HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.28.05 Council Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Mission Statement
Through teamwork and cooperation,
the City of Farmington provides quality
services that preserve our proud past and
foster a promising future.
AGENDA
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 28, 2005
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVE AGENDA
4. WAIVER OF PLAT - CHRISTENSEN PROPERTY
COUNCIL POSITION ON AG PRESERVE PROGRAM - CHRISTENSEN
PROPERTY
6. ADJOURN
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor and City Councilmembers; City Administrator
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 1.
2.
Waiver of Plat (Christensen Property)
Removal from Agricultural Preserves Program (Christensen Property)
DATE:
February 26, 2005
INTRODUCTION
A Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. on February 28,2005
to consider the two topics that are addressed below. The attached materials are related to these
discussion topics. The pages have been sequentially numbered to facilitate the discussion.
DISCUSSION
A. Waiver of Plat
An attorney representing Independent School District 192 [ISD 192] has written to the City to request
guidance regarding a platting issue (see page 1). The issue involves three contiguous parcels of
approximately 40 acres each [the "Christensen property"] located near the western border of
Farmington. ISD 192 plans to buy some, but not all, of the Christensen property. ISD 192 and the
owners of the Christensen property apparently want to split one of the 40-acre parcels into a 30.01
acre parcel and a 9.93 acre parcel (see pages 2-5). They then wish or intend to combine the new
30.01 acre parcel with two nearby parcels that are 40.02 acres and 39.97 acres in size, to create a new
parcel that has an area of approximately 110 acres.
The creation of new lots or new parcels is typically accomplished through a platting process that
involves a review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, followed by final approval by
the City Council. However, there is an alternative to this process that can be used under certain
circumstances. This alternative, which is commonly referred to as a "waiver of plat," can potentially
result in an administrative (i.e., staff level) approval of a lot split if no more than two new parcels will
be created (see page 6). The owners of the Christensen property have not yet applied for a waiver of
plat, but they (and ISD 192) would presumably like to determine in advance whether such a waiver
would be granted in this instance.
Section 11-1-5 (C)(2) of the City Code provides that a waiver of plat may be granted by the zoning
officer (i.e., the City Planner) ifboth of the new (proposed) lots "meet the minimum lot requirements
of the zoning ordinance." The Christensen property is located in the A-I (Agricultural) Zoning
District. The minimum lot size in the A-I District is 40 acres (see page 7). One of the two new
(proposed) lots would be 9.93 acres (see pages 2 and 5), which is well below the 40-acre minimum.
On December 14, 2004, the Planning Commission considered a property owner's request to split a
lO-acre parcel into an 8-acre parcel and two I-acre parcels (see pages 8-13). The property in
question is located in the A-I Zoning District. The property owner could not apply for a waiver of
plat, because the creation of more than two new lots was envisioned. The owner therefore applied for
a variance from the 40-acre minimum lot size requirement. The Planning Commission denied the
requested variance. The stated reasons included a comment that the Commission could not allow lot
splits that would go against the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance (see page 14).
The City Code also provides that any proposed waiver of plat "may be forwarded to the city council
for its consideration" if the City Planner believes that the proposed lot split "would adversely affect
the future orderly development of the property or adjacent property" (see page 6). Although (as
noted above) a formal application for a waiver of plat has not yet been received, ISD 192 and the
owners of the Christensen property are presumably interested in obtaining an advisory opinion from
the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding whether they believe that the proposed lot
split would adversely affect future orderly development in the area in question. "Orderly
development" is typically defined as development that is consistent with local and regional
comprehensive plans. The Christensen "waiver of plat issue" should therefore be considered in
conjunction with the Christensen "agricultural preserves issue" (discussed below), inasmuch as they
both necessitate a careful examination of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
B. Agricultural Preserve Program
The Christensen property is currently subject to the provisions of the Metropolitan Agricultural
Preserves Act, commonly known as the "Ag Preserve" program. Property cannot be developed while
it is in the Ag Preserve program. The owners of the Christensen property have initiated the process
that must be followed to remove their land from the Ag Preserve program, but because a "waiting
period" is required, their Ag Preserve status will not end until August 21,2011.
Any entity that has "eminent domain powers" can seek to circumvent the usual waiting period by
initiating a condemnation proceeding involving the affected property. Before doing so, the entity
must file a Notice of Intent with the Environmental Quality Board [EQB]. On January 16, 2005, the
EQB notified the City (by mail) that ISD 192 had filed a Notice of Intent regarding the Christensen
property (see page 16). The EQB's letter indicated that the City should contact the EQB by March 7,
2005 if the City had any "concerns, objections, comments or questions" regarding the Notice of
Intent. The short "turn-around time" for the City's response necessitated the scheduling of the Joint
City Council/Planning Commission on February 28,2005.
The information that ISD 192 filed with the EQB in support of its Notice of Intent is attached hereto
(see pages 17-38).
Ag Preserve and Comprehensive Plan issues related to the Christensen property (and two other
properties) were discussed with the City Council at a workshop that was held on July 26, 2004 (see
pages 39 and 40). ISD 192 entered into a Purchase Agreement with the owners of the Christensen
property on or about October 25, 2004 (see page 22).
Comprehensive Plan issues related to the Christensen property (and one other property) were
addressed in a staff memo that was prepared for a City/ISD 192 meeting that was held on December
3, 2004 (see pages 41-47). The memo is included in this packet because it summarizes portions of
the Comprehensive Plan that are relevant to the pending Ag Preserve issue, and because the memo'
may not have been previously seen by the newer members ofthe City Council.
