects under study mode and alignment not yet specified 0%0 Green Line Gold Line * Regional Multimodal Hub Page-16 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Figure 6-9 of the TPP Increased Revenue Scenario Transitways Building an Accelerated Transitway Vision e Anoka Wit , Wright \:` �,r_ t Reference hems �� `' 2 \i Principal Arterial Highways \-3 "-Ni„..,Other Trunk Highways ' i 1' Lakes and Rivers o' Ciy Boundary County ounds �`� / b � �'�� Hennepin i'I /' 2040 Urban Service Area 1 e' '2-"- _ }� i CFrcgt A , 1 MPO Area , 1'esB d ,,pl„ 1 Hwy ,1 NE' 6 Herr Ave ( * I 1i / ntId''' "� �� 1 a s , ---ii:teri—;kr: ;IVO ''' t', C row-- ortzt7tt.e. ,-- 0,,,,, ...01 I Ott -"°- N it 4 1 i../°'.,i°..2..,...._.° F..*A6("'.4 ' A '' cc r . , ,„ ! -.. .„,,,,,, , ..,,,,, ,, carve, ,, i -v., , „.„,,, „t ,, lot f , t 0 5 10 20 Hides Nov 2014 I I I I I I I 1 I zl Northstar Line Accelerated Arterial BRT ^t/Blue Line Accelerated Transitways #.1%,,/Green Line �♦under study Increased Revenue Scenario would mode and alignment also include at least 1% average ONNie Red Line not yet specified annual bus expansion. Orange Line Gold Line * Regional Multimodal Hub Page-17 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Figure 7-1 of the TPP Regional Bicycle Transportation Network Vision Sherburne _ _ _ _.�k 11 i i. I' 1 Wright ' aer 1 * Reference Items - ` ■ 'N.i Principal Arterial Roads ,/ � wd� ,:r'� , Lakes and Rivers f i - ..... `, f� City Boundary jj f Hennepin 11 Alt"- :_. �,„a County Boundary . 2040 Urben Service Area w;r it er`� -11t1, - MPOArea v.' pi11I r 111hrf ,„ �� T ...mitirw,„vet.:1‘ ' Alp opior—e- 1 t 4 � " ��e Ida _, CA` l il ,, Orr 441 till goal iii refi re, ,; M11.4f4 1 ' ''' ' ''''- ,,t'•1,0" 11111111111111.0 ,00, , .,,,,,,,,,, NI :-, ' , • ♦ � E I A t ti— I ' Dakota E:' A i, . 0 5 10 20 iYtilc s Nov 2014 I i I I I I I I to, ii RBTN Alignments Regional Destinations Other Trail Systems ONI Tier 1 Alignments • Metropolitan Job Centers Regional Trails --' (Regional Parks Policy Plan) Tier 2 Alignments O Regional Job Centers Mississippi River Trail • Subregions!Job Centers e---\_.„ (US Route 45) RBTN Corridors(Alignments Undefined) A Large High Schools "--\_.. State Trails(DNR) Tier 1 Priority Regional Bicycle • Colleges&Universities Transportation Corridor Tier 2 Regional Bicycle o Highly Visited Regional Parks Transportation Corridors • Major Sport&Entertainment Centers Page-18 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT–FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Figure 8-1 of the TPP Metropolitan Freight System 1 i / A ioka Wright } N... Reference Items r Lakes and Rivers � V City Boundary t � ,.......,.,.,,. ,., 1 � County Boundary „,„ -r ilenriE,Tin ; - { 2040 Urban Service Area i\f i i 2040 Area i is:4- i , \-...../‘. I LII!II\e. .P-__-.,,.,.A:.. -.. -k �r ',� ., .- J.,. -- , , , . , _'"' • —.Nov 2014 1( s it t ` tail a �,.n v' 1 Dakota 0 5 10 20 Miles , "'. I I I I I I 1 I I t mm ti... '"�.,Principal Arterial Highways . • Railroads(Functional and Abandoned) • Freight Terminals • Air!Truck k • • Barge/Truck • Rail/Truck st.Paul Inset Page-19 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION Figure 9-1 of the TPP Airport Service Areas ISANTI r;i j CHISAIG© f , I ' NE�'1 I SHERBU i �� st f.,� PO l ill L K Y ANOA ► FORS '. , - ' _ 1 i f s AN � /_ 1 i ass // + +4r • ,,t,'-,,' ,' _' sMIC� f' i, - ' ,. �rT CRO X °.' H •..y NEPINI '•r., ` : - =, 1ELM- 7F3r'AMSEY �4 STP .._�r,. [f + .� ,�0MSP ,� y .,. .FCM " SGS ----em= — CARVER """ WPL•2 *I�rz r� nI a ,a' �1 �, . .1 / 1 PIERCE rR r'�y°b-.. /I L IDAKOTA s. ;� s 5 ` SCOTT I �_ _ l SIBLEY s , 'LVN3 ' —>, , l i I � GQ a DHUE ._.....1 , I I ))S}. L E SUER RICE C ':: -1 i ! '.., C 47 l I . ' ,miles �' s 1 V.. I o1 5 10 I20 Public Owned Public Use Airport Privately Owned MinneapaisClass B ,Alrport Compatibility Area • Public Use Airport A space Bounds y Pennitred Sea ane l • * ,(3 NM's-Norse,Zoning, SFS S(RiSidekeaplare Base �" Surface Waters ‘ `.• (6 NM's-Landfills, (Rice Lake) twanm countyareaonry) - Wed Towers) WPL Wipkne Seaplane Base MSP Minneapolis-St.PaJ MIC Crystal Airpot (Miss.River) VOR Protection Zone International Airport -. Tall TowerAreas (Wold-Chamberlain Field) SGS South St. Airport (Fleming Paul Field) Aviation Facility STP St.Paul Downtown Airport Field) ELM Lake Elmo Airport Located in Community ANE Anoka County-Blaine Airport LVN Airlake Airport ctednby FDac l ty(s) (Janes Field) Affected FOR Forest Lake Airport FCM Flying Cloud Airport General Airspace NotifiCationlProteCtion Page-20 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION WATER RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS/ WASTEWATER SYSTEM STATEMENT City of Farmington The 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan includes policies and strategies to achieve the following goal: To protect, conserve, and utilize the region's groundwater and surface water in ways that protect public health, support economical growth and development, maintain habitat and ecosystem health, and provide for recreational opportunities, which are essential to our region's quality of life. The Policy Plan takes an integrated approach to water supply, water quality, and wastewater issues. This approach moves beyond managing wastewater and stormwater only to meet regulatory requirements by viewing wastewater and stormwater as resources, with the goal of protecting the quantity and quality of water our region needs now and for future generations. The Policy Plan includes policies and strategies to: • Maximize regional benefits from regional investments in the areas of wastewater, water supply and surface water. • Pursue reuse of wastewater and stormwater to offset demands on groundwater supplies. • Promote greater collaboration, financial support, and technical support in working with partners to address wastewater, water quality, water quantity and water supply issues. • Implement environmental stewardship in operating the regional wastewater system by reusing wastewater, reducing energy use and air pollutant emissions, and reducing, reusing, and recycling solid waste. Key Concepts in the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in May 2015, the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan is the metropolitan system plan for metropolitan wastewater services with which local comprehensive plans must conform. The Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: • Centers on and around an integrated approach to water supply, wastewater, and surface water planning. • Promotes the investigation of the issues and challenges in furthering our work in water conservation, wastewater and stormwater reuse, and low impact development practices in order to promote a more sustainable region. • Promotes the concept of sustainable water resources where, through collaboration and cooperation, the region will take steps to manage its water resources in a sustainable way aimed at: o Providing an adequate water supply for the region o Promoting and