The City dealt with a similar issue in 2000, when ISD 192 provided the EQB with a Notice of Intent
regarding the School District's plan to use eminent domain to acquire Ag Preserve property (the
"Donnelly property,") for a new elementary school. In that instance, the City supported the removal
of the land in question from the Ag Preserve program, in part because the Donnelly property was
designated as "Low Density Residential" in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and because residential
areas are desirable locations for elementary schools (see pages 56-62). The proposed school location
was also "effectively surrounded by current or proposed development" (see page 59).
***************************************
The most concise explanations of the EQB's role in the current matter involving the Christensen
property can be found in the second paragraph on page 18 of this packet, and in the applicable
Minnesota statute (see pages 60 and 61). The EQB will consider any comments that it gets from the
City of Farmington, the Metropolitan Council and/or other interested parties, and then independently
decide (possibly at the EQB meeting on March 17, 2005) whether the removal of the Christensen
property from the Ag Preserve program "might have an unreasonable effect on an agricultural
preserve or preserves." If so, the EQB has the right to delay the School District's condemnation
proceeding involving the Christensen property for up to 60 days, to allow time for a public hearing on
the matter. If, after the completion of that hearing, the EQB determines that the proposed project is
inconsistent with local or regional comprehensive plans, and/or that there are "feasible and prudent
alternatives which have less negative impacts on the preserve(s)," the EQB can further suspend any
condemnation proceedings for up to one year, presumably to allow additional time to explore such
alternatives.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. If desired, Planning Commission and City Council members can indicate whether they
would approve a waiver of the formal plat review process for the Christensen property, or
whether they would be inclined to deny a waiver on the basis that the proposed lot split
would adversely affect the orderly development of the Christensen property or adjacent
property.
2. If desired, Planning Commission and City Council members can provide City staff with
comments that they would like the City to convey to the EQB in connection with ISD
192's Notice of Intent regarding the eminent domain action that would result in the
removal ofthe Christensen property from the Ag Preserve program.
/
/iZ'/',e,. s~'~ il; S~bmit d,
,. ,/'}AA/I_
/v- V"'Vl
'eVI Carroll
Community Development Director
Lee Smick
From:
)ent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jeff D. Ca arp :ef@riderlaw.com]
Monda February 14, 200~8 PM
Lee Smick
Doug Bonar (External)
Farmington School District- Christensen Property Lot Split
~
SFX1B06.pdf (146
KB)
Lee, further to our conversation today, I have attached a copy of the
Certificate of Survey and corresponding legal descriptions for the Christensen Property to
be acquired by the School District. As you will note, the District plans to acquire 110
acres comprising 3 separate tax parcels (Parcel Nos. 14-02700-010-90, 14-02700-010-85, and
14-02700-010-11). Only one of these tax parcels would be split-- that being Parcel No. 14-
02700-010-85 (the "Split Parcel"), which is located adjacent to Flagstaff Avenue, legally
described as the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 114
North, Range 20 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. The Split Parcel is shown on the survey
drawing, and legal descriptions for both parts of the Split Parcel are included in the
attached legal descriptions.
As you are probably aware, this site has been identified by the District as ~ts proposed
new Farmington High School site. Current planning by the District projects completion of
development on the site in advance of the District's 2008-09 school year. This, of course,
means that we would in all likelihood, be seeking a conditional use permit from the City
in either 2005 or early 2006 in order for the District to obtain timely building permits.
Our preference has been to avoid the cost of platting at the time of acquisition-- as we
~ill only be coming back to replat as part of the conditional use process. While in theory
this could have been accomplished by staging the acquisition closing to coincide with
approval of a conditional use permit, the timing of the District's site planning, combined
with the Christensens' reluctance to delay a closing, will not permit this. As a public
entity attempting to control costs for its constituents, many of which are shared by the
City of Farmington, I am hopeful that it will be possible in this instance to proceed with
only an administrative lot split at this time (presumably with city council approval).
Unfortunately, some of these discussions were originally begun with Jim Atkinson, who I
understand is no longer with the City. As I was preparing to implement the proposed lot
split I was unaware of the personnel changes in your office. If I appeared a bit confused
in our telephone conversation it was only because of this. Please consider my emai1 above
and attachments, and let me know your thoughts on how the District should proceed. We have
tentatively scheduled a closing on our purchase for the end of next month (with the
precise date to be determined). As such, any platting requirement at this time may impact
that timetable. Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Jeffrey D. Carpenter
Rider Bennett, LLP
33 South 6th Street
Suite 4900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 612-340-8935
Fax: 612-337-7635
Email: jcarpenter@riderlaw.com
<<SFX1B06.pdf>>
ATTENTION:
This message and any attachments are intended only for the named recipient(s), and may
contain information that is confidential, privileged, attorney work product, or exempt or
1
I
CERTIFICATE
OF
N
SURVEY
DESCRIPTIONI SEE ATTACHED
w
.
l()
!'>
N
N
o
o
Z
w
.
COl()
~I")
mN
-N
~b
~
w
.
coCO
o~
.0;""
I")l()
10'
N~
AZ
/ \
...J3:
_Vl
< .
Za::"
~ON
Il..U .
u
o3:w w
lJ.. ZVl .
I")l()
01")
NN
NN
1")0
-0
Z
~
l()
!'>
N
N
b
o
Z
AI.I. IKUEltlS lil\DIlN llIlS: 0
If( 5/1' LO. CjflIB) PIP5 SET
IfH J:tIME NO. 11122
NJ. lIOIMD1S tIl\lIIllIlS: .
/IIf fWlIl ~ loN IIlNUIIOOS
l.tmS 01llERIll( Il(lItD.
1319.35
N89'56'54"E
NE COR. NE 1/4
SCALE 1" = 400' SEC. 27-114-20
1319.35
N89'56'54"E
~ '\{jA
$ ~~ ~'i,'?)
~... ~c.;
~1
I.?~'
N~
1001
.N
01';...
-N
::;0
o
Vl
I
: liq
I ~ ~
"I")
":N~
~ ~ ~
H~
1 I ~
: I. ~
,
"'ll
e..
fI:l
~
-.q
~ ~
~ ~
Ot
lJ..
o
~E
:JU
~o:
,W
0:0.
....,
NE COR. SE 1/4
SEC. 27-114-20
(NO MONUMENT)
1319.77
N89'57'18"E
NW COR
SE 1/4
SEC. 27
1319.77:
...... NB9'S7'18"E} _-<"
PA~CEL 'A~------1286.77--_"':"- I
110,00 IACR$S ~c;,l /:J'
~ ~c~ I A
01 co 0....
N :- ..p. '\ I A
g N ~ ~~ '\
Oll~ ~~
-
8~
Vl C,,)
\/A/A
~~ .a '\ ~c;,l
SV ~c~
o~
~o.
\!
FD HOLE IN CONC. BASE OF FENCE POST
SW COR. SE 1/4
SEC. 27-114-20
V'.J'
'Q
.;.---1287.15-_ 0."
- .-- --. 1320.15 -- -- -- ....." ~
S89'S7'18"W
PARCEL 'B'
9.93 ACRES
'.. 1320.30
N89'SO'2S"E
..,.
. /"
SE COR. SE 1 4 '\. ~.
. ,SEC. 27-11.4-20 '~
.41
~.!;;
I CO'f:I)
I t:j.-
t-....7~
/
/
1320.30
589'50'26"W
JJ
'00
"
1 ~~r~by c~rilry.th~i thiS surv~. plan, or r~pori
liaS pr~p~r~d by M or uncI~r "'y l4'Ir.c'i supervlsrien
d itvoi I 0." 0. dwty Licensed LW $urv~)'or
, er tM lo.ws ot the &o.te ot "~nnesote.. '/ J ,/ dV
~~ DAlE I ~~_~{___~___
'MES E:--sir- ~ ---------- LIOCNSE Nil. I Jl!..?E_______
Klll..D l' = 400'
/lfMfIN '1'1 l'IM1'I
litrE" , 11 /30/0.01
ICCT. Itf/. , 3135/4585 Codd No. 4550CT
FILE Itf/. , Jl<. PG.
FOR. FARMINGTON ISD 1192
421 WALNUT STREET
P.O. BOX 329
FARMINGTON, MN 55024
Z---
.
'w
McGhie
[.!i~~'
~F:~~".1I
k~~~~
Betts, Inc.
Rochester
Minnesota
Land Surveying
Uman - Land Plarming
Consulting - Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering
Construction Material Testing
Landscape Architecture
1648 Third Avenue S.E.
Rochester. MN 55904
Tel. 507.289.3919
Fax. 507.289.7333
e-mail.mbi@mcghiebetts.com
Established 1946
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
FOR:
FARMINGTON ISD #192
DATE:
NOVEMBER 3, 2004
Parcel "AU
The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, and the Northwest Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter, all in Section 27, Township 114 North, Range 20 West,
Dakota County, Minnesota.
ALSO:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27,
Township 114 North, Range 20 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
Beginning at the northeast comer ofthe Southeast Quarter ofsaid Section 27;
thence South 00 degrees 19 minutes 57 seconds West, assumed bearing, along
the east line of said Southeast Quarter, 990.29 feet; thence South 89 degrees 57
minutes 18 seconds West, parallel with the north line of said Southeast
Quarter, 1320.15 feet to the west line of the Northeast Quarter of said
Southeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 21 minutes 16 seconds East, along
said west line, 990.29 feet to the northwest comer of said Northeast Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 18 seconds East,
along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter,
1319.77 feet to the point of beginning.
~_h._'___
Containin,&1l0.00 ac~es !nore or less.
'------- --
.3
.
Parcel "B"
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27,
Township 114 North, Range 20 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
Commencing at the northeast comer of the Southeast Quarter of said Section
27; thence South 00 degrees 19 minutes 57 seconds West, assumed bearing,
along the east line of said Southeast Quarter, 990.29 feet for the point of
beginning; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 18 seconds West, parallel with
the north line of said Southeast Quarter, 1320.15 feet to the west line of the
Northeast Quarter of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 21
minutes 16 seconds West, along said west line, 329.09 feet to the southwest
comer of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 89
degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds East, along the south line of said Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 1320.30 feet to the southeast comer thereof;
thence North 00 degrees 19 minutes 57 seconds East, along the east line of said
Southeast Quarter, 326.45 feet to the point of beginning.
Containi~g 9.;~ more or less.
e...--"
1
~I- b
2J
.AI
...:.....-......~.,., -. .
~,
~
~
\{
!