implementing best management practices that protect the quality and quantity of our resources o Providing efficient and cost effective wastewater services to the region o Efficiently addressing nonpoint and point sources pollution issues and solutions, and, o Assessing and monitoring lakes, rivers, and streams so that we can adequately manage, protect, and restore our valued resources. • Continues the Council's position that communities that permit the construction and operation of subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater treatment systems are Page-21 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT-FARMINGTON WATER RESOURCES responsible for ensuring that these systems are installed, maintained, managed and regulated consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080-7083. • Includes requirements in Appendix C for comprehensive sewer plans, local water plans, and local water supply plans. • Establishes inflow and infiltration goals for all communities served by the regional wastewater system and requires all communities to include their inflow and infiltration mitigation programs in their comprehensive sewer plan. • Works with the State to attempt to (1) make funds available for inflow and infiltration mitigation, and (2) promote statutes, rules, and regulations to encourage Ill mitigation. Farmington should consult the complete Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In addition, Farmington should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the Local Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its comprehensive plan. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Metropolitan Sewer Service Under state law(Minn. Stat. 473.513) local governments are required to submit both a wastewater plan element to their comprehensive plan as well as a comprehensive sewer plan describing service needs from the Council. Specific requirements for the sewer element of your comprehensive plan can be found in the Water Resources section of the Local Planning Handbook. Forecasts The forecasts of population, households, employment, and wastewater flows for Farmington as contained in the adopted 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan can be found at: http://www.metrocouncil.orgM/astewater-Water/Planning/2040-Water-Resources-Policy-Plan.asox and on your Community Page in the Local Planning Handbook. These forecasts are for sewered development. The sewered housing forecasts were estimated using SAC data, annual city reports, current trends, existing and future local wastewater service areas and other information relating to your community. The wastewater flows are based on historical wastewater flow data, future projected wastewater generation rates, and the projected sewered population and employment data. The Council will use these growth and wastewater flow forecasts to plan future interceptor and treatment works improvements needed to serve your community. The Council will not design future interceptor improvements or treatment facilities to handle peak hourly flows in excess of the allowable rate for your community. Farmington, through its comprehensive planning process, must decide the location and staging of development, and then plan and design its local wastewater collection system to serve this development. The Council will use its judgment as to where to assign growth within your community to determine regional system capacity adequacy. If Farmington wishes to identify specific areas within the community to concentrate its growth, it should do so within its Comprehensive Sewer Plan. You should also note that urban development at overall densities that are substantially lower than those identified for your community in the Community Designation Section of this Systems Statement will also be analyzed by the Council for their potential adverse effects on the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service. Description of the Metropolitan Disposal System Serving Your Community Figure 1 shows the location of the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) serving your community. Wastewater flow from Farmington is treated at the Empire WWTP. Page-22 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON WATER RESOURCES Description of the Regional Inflow/Infiltration (Ill) Program The 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan states that the Council will establish I/1 goals for all communities discharging wastewater to the MDS. Communities that have excessive I/I in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate excessive I/I. The Council will continue the implementation of its on-going I/I reduction program. Communities identified through the program as needing to eliminate excessive I/I will be required to submit a work plan that details work activities to identify and eliminate sources of I/I. The Council can limit increases in service within those communities having excess I/I that do not demonstrate progress in reducing their excess I/I. The Council will meet with the community and discuss this alternative before it is implemented. It is required that those communities that have been identified as contributors of excessive I/I, and that have not already addressed private property sources, do so as part of their I/I program. Significant work has been accomplished on the public infrastructure portion of the wastewater system. The Council will pursue making funds available through the State for I/I mitigation, and promote statutes, rules and regulations to encourage I/I mitigation. Management of Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) and Private Systems The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires the sewer element of the local comprehensive plan to describe the standards and conditions under which the installation of subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater treatment systems will be permitted and to the extent practicable, the areas not suitable for public or private systems. The appropriate density for development with subsurface sewage treatment systems depends on the suitability of the soils to treat wastewater and whether space is available for a primary and back up drainfield. It is the Council's position that all municipalities and counties allowing subsurface sewage treatment systems should incorporate current MPCA regulations (Minn. Rules Chapter 7080-7083) as part of a program for managing subsurface sewage treatment systems in the sewer element of their local comprehensive plan and implement the standards in issuing permits. Farmington should adopt a management program consistent with state rules. An overview of Farmington's management program must be included in the community's local comprehensive plan update. If adequate information on the management program is not included; the comprehensive plan will be found incomplete for review until the required information is provided to the Council. Specific requirements for the local comprehensive