1402700019.~~;
,( ,._ ':~""~~,.~ ~._ ..~""',"' ,. .... ,~_~.., .....,:l:J.. :,~.!:::.:;..";~~!'i! ~1i.~
_.. ._"""l. .
4 ,..."...,......
~.~,:.';r....i.. - ,1 ",.;.;:.--;,~ :'~i~ ;~:. "';';:~.:" ",I,l;:,:", '.. ;:~:' .:4.
140270002080
p a:-c-p;f-t'~ /~t
C(7f s-r,{-f-F)
,5
~
=
11-1-5 : WAIVER OF PLATTING:
Page 1 of I
11-1-5: WAIVER OF PLATTING:
The following land divisions are exempt from the provisic::>ns of this title:
(A) A subdivider of a single parcel of land into no more than two (2) parcels may request a
waiver of the formal plat review process.
(8) The request shall be submitted on a form provided by the city and shall be accompanied by
a registered survey which shall include a key map of the quarter-quarter section where it is
located showing all other parcels.
(C) The waiver may be granted by the zoning officer (b~f the following requirements are
met:
1. The property is part of a recorded plat or both parcels created by the subdivision are
situated outside of the urban service area as identified in the Farmington comprehensive
plan. ( c '-f ~~-r
MINII'I-I"'M ~
2. The lots meet the minimum lot requirements of the zoning ordinance ~. S I '20 E: ~ :t~.s ')
(D) If, in the opinion of the zoning officer, the proeosed ~u_bdivision of Qroperty woulc! a,dvers~ly
~~9!1'l~t!J!~ 9rq~rly dey~lomn~p!!h.e prope~_ q~ ~~i~s~nJ I2r2~~1 or if it lies within
the urban service area, !-he waiver may be forwarded to the city council for its
consideration. The council shall waive the platting requirements unless it determines the
proposed subdivision would adversely affect the orderly develoemenf ohlle property or
~dj~Q.~ p!?perty. "
(E) The subdivision requested must be effected and filed with the Dakota County recorder and
proof of filing furnished to the city within sixty (60) days from the date of approval or the
waiver is null and void. (Ord. 002-470, 2-19-2002)
tp
http://66.ll3.l95.234/MN/Farmington/14001000000005000.htm
2/26/2005
10-5-5: A-I AGRICULTURE DISTRICT:
Page 1 of3
10-5-5: A-1 AGRICULTURE DISTRICT:
(A) Purpose: The aQriculture district is intended to preserve the qity's ~ricultural uses in order
JS.tPI0~~~t 2020,J9_main1Qi.n..th~ cit.Y.:~m~I_!lown ch~~~t~[.~nd.,t9 cre~te
an urban r . s h tim!3 when there is a need for aadlflo~n developmentano
E,~!i,s",Ylilitig~"J!l,AYJl~w1e.9.- .. ----------
(B) Bulk And Density Standards:
1. Minimum Standards:
~ GtarC~
Lot width 150 feet
Front yard setback 50 feet
Side yard setback 20 feet
Rear yard setback 20 feet
Height (maximum) 35 feet
All standards are minimum requirements unless noted.
2. Accessory Structure Standards:
Front yard setback 50 feet
Side yard setback 20 feet
Rear yard setback 20 feet
All standards are minimum requirements unless noted.
3. Additional Accessory Use Standards:
(a) Feedlots, fenced runs, pens and similar intensively used facilities for animal raising
and care shall not be located within three hundred feet (300') of a neighboring property.
(b) Roadside stands used exclusively for the sale of locally grown agricultural products
shall be permitted if:
(1) They are erected at least fifty feet (50') from the nearest edge of roadway surface.
(2) Parking space is provided off the road right of way.
(C) Uses:
1. Permitted:
Agriculture.
7
http://66.l13.195.234/MN/Farmington/13005000000005000.htm
2/26/2005
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmin~on.m.n.us
TO:
I[)C/'
\[,\
Pl . C ., \ f
annmg ommlSSlon
FROM:
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT:
Variance Request - Minimum Lot Size Requirement
Applicant: Doug Malszycki
DATE:
/?=~"='-'---"---"'-"--,, .
(December 14, 2004 "~"""
" /1
~---------
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Doug Malszycki, is seeking a variance from the mmlmum lot size
requirement in the Agriculture Zoning District (A-1) to subdivide an existing 10-acre
parcel to create two (2) buildable parcels consisting of approximately one (1) acre
each. The remaining eight (8) acres would contain the existing home. The minimum
lot size in the A-1 zoning district is 40 acres. According to the applicant, the purpose
of the subdivision is to allow the construction of two single family houses on each of
the new one-acre parcels.
PLANNING DIVISION REVIEW
Applicant:
Doug Malszycki
19585 Flagstaff Avenue
Farmington, MN 55024
Property Location:
19585 Flagstaff Avenue
Existing Lot Size:
10 acres
Proposed Lots after
Subdivision:
2 one-acre lots and 1 eight-acre lot
Existing Zoning: A-1 (Agriculture District)
_//~-
2020 Comprehensive Plan: Crban Rese~~___.....j
Existing Land Use: Sfngfe--Family Dwelling and Agricultural Uses
Surrounding Land Uses:
Agricultural Uses
g
DISCUSSION
Nonconforming Parcel
The minimum lot size requirement for properties within the A-1 District was amended
in May of 2002. The previous minimum lot area requirement was one (1) acre, which
was changed to 40 acres. The subject property is currently 10 acres, which is 30 acres
less than required by the current Code. If the proposed subdivision were approved,
two additional nonconforming parcels would be created.
The Planning Commission has granted four (4) variances from the minimum lot size
requirement in the A-1 zoning district since the Code was amended in 2002. Those
cases, however, were slightly different than Mr. Malszycki's proposal:
. In three of the cases, the applicants were combining lots rather than
splitting lots; in the other case, the applicant did not create a
nonconforming lot for the purpose of construction, but for an existing
farmstead.
· The variances allowed lot combinations to proceed that increased the lot
size of the nonconforming parcels, thus decreasing the nonconformity.
. The subdivisions did not create nonconforming lots for the purpose of new
residential construction.
The Board of Adjustment may vary the regulations of this Title if the following
requirements are met:
1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration,
topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved,
strict adherence to the regulations of this Title would cause undue
hardship. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue
hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this
Title.
If the Code amendment had not occurred in 2002 to increase the minimum
lot size to 40 acres, the applicant could proceed with a plat and be in
complete compliance with the Zoning Code. The amendment was adopted,
however, to prevent the creation of parcels for new construction less than
40 acres, which is what is proposed in this case. The proposed variance
would allow a subdivision that is inconsistent with the intent of the
existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. It does not appear
that a hardship exists.
2. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of
land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to
other properties within the same zoning classification.
When the City Code was amended to increase the minimum lot size in the
A-1 District, several properties became nonconforming. That is, there is
2
'1
nothing unique about the Malszycki parcel from a land use or zoning
perspective. .
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
The hardship, if determined by the Planning Commission to exist, was not
created by the applicant or any other person having an interest in the
property.
..."',.,.....- ...,..",..,.,..~,,,q,
( 4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the
. locality or be injurious to other property in the. vicinity in which the parcel
of land is located or substantially diminish property values.
\ Granting the variance to create two one-acre parcels would alter the
\ character of the area. The intent of the A-I zonin~ distri~1. and the Urban_
I B~s_er.y~~omQrehe!l.~jy~lal!aQ~!gnatiE11j~lQ.llL!J1EiJltgjJlc.,g!l_Qg[lfJ!JEl!pl_
) i#~~~'If~(H~~;'tf!c!r~;~i--
{ -dU~rtfs. "Otn-thlots bthaltt w~Uldth behsignificanftlYh smaller than allowed in the
! IS nc, ere y a ermg e c aracter 0 t e area.
\.'---.-.....-.--...-...----.---.--.....,....""..".."...---...'""..".....--..-.""".."."".................... ...-'" ......
5. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the
public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the
public welfare or public safety.
The proposed variance would not result in any of the above mentioned
adverse effects.
6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship.
It appears that a hardship does not exist.
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider the variance from the mlmmum lot size requirement in the A-1 zoning
district. Staff recommends denial of the variance for the reasons described above. If
~~t;oilWl:'"~'-".,;~.:ilI~~'~~~~'
the Planning Commission agrees with the Staff recommendation, the Commission may
direct staff to draft a "findings of fact" document that could be reviewed at the next
regular meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
//~ W
~J{tkinson
Assistant City Planner
3
10
(
(
\.
'I _
Applicant Name
.!"" S 0 1. t.{
S€~
Specific Natnre of Request I Claimed Hardship:
Sa '"'1...102.
'N'
~\ . 'h,,,,,,~.t.No..
.
lei
Following Attached: (please check) V;roof of Ownership ~Undary/Lot Survey
~ ~pplication fee ($200) _ Copies of Site Plan
~Abstract/Resident List (adjoining property owners only)
_ -Tarffns (Owner's Dublicate Certificate of Title Required)
Property Owner's Signature:!:>~ ~ ~~g
. Date U ~ 7 - 6L{
1!~~~~1~:.
\ l
Location Map
00 t:J
o
195th Street
~~
[J CJ
e:J
Subject Pro erty
(10 acre)
~
"'TI
OJ
Me dowview
mentary
CJ
=
""'0
{)
o
.)0
~
N
)~
I
Proposed Lots
I
~ K0~e5
0 :!!
OJ
10
1Il
.....
OJ
=ll
}>
<
CD
I'
i\~
\ ~1
~
90.
q(\
~~ft '(;iY
(04
\ \
~ D 0
N
I
I
I"
neighborhoo
,Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 2004
Page 4
,~.~
::;;> b)
j
I
I
I
Chair Rotty a ~ it is a very peace and nice neighborhoU. W DIking a rew
hours a week wim add some traffic and afety IS always a c4cern. Property
valuation usual comes up in these si tions. He agreed wltp. the Commission
that as long as easonable conditions ere set that meet the inf~ntions of the code,
he would sup ort it. Ms. Miller stat there are people in the ~eighborhood that
do scrapboo sales, Tupperware P s, and there are five daYfares on the way to
her house th' ve signs in their yar and that would have mGre traffic than her
business woul ,generate. I
MOTION by J~hnson, second by Barke to close the public If''ri''g. APIF,
MOTION CAlUUED. MOTION by J. hnson, second by Latson to approve the
conditional us~permit with the conditi the hours are 10 a.m\- 6 p.m., two days
a week, ten hows per week, one chair. IF, MOTION C~D. .