plan can be found in the Local Planning Handbook. Small private treatment plants are located throughout the Metropolitan Area serving such developments as individual industries, mobile home parks, and other urban type uses. The Council's position is that such private wastewater treatment plants should be permitted only if they are in areas not programmed for metropolitan sewer service in the future and they are provided for in a community's comprehensive plan that the Council has approved. Furthermore, the community is responsible for permitting all community or cluster wastewater treatment systems consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080- 7083 and MPCA standards. The Council will not provide financial support to assist communities if these systems fail. Farmington should include in the sewer element of its local comprehensive plan the conditions under which private treatment plants or municipal treatments would be allowed, and include appropriate management techniques sufficiently detailed to ensure that the facilities conform to permit conditions. Farmington is responsible for ensuring that permit conditions for private treatment plants are met and financial resources to manage these facilities are available. Page-23 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON WATER RESOURCES Surface Water Management In 1995, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.859, subd. 2 was amended to make the local water plan (often referred to as local surface water management plans) required by section 103B. 235 a part of the land use plan of the local comprehensive plan. Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, updated in July of 2015, includes the requirements for local water management plans. The main change that you need to be aware of is that all communities in the metropolitan area must update their local water plan between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. This means that Farmington must update its local water plan as part of the comprehensive plan update. The community's updated local water plan should be submitted to the Council for its review concurrent with the review by the Watershed Management Organization(s)within whose watershed(s)the community is located. Failure to have an updated local water plan will result in the comprehensive plan being found incomplete for review until the required plan is provided to the Council. Local water plans must meet the requirements for local water plans in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410. In general, local surface water plans need to include a summary of the priorities and problems in the community; structural, nonstructural and programmatic actions to take to address the priorities and problems; and clearly identified funding mechanisms to fix the problems. More detailed guidance for the local water plans can be found in Appendix C of the Council's 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan and in the Council's current Local Planning Handbook. In addition, the Council has also updated its priority lake list that was first developed in the 1980s as part of the Water Resources Policy Plan update. Figure 2 shows the priority lakes for Farmington. The Council uses the priority lake list to focus its limited resources. The list is also used in the environmental review process. Where a proposed development may impact a priority lake, the project proposer must complete a nutrient budget analysis for the lake as part of the environmental review process. Also included on Figure 2 is the watershed organization(s)that Farmington is part of and a list of impaired waters in the community for use in development of your local water plans. Other Plan Considerations Water Supply Local comprehensive plans also address water supply (Minn. Stat., Sec. 473.859). For communities in the metropolitan area with municipal water supply systems, this local comprehensive plan requirement is met by completing the local water supply plan template, which was jointly developed by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR). FOR COMMUNITIES WHO OWN/OPERATE A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM: Because your community owns/operates a municipal community public water supply system (PWS), the local water supply plan must be updated as part of the local comprehensive plan (Minn. Stat., Sec. 103G.291). The updated local water supply plan should include information about your community along with information about any neighboring communities served by your system. You should update your local water supply plan upon notification by DNR. Local water supply plan due dates will be staggered between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. Your updated local water supply plan should be submitted to the DNR. DNR will share the plan with the Council, and it will be Page-24 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON WATER RESOURCES reviewed concurrently by both agencies. This schedule allows the local water supply plans to be completed and included in the local comprehensive plan. Failure to have an updated local water plan will result in the comprehensive plan being found incomplete for review until the required plan is provided to the Council. The water supply plan template fulfills multiple statutory obligations including: • Minn. Stat., Sec. 103G.291 to complete a water supply plan including demand reduction • Minn. Stat., Sec. 473.859 to address water supply in local comprehensive plans • Minn. Administrative Rules 4720.5280 to address contingency planning for water supply interruption The plan must be officially adopted by your community, and if applicable the utility board, as part of the local comprehensive plan. At a minimum, the updated local water supply plan must use the joint DNR and Metropolitan Council template and include water demand projections that are consistent with the community's population forecast provided in the introductory section of this system statement. Potential water supply issues should be acknowledged, monitoring and conservation programs should be developed, and approaches to resolve any issues should be identified. Guidance and information for water supply planning can be found in the Appendix C of the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, the Local Planning Handbook, and the Council's Master Water Supply Plan. The Council's Master Water Supply Plan provides communities in the region with planning assistance for water supply in a way that: • Recognizes local control and responsibility for owning, maintaining and operating water systems • Is developed in cooperation and consultation with municipal water suppliers, regional stakeholders and state agencies • Protects critical habitat and water resources over the long term • Meets regional needs for a reliable, secure water supply • Highlights the benefits of integrated planning for stormwater, wastewater and water supply • Emphasizes and supports conservation and inter