Variance from the Minimum Lot Size Requirement in the A-I Zoning
District
Applicant: Doug Malszycki, 19585 Flagstaff Avenue
The property consists of 10 acres on Flagstaff Avenue at the intersection of 195th
Street. In the A-I district the minimum lot size is 40 acres. The comprehensive
plan designates the area as urban reserve. This request is to allow a subdivision
of the property to add two lots just over one acre for the purpose of constructing
two single family homes. The property would stay in the family. Variances have
to comply with six criteria. One of the criteria is that there be a hardship. Staff
does not feel there is a hardship and this parcel is not unique to the area. There
are several non-conforming parcels in the area. Staff recommended denial of the
variance because it does not meet the six criteria.
Mr. Doug Malszycki, 19585 Flagstaff Avenue, stated he believed there will be a
hi~~ch?ol built to the south <?f.!!1e!!l ~~4 ci!}: sew~r and water ~~.~eJUll -,-
.Q1rC!~~_!!?-~~" Th~x.telt thi~~~~,_~El~..~et ~e J~.PE-.!!.e?,.~.!p~X~!1"!_..
able to stub into it. The lots are for his sons.
~..,...................:o<""'J.IIU~~f'l'W'."""'".i~"~'
Commissioner Barker asked if even one criteria is not met, do they have to deny
it. Staff replied yes, all of the criteria need to be met. Some are met, but the main
one is that there is not a hardship. Commissioner Johnson stated he was not for
this and he did not see the hardship. Commissioner Larson agreed and he could
not come up with a hardship. Chair Rotty stated this is a matter of timing. Four
years ago when the comprehensive plan was developed there was a strong desire
to keep this area rural. If the high school is built there, there would be a stronger
push for other things to happen. Until that is certain, the Commission could not
_allOW lot splits that would go ~s!~~e ~com~rehensiv~ pliID ~g.~~~~~ .
ordinance. A year from now, things may be different. He agreed with the rest of
~
the Commission.
MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johns9n to deny tp~-
variance request. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty directed staff to
.~.'-.~ . - - ...... - .. ~~
If
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14,2004
Page 5
~_---"""""':..:IIr;''''~'''__~_~8~;~~''''~ioJ".......'Qi;,ni''''')'''''''''_~_~'''''''''_'~''''''':~~'J(~~~#.ioZlI~'.;J;............,..,._t.'_"",,,\..~''''......tN~~I'''''..>o::l~''''''~''',.!:.lT'''';'1'''~:4..'it'_,~";~,,",,,~':.;al"'" ~~.,...
provide fin<ii?gs of fact for approval at the next meeting.
c) Variance t, the Protected Areas Ordinance in Section 11-4-8 Conc rning
Steep Slop - Charleswood Northeast
Applicant: Centex Homes
d) Charlesw od Northeast Preliminary Plat
Applic : Centex Homes
195th Str t is to the north and Pilot Knob ad is to the east ofthi . development.
Centex Ho . es is proposing 43 single-famil homes just to the east\~the existing
single famil They will be 56 ft. wide lots as as approved under a!UD. There
will be a cul- e-sac on the southern end of the p operty. The remainder of the
property will e multi-family, 108 units. There '11 be an access from .95th
Street. Therwill also be a full intersection at 97th. Street and Pilot ~ob Road.
The roads' the multi-family area will be 22 . wide. Homes beyoncythe 150 ft.
access will ve a sprinkler system. The co e does not allow devel9pment of
we~lands 0 pon~s with more than a 20% s pe. The develop~r is 1eques~g a
vanance to rOVlde a roadway. Instead of e cul-de-sac commg fff ofPdot
Knob Road, 't will now be connected inte ally. There is a larg9~tand of trees
that will rem . . The developer will ins trails that will conneq~ with existing
trails. A trail '11 be installed behind the c l-de-sac to provide a distinction
between the b k of the lot and the wetlan buffer. There are also \ome
engineering d tails that need to be resolv . A 10ft. easement is r ~ uired for a
sanitary sewe . Conditions to the varian include:
Mr. Matt ~ang, Centex Homes, th ed the Planning Commis ion for moving
i
the PUD forward. They met with the akota County Plat Co111II1\ssion trying to
make th right-in, right-out on Pilot ob work and how they ~aI\go through the
steep slo area. They offered to take ut one of the lots and place the parking lot
in an are that would not impact the stee~ slope. They will try to s'ave as many
trees as ssible. They agreed with the S~rinkling of the buildings} Mr. Anfang
stated F' e Marshal Powers returned pho e calls quickly and theMave everything
resolve Mr. Anfang stated some reside ts requested the outlot ea be seeded to
create a uffer. He stated the City will dIe seeding the outl '. Regarding the
depths fthe lots along Pilot Knob Ro , the lots would have 25 ft. setback to
the hou e, a 60 ft. building pad, so the epths of the lots alo Pilot Knob would
be 149 " 169 ft, 171 ft. and 136 ft. y will try to move t. e cul-de-sac more
towards Pilot Knob.
The plat ne to include turnarounds, bich has been resolved.
22 ft. wide r adways need to be sign no parking.
The trail in tlot H needs to be up a ainst the cul-de-sac.
Outlot H sh uld not encroach into lot 1.
The pre" plat needs to meet the pquirement in the Dece
from the Par and Recreation Director.
The plat is c ntingent on the approval 0 the construction plans
water and lities.
Commissioner Larson asked what kin' of trees will be taken ~t of the steep slope
area and how many. City Planner Smick replied there has not been a tree survey
If;?
-,
,.-/,- )
i/ February 16, 2005___/
'------ -~-~--
David Urbia
City Administrator
City Hall
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota 55024
Dear Mr. Urbia,
~
Recently the Environmental Quality Board received a Notice of Intent from the
Farmington ISD 192 stating their intent to take a parcel ofland in the City of Farmington
by eminent domain action for a high school site. This is an approximately 11 O-acre parcel
located west of Flagstaff Avenue and south of (future) 202nd Street. This parcel of land is
currently in Agricultural Preserve status.
The intent of Farmington ISD 192 to condemn this land under an eminent domain action
requires an opportunity for the Environmental Quality Board to review the environmental
effects, if any, of allowing early termination ofthe Agricultural Preserve status, pursuant
to Minn. Statutes Chapter 473H.15 requiring a Notice of Intent to be filed with the EQB
60 days prior to taking the action. The Farmington ISD 192 has sent the required notice.
The EQB is now also circulating copies of the Notice of Intent to potentially affected
units of government. Please find enclosed a copy of the materials submitted by
Farmington ISD 192 in support of their Notice of Intent. Please review these documents
and circulate them to any other department at the City that may have an interest. If you
require maps or information please let us know.
,If after having reviewed these materials you have ~oncerns, objectionsl comme,nts, or
.9ue~.J12.Wl2~~ contact me on or befor~March-12002..;....We will review all comments
received and report to the EQB Board for their consideration. The Board has 60 days in
which to act to initiate any further review activities, should the Board judge it to be
necessary. If you have no concerns or intend to support the proEosed action, please let us
-----.~-_...--~~......--..-..__..--"""'" .... --.,..---.--..----
know that as well.
If you have anyquestions please feel free to contact me at 651-296-3865.
Sincerely,
:;1d7h~
Jon Larsen, Principal Planner
Environmental Review Program
/h
EnvironmentalQualitVBoard.658 CEDARSTREETST. PAUL, MN 55 I 55.PHONE: 65 1-297-1 257.FAX: 651-296-3698.TTY: 800-627-3529.WWW.EQB.STATE.MN.US
Attorneys at Law
A Limited Liability Partnership
33 South Sixth Street
Suite 4900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone' 6) 2 . 340 . 8900
Fax.612.340.79oo
www.riderlaw.com
RB
RIDER BENNETT
Jeffrey D. Carpenter
(612) 340-8935
jcarpenter@riderlaw.com
January 19, 2005
BY MESSENGER:
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
658 Cedar Street, Room 300
St. Paul, MN 55155
Re: Independent School District No. 1 92/Christensen Property - Notice of Intent to
Environmental Quality Board as required by Minn. Stat. 473.H.15
Our File No.: 17461/000104
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed with this correspondence for filing with your office the following:
I. Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act Notice of Intent to Environmental
Quality Board (inclusive of Exhibit A) (the "Notice of Intent"); and
2. An original Exhibit Binder, containing all supporting exhibits relative to the
enclosed Notice of Intent.
Please additionally find enclosed a duplicate copy of this filing correspondence. Please
file-stamp the duplicate and return it to the attention of our messenger for redelivery to our
office.
We respectfully request that the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board accept the
enclosed filing and proceed to process it in accordance with requirements set forth in Minn. Stat.
9473.H.15. I encourage you to contact me directly should you have any questions or concerns
with respect to the foregoing, or should you desire any further information or documentation in
connection with this matter.
Very truly yours,
RIDER BENNETT, LLP
By~. ~ ____
JDC/rmm
Ene.
cc: Brad Meeks (w/enc.)
17
r-""
( )
~-3
..
METROPOLITAN AGRICULTURA.L PRESERVES ACT
NOTICE OF INTENT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
AS REQUIRED BY MINN. STAT. 473H.lS
Minn. Stat. 4738.15 subd 1 requires state agencies, loca~ units
of government, Public benefi~ corporations, and. any other entity
possessing eminent domain powers under chapter 117 "to file a
notice of intent with the Environmental Quality. Board at least
69 days prior to the' doing of either of the following:
(1) acquiring any larid or easement having a gross area
over 19 acres within agricultu~al preserves; or
( )
(2) advancing a grant, loan, interest subsidy or other
funds for the construction of residential, commercial,
or industrial facilities, or water or sewer facilities
that could be used to serve nonfarm structures within
agricultural preserves.
The notice of intent to EOB is to be filed in the manner and
form required by EQB. If EQB finds "that the proposed action
might have an unreasonable effect on an agricultural preserve or
pres~rve~"" it may delay. the action for an additiona169 days to
allow for a public hearing on the matter. If based on the'
hearing process the EOB determin~s the action. to be contrary to
.the purposes of the Metropolitan Agricultural,Preserve~ Act ~nd
that the~e are feasible and prudent aiternatives which have less
negative impacts on the preserve(s), EOB may Suspend any eminent
domain actions for up to one year.
INSTRUCTIONS
The entity propOsing to take the action should prepare the
notice using this form. The notice must be filed with EOB at
the address given in the letterhead at least 69 days prior to
the anticipated date of the action.
.. . "OSI . :~dS3
If. there are any questions please contact EQB at t6tl): 296 Z:6H-.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Ig
A. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
1. Name of project:
New Fannington High SchOOl
x acquisition of land or easement ten acres
gross or more within agricultural preserves.
grant, loan, interest subsidy or other funds
to construct residential, commercial, or industrial
facilities, or water or sewer .facilities which may serve
nonfarm structures, within agricultural preserves.