jurisdictional cooperation • Provides clear guidance by identifying key challenges/issues/considerations in the region and available approaches without dictating solutions Figures 3-5 illustrate some water supply considerations that the community may consider as they develop their local water supply plans, such as: aquifer water levels, groundwater and surface water interactions, areas where aquifer tests or monitoring may be needed to reduce uncertainty, regulatory and management areas, and emergency interconnections. Page-25 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON WATER RESOURCES Figure 1.MCES Sanitary Sewer Meter Service Areas City of Farmington, Dakota County To Meter 0 51643A ;":25- figaat ht To Meter It M842 To Meter M653 t.V.; rnr INE23 m LA, Empire 114eref T:h1 Farmington , /14(d4 " ez9e7 To Meter N M647 r To Meter M649 To Meter M649 N M663 tote n n 0 5 1 2 0 2,2315 moos Interceptors by Type - Outfall 1g Meters - Gravity - Low Head Crossing A LIR Stations - Forcemaln - Bypass - Siphon cm' MCES Wastewater Treatment Plants Intercepta Meter Service Areas To Meter•100 Areas the Community ofl inmetd Flow r-7.3 County Boundaries Park,Recreational or Preserve Rural Center P L:.1 City and Township Boundaries LVA Golf Course VVWT Service Areas Lakes and Rivers 2040 MUSA NCompass Street Centerlines Page-26 I 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON WATER RESOURCES Figure 2.Surface Water Resources Farmington, Dakota County . Sri f---) -----\,,\ \ _a._., __Z--\ l-- -.,.. ) \ Lakeville _____ r ' _ --^ AIW Empir --- Twp. —r-- VERMILLION RIVER Farmington r, --.1._ ______.] • ir ,, ------.........,„ ...., ......se-reer4." -- I L 7 , .\\------ -----"- g Eureka Castle Twp• Rock Twp. �erm�Uion Over I /v/ D C.5 1 II 1.1;4f "' Watershed Management Organization Boundaries gap, Impaired Lakes(2014 Draft MPCA 303(d)List) Watershed Management Organization Type «4w Impaired Rivers&Streams(2014 Draft MPCA 303(d)List) County 2014 Priority Lakes Watershed District Watershed Management Organization [....j County Boundaries — p City and Township Boundaries Other Lakes and Major Rivers --"----Other Streams NCompass Street Centerlines Page-27 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON WATER RESOURCES Figure 3.Surface water features and interaction with the regional groundwater system,and state-protected surface water features Farmington 1 tY_r • r` Lake wile , Al Empire Twp.,,WIN. I t ' a "t . p .!..1 _____ i , a ...„ 7.: 46 OM iirl Farmington --ilk *me 4' _„dr it '4. Ir., c rir 0” ihmt, ....Lau w r . , Unnamed Stream -049-* ,t p Sao - 4 Eureka Tw * '.* l « Castle`Rock Twp. e `i► 1 Lakes and Major Rivers Spring(DNR) Surface water type(regional screening by Met Council) Disconnected from the regional groundwater system Calcareous Fen(ON R] Recharges aquifers ••�-Trout Stream(DNR) Receives and discharges groundwater • Karst Feature(DNR) .. Supported by upwetling groundwater Page-28 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON WATER RESOURCES Figure 4.Availability of MN Department of Natural Resources groundwater level and MN Department of Health aquifer test data Farmington 1 t ! ` —C--\ ---------), 1 Empire Twp—"'--- \_ Farmington n7 n--) X l'''' l''''.:,....... .,.."/"..1( \--,.. Iv Eureka Twp. i `` Castle;Rock Twp. Lakes and Major Rivers Observation well showing no trend in annual minimum values(DNR) ®Observation well showing an upward trend in annual minimum values(DNR) OObservation well showing a downward trend in annual minimum values(DNR) OObservation well with insufficient data to evaluate a trend in annual minimum values(DNR) QAquifer Test(MOH) Page-29 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON WATER RESOURCES - -- . . .. . r - Farmington 1 /\ #11titillnlitti li .ell''.. a r = k\i) Lakeville - > 1 1 Empire Twp. \, \ , r IA pnt Farmington - ='11111 \ -1 _= �(' rn, rn tm—Ot . of in....-- ......____i Eureka Twp`,,,,.. „_ i / I Castle Rock Twp. 0 es 1 2 3 1111 Miles Lakes and Major Rivers -The communit s most recent local water supply plan reports that the public water supply system has no interconnections all The community's most recent local water supply plan reports that the public water supply system has one or more interconnections ®Special Well and Boring Construction Area(MDH) 70/North and East Metro Groundwater Management Area(DNR) EMI Moderate to Highly Vulnerable Drinking Water Supply Management Area(MDH) ;:�i:y �;.. ak Drinking Water Supply Management Area for MirmeapolislSt.Paul Page-30 I 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON WATER RESOURCES REGIONAL PARKS SYSTEM STATEMENT City of Farmington The Regional Parks System includes 62 regional parks, park reserves, and special recreation features, plus more than 340 miles of regional trails that showcase the unique landscapes of the region and provide year-round recreation. The Regional Parks System is well-loved by our region's residents and attracted over 48 million annual visits in 2014. The organizational structure of the Regional Parks System is unique, built upon a strong partnership between the Council and the ten regional park implementing agencies that own and operate Regional Parks System units. The regional park implementing agencies are: Anoka County Ramsey County City of Bloomington City of Saint Paul Carver County Scott County Dakota County Three Rivers Park District Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Washington County The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan was developed based on furthering the Thrive MSP 2040 outcomes of Stewardship, Prosperity, Equity, Livability, and Sustainability. Thrive MSP 2040 states that the Council will collaborate with the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, the regional park agencies, and state partners to: • Expand the Regional Parks System to conserve, maintain, and connect natural resources identified as being of high quality or having regional importance, as identified in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan. • Provide a comprehensive regional park and trail system that preserves high-quality natural resources, increases climate resiliency, fosters healthy outcomes, connects communities, and enhances quality of life in the region. • Promote expanded multimodal access to regional parks, regional trails, and the transit network, where appropriate. • Strengthen equitable usage of regional parks and trails by all our region's residents, such as across age, race, ethnicity, income, national origin, and ability. Key Concepts in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan includes the following policies, each with specific associated strategies: • Recreation Activities and Facilities Policy: Provide a regional system of recreation opportunities for all residents, while maintaining the integrity of the natural resource base within the Regional Parks System. Page-31 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON REGIONAL PARKS • Siting and Acquisition Policy: Identify lands with high-quality natural resources that are desirable for Regional Parks System activities and put these lands in a protected status so they will be available for recreational uses and conservation purposes in perpetuity. • Planning Policy: Promote master planning and help provide integrated resource planning across jurisdictions. • Finance Policy: Provide adequate and equitable funding for the Regional Parks System units and facilities in a manner that provides the greatest possible benefits to the people of the region. • System Protection Policy: Protect public investment in acquisition and development by assuring that every component in the system is able to fully carry out its designated role as long as a need for it can be demonstrated. The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan is the metropolitan system plan for regional recreation open space with which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement highlights the elements of the system plan which apply specifically to your community. Find the complete text of the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan on the Council's website. 2040 Regional Parks System Facilities The Regional Parks System is comprised of four main types of facilities: regional parks, park reserves, special recreation features and regional trails. Regional Parks Regional parks most notably contain a diversity of nature-based resources, either naturally occurring or human-built, and are typically 200-500 acres in size. Regional parks accommodate a variety of passive recreation activities. Park Reserves Park reserves, like regional parks, provide for a diversity of outdoor recreation activities. One major feature that distinguishes a park reserve from a regional park is its size. The minimum size for a park reserve is 1,000 acres. An additional characteristic of park reserves is that up to 20 percent of the park reserve can be developed for recreational use, with at least 80 percent of the park reserve to be managed as natural lands that protect the ecological functions of the native landscape. Special Recreation Features Special recreation features are defined as Regional Parks System opportunities not generally found in the regional parks, park reserves or trail corridors. Special recreation features often require a unique managing or programming effort. Regional Trails Regional trails are classified as 1)destination or greenway trails and 2) linking trails. Destination or greenway trails typically follow along routes with high-quality natural resources that make the trail itself a destination. Linking trails are predominately intended to provide connections between various Regional Parks System facilities, most notably regional parks or park reserves. Page-32 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON REGIONAL PARKS 2040 Regional Parks System Components The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan identifies six components which together comprise the vision for the Regional Parks System in 2040, as described below. Existing Regional Parks System Facilities: include Regional Parks System Facilities that are open for public use. These facilities include land that is owned by regional park implementing agencies, and may include inholding parcels within the boundaries of these parks and trail corridors that have not yet been acquired. Existing regional trails may include planned segments that will be developed in the future. Planned Regional Parks System Facilities (not yet open to the public): include Regional Parks System Facilities that have a Council-approved master plan and may be in stages of acquisition and development, but are not yet open for public use. Regional Parks System Boundary Adjustments: include general areas identified as potential additions to existing Regional Parks System Facilities to add recreational opportunities or protect natural resources. Specific adjustments to park or trail corridor boundaries have not yet been planned. Regional Park Search Areas: include general areas for future regional parks to meet the recreational needs of the region by 2040 where the regional park boundary has not yet been planned. Regional Trail Search Corridors: include proposed regional trails to provide connections between Regional Parks System facilities where the trail alignment has not yet been planned. 2040 Regional Trail Search Corridor System Additions: include regional trail search corridors that were added to the Regional Parks System as part of the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan. Key Changes in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in February 2015, the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: Identify all proposed regional trails as regional trail search corridors All proposed regional trails that are not yet open to the public and do not have a Metropolitan Council approved master plan are represented as a general regional trail search corridor. The 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan depicted these trails with a proposed alignment. The alignment of these regional trails will be determined in the future through a planning process led by the regional park implementing agency. The alignment of these trails is subject to Metropolitan Council approval of a regional trail master plan. Acquire and develop ten new regional trails or trail extensions to meet the needs of the region in 2040. The 2040 Regional Trail Search Corridor Additions include: Carver County: • County Road 61 • Highway 41 Page-33 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON REGIONAL PARKS Three Rivers Park District: • CP Rail Extension • Dakota Rail Extension • Lake Independence Extension • Lake Sarah Extension • Minnetrista Extension • North-South 1 • North-South 2 • West Mississippi River The 2040 Regional Parks System Plan Map is depicted in Figure 1. Farmington should consult the complete 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In addition, Farmington should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the current version of the Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its comprehensive plan. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Regional Parks System Components in your community The following Regional Parks System Components within Farmington as identified in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan are listed below. Regional Trails North Creek Greenway Regional Trail: This is a planned regional trail that is not yet open to the public. The planned regional trail travels through Apple Valley, Lakeville and Farmington as it connects Lebanon Hills Regional Park, Lebanon Hills-Lake Marion Greenway Regional Trail Search Corridor and Vermillion River Regional Trail Search Corridor. The regional trail alignment as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Lake Marion Greenway Regional Trail: This is a planned regional trail that is not yet open to the public. The planned regional trail travels through Burnsville, Lakeville, and Farmington as it connects Minnesota River Greenway Regional Trail, Lebanon Hills-Lake Marion Greenway Regional Trail Search Corridor, Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve in Scott County, and Vermillion River Greenway Regional Trail Search Corridor. The regional trail alignment as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Chub Creek Greenway Regional Trail Search Corridor: The regional trail search corridor travels through Farmington, Eureka Township, Greenvale Township, Waterford Township, Sciota Township and Randolph Township as it connects Vermillion River Greenway Regional Trail Search Corridor, North Creek Greenway Regional Trail, and Lake Byllesby Regional Park. Dakota County will lead a planning process in the future to determine the alignment of the regional trail. When preparing its comprehensive plan, Farmington should verify whether a master plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council. If a master plan has been approved, the planned regional trail alignment should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Otherwise, the general search corridor as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Please contact Dakota County for more information regarding Regional Parks System Components in Farmington. Page-34 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON REGIONAL PARKS Figure 1.2040 Regional Parks System Plan Map Regional Parks System Twin Cities Metropolitan Area jam i,-. -'- . t I � j r I � i --,_ I t Anoka j 'r ? i County j i j r , I a- r! 7 . I —I i r "a r 1-,r � ' \ w, t ;' 1 h1,; Ramsey—-, I, , '',r ee�t ;, r), I'rWashington�� Three T County ,...k----- �"-�--r Rivers \ +I r4 t f 'y County F r Minneapolis 1 j St ! i I -If Paul i i �. r / 4a�� I .. - --- 11 I)r tit+ i Carver -"'` `Bloomington Bloomington/,' 7 i j' I Cou �� ^ r / r rt L ;, 1_r ..,.--- ) ,,' r 1 {L__-_-_-i . r L14 1 ^, r i I ,d , •' :_i j t�' - - -'- - j ( j■ i , I ) 1.. 2, _ '9 ,c es Regional Parks Regional Park Search Areas and —Existing State Trails Regional Parks Regional Trail Search Corridors Lakes and Major Rivers Park Reserves Boundary Adjustments Minnesota Valley National Wldlife Refuge Special Recreation Features State Parks // Planned Units ' Search Areas State Wildlife Management Areas Regional Trail Corridor Land um (Publicly Accessible) Regional Trails Regional Trail Search Corridors Scfentilte and Natural Areas(SNA) ---Exist no Other Parks and Preserves —— Planned Regional Trails-2040 System Additions Page-35 1 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT-FARMINGTON REGIONAL PARKS Figure 2.Regional Parks System Facilities in and adjacent to Farmington Regional Parks System City of Farmington, Dakota County I r , i I , I 4 . I N. ) I , i �s I 7 Lakeville ( ‘,1 '+ -_. 8 i 1 s Empire r 1 N Twp. ! 1 l ‘� s•: — J 7 r s`, .... 7 ' 1 1 t,7: ,r _I 7 E Farmington ---- '' 4_.r--% f-- 1 '` , :- I I i : I ,7' r L. ) r-.1 1 i 7-. I l rte I,! 1 1 1 Eureka ,°e`' 1 i _1 Castle Twp. Li 6. j —II, (Rock Twp. i ate, Regional Parks Regional Park Search Areas and Existing State Trails Regonal Parks Regional Trail Search Corridors Street Centerlines(NCompass) Park Reserves Boundary Adjustments Lakes and Major Rivers Special Recreation Features l Minnesota Valley National WIdlife Refuge /f, Planned Units Search Areas State Parks Regional Trail Corridor Land State Wildlife Management Areas Regional Trails Regional Trail Search Corridors (Publicly Accessible) --Existing Scientific and Natural Areas(SNA) –- Planned Regional Traits-2040 System Add lions Other Parks and Preserves Page-36 I 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT—FARMINGTON REGIONAL PARKS a AR4/iy� City of Farmington 430 Third Street 4i—i w Farmington, Minnesota \Cs.,„,,,...........„0/' 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 ,.,,. `� www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Beekeeping Ordinance(DRAFT) DATE: January 12, 2016 INTRODUCTION Attached, for discussion purposes only, is a draft beekeeping ordinance. DISCUSSION Earlier in 2015 the Commission held a worksession at which a number of ordinance modifications were generally discussed. One of those modifications discussed was a beekeeping ordinance. This was originally discussed as staff was contacted by a resident inquiring about the possibility of such an ordinance. The Planning Commission at that time was generally in favor of having staff prepare an ordinance for further discussion and consideration. The draft ordinance is largely based off of a model ordinance that was prepared by the Minnesota Hobby Beekeepers Association. This ordinance is also very similar to that of Eagan's ordinance, which was approved in early 2015. Some of the main points of the draft ordinance are as follows: -Definitions (i.e.,Apiary, Colony, etc.); -Information on permit application and fees; -Code requirements such as: • Ownership: the owner of the bees must occupy the premises for which the peg nit is issued. • Transferability of permit: a permit issued under this ordinance shall be nontransferable. • A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association, if any,prohibits keeping of bees on the subject property. • Proof of a successful completion of a beekeeping basics course(minimum of 8 hours of class time) through the University of Minnesota Bee Lab, a community education program or a local beekeeper club/association within 12 months of the date of application or proof of 3 or more consecutive years of actual beekeeping experience within 5 years immediately preceding the date of application. • If a flyway barrier is required due to the proposed location of the colony hives, a detailed description of the material to be used for the barrier and the proposed location must be submitted. The flyway barrier would have to be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a permit. -Regulations on number of hives (based on size of property); -Regulations on location of hives • Hives must be located in the rear yard. • Hives must be located at least 20 feet from any lot line and at least 30 feet from any dwelling unit, deck,patio, swimming pool area on an adjacent lot. • If any part of a hive is kept within 25 feet of a lot line or within 35 feet of a dwelling unit, deck,patio, swimming pool area on an adjacent lot a flyway barrier is required. -Regulations on flyway barriers (i.e., acceptable materials, height, location, etc.). -Requirements for hive and property conditions. Conditional Use versus Non-Conditional Use Additional consideration should be taken on whether a permit such as this should go through a Conditional Use Permit[CUP] approval process. As the draft is currently written it would not require the approval of a CUP. ACTION REQUESTED Review, comment, and provide direction to staff regarding the draft ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description ❑ Ordinance Draft Bee Ordinance CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 10-6-31 RELATED TO THE KEEPING OF HONEYBEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 10 of the Farmington City Code is hereby . -- .y adding Section 10-6-31 to read as follows: 10-6-31: KEEPING OF HONEYBEES: (A) Definitions: As used in this subdivision,the following definitions sh. •sly: Apiary: The assembly of one or more colonies of honey b n a single 1. Apiary Site: The lot upon whi • y is located. Applicant or Permit Holder: Any eekeeper and any other person who has applied for or has been issued a permit under this subdivision. - tt Beekeeper: Aperson \v1 ho: (i)owns or has charge of one(1)01 more colonies of honey bees;or (ii)who owns or controls the property on which a honey bee colony is located whether or not the person is intentionally keeping honey bees. Ark Beekeeping Equipment: Anything used in the operation of an apiary,including but not limited to hive bodies, brood boxes. supers; hi frames; top and bottom boards,including any platforms; beekeeping tools or sup plies; . . extractors. Colony: An aggregate of honey b= onsisting generally of one queen bee,worker bees,drone bees, or any combination thereof, anima times including brood,comb,pollen and honey. Hive: The receptacle iii ended for the habitation of a colony,which may be a"top bar"hive or a traditional multistoried -I 0 frame hive that has one or more brood boxes,plus any honey supers as may be added. Honey Bee: All life stages of the common domestic honey bee,apis mellifera species. Lot: One unit of a recorded plat, subdivision or registered land survey,or a recorded parcel described by metes and bounds. Nucleus Hive: A hive receptacle or hive body that is nine and five-eighths inches deep, and holds three to five frames and a small quantity of honey bees,which may include a queen, for particular beekeeping purposes,such as starting a new colony,introducing of a new queen to an existing colony, or rearing a new queen. 1 (B) Beekeeping permit required. It is unlawful for any person to keep,harbor,maintain,possess,or otherwise control any honey bee colony within the city,except: 1. In an area zoned as agricultural;or 2. Pursuant to a permit issued by the City under this subdivision on a lot or parcel of record zoned for single-family detached dwelling. (C) Permit application and permit fees. An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator upon an application form furnished by the City. The permit fee,which shall be paid and filed with the permit application, shall be in an amount established by City Council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall be for duration of one year from its date of issuance. An application for permit renewal shall be filed 60 days prior to the expiration of the then current permit. The permit application shall include,but not be limited to,the following: 1. The full name and address of the following persons: (a) The applicant(person signing the application foram,-_nd (b) The owner(s)of record of the premises on which colony(s)are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply. 2. The street address of the lot on which colony(s)are sought to be kept. 3. The number of colour hives to be kept on the premises:` tV- 4. A detailed site plan of the lot on which colony(s)are sought to be kept,including the lot dimensions.the proposed location of all colony hives,the accurate measurements in feet and inches of the proposed location of all colony hives to each of the lot's property lines, and the accurate measurements in feet and inches from all colony hives to each dwelling unit on all adjacent lots. including any attached garage or deck,patio swimming pool area,or other outdoor living space of the adjacent lot(s). 5. A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules,if any,prohibit the keeping of bees on the property which the application is sought. ix 6. If the applicant is not the fee owner of the premises on which the honey bees are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply,the application shall be signed by all fee owners of the premises. 7. Proof of successful completion of a beekeeping basics course(minimum of 8 hours of class time)through the University of Minnesota—BeeLab,a community education program or a local beekeeping club/association within 12 months of the date of application or proof of three or more consecutive years of actual beekeeping experience,established by substantial evidence thereof,within five years immediately preceding the date of application. 8. If a flyaway barrier is required due to the proposed location of the colony hive(s),the applicant shall submit a detailed description of the material to be used for the barrier and the 2 proposed location,which shall be subject to the City's review and approval before the issuance of any permit hereunder. 9. Any other and further information as the City deems necessary. (D) Granting or denying issuance of permit. The Zoning Administrator may grant an initial or renewal permit under this subdivision;however,a permit may not be issued or renewed unless the application filed demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this subdivision. The Zoning Administrator shall deny a permit hereunder for any of the following reasons: 1. The application is incomplete or contains false, frau•.a •r deceptive statements. AtYtt 2. The applicant does not or has not complied wit i l Qre of the provisions of this subdivision. 3. The premises for which the permit is sought, including,but not limited to the proposed or existing location of the colony hives,is not in compliance with any provisions of this subdivision,other City Code provision,,or state laws relating to zoning, health,fire,building or safety. 4. The applicant or owner of the premises where the colony(s)are to be kept has been convicted of a violation of this subdivision. 5. The applicant is not the owner of the colony(s) proposed to he kept on the premises. 6. The appli. of upant of the premises for which the permit is sought to be issued. (E) Conditions of perm ney'. . •nies �r •e kept wi ^ removable frames. The hive body and all frames shall •t in epair and ° and and bee-healthy condition. Any hive body � ��.rt that has bee-;�.. . ted see�x.e free of peeling and flaking paint. No hive body shall be . or in a rottin dition 2. Each •ir y shall be . i;;:sided with a source of clean water either through the use of a boardm., ;der or of I on-stagnant water source located on the apiary site. Every effort should be ° toe . 0:that the water source is free of chemicals. 3. All hive or colon .ris,including,but not limited to: dead bees,comb wax,burr comb, honey,or propolis,shall be promptly cleaned up and disposed of in a tight fitting waste container or stored indoors and shall not be allowed to remain outdoors including within any accessory structure. 4. For each colony hive permitted to be maintained under this subdivision,no more than one nucleus hive with no supers, is permitted,and in no case shall an aggregate total of one nucleus hive for every two colony hives that are permitted hereunder be permitted after the nucleus hive's initial summer. 3 5. Beekeeping equipment shall be maintained in good repair and condition,including keeping the hives painted if they have been painted but are peeling or flaking. 6. No beekeeping equipment or unused hives,frames or nucleus hive boxes shall be stored outdoors. 7. Each hive shall be continuously managed with best beekeeping practices to provide adequate and healthy living space for the resident honey bees in order to prevent swarming. 8. When bees of a colony exhibit aggressive behavior that is consistently frequent, such as stinging and attacks, it shall be the duty of the permit ho to promptly determine the cause thereof and correct the cause, including replacing the . ("re-queening"the colony),if necessary. 9. Fruit trees and other flowering trees while i oom y other vegetation that are located on an apiary site shall not be sprayer 'th an pestic << other substance which is injurious to honey bees. 10. The permit issued hereunder applies only to the premises for which : a-rmit was obtained. The permit shall not be transferred to any other property site within th- 11. Prior to relocating the hive colonies on the apiary site to a location other than as described at time of permit issuance,the permit holder shall notify the City and upon written approval of the new proposed location on the apiary site. 12. Upon the issuance of the permit and full set up of the first hive colony on the apiary site,the permit holder shall permit the City's designated personnel to inspect the apiary site the colony hives and the location where all beekeeping equipment is stored for purposes of ensuring compliance with this subdivision. 13. All colony hives shall comply with the colony location and colony density requirements set forth herein 15. No queen bees shall„be real ee, er the purpose of sale to a third party or sold from the apiary site t • 15. No colony hive shall :e_1 Pt or located on any rooftop. (F) Colony location on apiary site requirements. All hive colonies under a permit issued under this subdivision shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Excluding lots that are zoned agricultural or are ten acres or more in size,no hive shall be located in the front yard or the side yard. For purposes of this subdivision,a corner lot shall be considered to have two front yards regardless of the orientation of the primary residence or driveway. 2. In no instance shall any part of a hive be located within 20 feet of any lot line. 3. In no instance shall any part of a hive be located within 30 feet of any dwelling unit,or any deck,patio,swimming pool area or other outdoor living space thereof,on any adjacent lot to 4 the apiary site. This paragraph applies to any residential dwelling located in any zoning district. 4. While following best beekeeping practices by orienting a colony hive's front entrance in an east to southeast direction,the permit holder shall nevertheless have all colony hives on the apiary site in a location that best results in the front entrance of all colony hives facing into the apiary site's lot and not toward or into an adjacent lot. 5. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision,if any part of a hive is kept within 25 feet of a lot line of the apiary site or within 35 feet of a dwelling unit, or any deck,patio,swimming pool area or other living space therefor,on an adjacent 1P. en a flyway barrier of at least six feet in height shall be established and maintained alo, - ithin the apiary site lot line in accordance with the following requirements: (a) The flyway barrier shall be either a t. ∎ all, ence,dense vegetation or a combination thereof,in order that h y bees must ver,rather than through,the material to reach the colony. :\II fly ver barriers sh. ,aonstructed of high quality, durable material and maintained in accordance with all ei'''Code provisions herein. (b) If a flyway barrier is created by dense vegetatia hen the initial plating may be four feet in height, so long as the vegetation reaches, height of sex feet o higher within two years of planting. The vegetation shall be of such specie and cultivation that it provides a dense screening from six inches from grade to the top of the vegetation year round. (c) A flyway barrier consisting of a fence may continuousl y run parallel to the apiary site's lot line. All other forms of barrier(i.e.,stone wall, dense vegetation)must be located outside of any drainage and utility easement. A flyway barrier shall run for a disc . of ten feet in both directions in front of each hive entrance side;unless the barrierMinstalled to completely surround the hive(s). (d) A flyway barrier is not required for any hive if the lot abutting the apiary site lot is: (1) Undeveloped property; or (2) Zoned a! ltural or ten acres or more in size. If at any t.iv subseq to the issuance of a permit hereunder,the lot abutting the apiary site lot is .- .ed , . :'oned or subdivided to lots less than ten acres,the permit holder shall install a a ier if otherwise required hereunder. (G) Density restrictions of colony hive(s) 1. The number of colony hives permitted on an apiary site pursuant to a permit issued hereunder is restricted as follows based on size of the lot on which the apiary is located: (a) Less than one-half acre: two colony hives. (b) One-half acre to three-fourth acre: four colony hives 5 (c) More than three-fourth acre to one acre: six colony hives (d) More than one acre to five acres: eight colony hives (e) More than five acres: no restrictions 2. If any person,within the City,collects a honey bee swarm or removes a honey bee colony from a location where they are not desired,then the person shall not be deemed to be in violation of this subdivision,provided the person notifies the City within 12 hours of acquiring the honeybees and the colony is kept or maintained no more than 30 days on the apiary site of a beekeeper who has a valid permit under this,subdivision. (H) Revocation or suspension of permit. A violation of any provisions of this subdivision of any conditie•. 'laced on the permit issued hereunder shall constitute grounds for revocation or suspension: sermit,in addition to any of the following: 1. Fraud,misrepresentation or false statements on the permit applicatir •ardless if first discovered after issuance of the permit or renewal of the permit. 2. The keeping of honey bees in an unlawful manner or a manner so as to constitute a public nuisance or to otherwise adversely affect the health. safety or general welfare of the public. SECTION 2. Effective Dater This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this day of . 2016 by the City Council of the City of Farmington. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Todd Larson,Mayor WarF.c. 4444141 ATTEST: AMI By: David McKnight,City Administrator SEAL Approved as to form the day of ,2016. By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the day of ,2016. 6