B. LOCA TI ON SEE EXHIBIT A
1.
1/4
1/4. Section
Township
City/Township
Range
County
2. Attach a copy of a USGS 7 1/2 minute quadrangle map or a
similar map showing proj~ct site boundaries.
C. . SITE CHARACTERISTICS SEE EXHmrr A'
1. Date on which site bedame an agricultural preserve:
2. Acreage of site:
Is whole site within an agricultural preserve? If not,
specify the percentage within the pre$erve.
3. Provide any of the following if known:
a. SCS capability class(es) of site:
~. 2 -
/1
~
.( )
i )
b. BCS soil classification(s) of site:
t~. Agricultural usages over last five year~:.
d. Percentages ~f site in the following~
(If only par.t of the site ts in an .agricultural
preserve respond only for that portion.)
cropland
grassland
woodland
wetland
brush
o t.n e r
type:
specify:
e. Other notable natural or human features (including
drainge systems):
D~ CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
1. Is the project consistent with the local comprehensive
. plan? Please explain.
SEE EXHIBIT A
Has the plan been or will it be amended to allow for
this project? Please explain.
SEE EXHIBIT A
2. Is the project included in the adopted five-year capital
improvements plari, if on~ exists? Please explain.
. SEe EXHIBIT A
3. Is the project consistent with'regional plans? Please
explain.
SEE EXHIBrr A
4.
Attach copies of relevant sections of the adopted local
comprehensive plan to this notice. (Note: if more
convenient, enclose a copy of the entire plan which EQB
can use on a loan basis and return upon completion of
review.)
SEE EXHIBrr A
- 3 -
'1-0
E. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Describe the project to be constructed on the site,
emphasizing aspects which may affect agricultural activities
or the agricultural nature of the preserve. Include
an~i1lary facilities, such as parking areas, utilities and
roaaways. Include site plans or diagrams as appropriate.
SEE EXHIBIT A
E. PAST OR CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
If state environmental review pursuant to EOB rules or any
federal environmental review has occurred for the project,
describe the review and its results. List all documents
prepared as part of the review and any alternatives
examined.
SEE EXHIBIT A
G. JUSTIFICATION FOR' PROJECT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
By statute this notice of intent must include Ra report
justifying the proposed action, including an evaluation of
alternatives which would not require acquisition within
agricultural preserves. (4738.15 subdivision 2).
SEE EXHIBIT A
H. EFFECT ON THE NORMAL AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE LAND
State whether th~ project will interfere with, preclude the
- use of, or in any way prevent the continued agricultural use
of the land, or the practical use of farm equipment,
irrigation systems and other facilities normally associated
with farming at thi~site. ~ill mitigative measures be
adopted to OVercome any inter-ferences?
SEE EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby ce.rtif
is true to th
Bradle
Ti tIe S11f""'ri nh:.nr'i='ltlt
information contained in this document
kn ~d?e../
~ Date January /9, 2005
Signature
.
.
- 4 -
,
-..
Y!
r~)
/ ')
EXHIBIT A
TO
NOTICE OF INTENT
New FarminQton HiQh School
A. Introduction and Project Summary.
1. Introduction. .
Independent School District No. 192, a body public and corporate under the laws
of the State of Minnesota (the "District"), hereby files this Notice of Intent with the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (the "MEQB"), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
9 473H.15, Subd. 2 for purposes of terminating the agricultural preserve designation
and all benefits and limitations accruing through Minnesota Statutes 99473H.02 to
473H.17 for a certain agricultural preserve and the restrictive covenant for that portion
of the preserve taken or to be taken, all as more fully discussed below. .
2. Proiect Summary.
Independent School District No. 192, a body public and corporate under the laws
of the State of Minnesota (the "District") is party to a Purchase Agreement, dated
October 25,2004 (the "Purchase Agreement"), by and between the District and Jay P.
and Patricia A. Christensen, husband and wife (the "Owners), whereby the District has
agreed to purchase, and the Owners have agreed to sell, approximately 110 acres of
unimproved land (the "Project Property") currently owned by the Owners and used by
the Owners for agricultural purposes. The Project Property is located adjacent to
Flagstaff Avenue inside, and adjacent to, the western perimeter of the city limits for the
City of Farmington, Minnesota (the "City"). Following acquisition of the Project Property,
the District intends to develop and use the Project Property for public school purposes.
In particular, the District has identified the Project Property as the preferred site for
development of a new Farmington High School facility (the "Project"). All of the Project
. Property is presently within an agricultural preserve pursuant to Chapter 473H of
Minne~ota Statutes (the "Agricultural Preserve"). As the continuance of the Agricultural
Preserve on the Project Property is anticipated to restrict development and use of the
Project Property by the District for its intended purposes, it will be necessary to
terminate the Agricultural Preserve prior to development. Under the terms of the
Purchase Agreement, and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 9 473H.15, Subd. 10, the
District therefore seeks to terminate the Agricultural Preserve by exercise of the
District's powers of eminent domain under Chapter 117 of Minnesota Statutes. In
connection therewith, and in accordance with Section 473H.15, the District hereby files
this Notice of Intent with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (the "MEQB").
1216566-3
RB
~1/
RIDER BENNETT
Due to near-term projected overcapacity of the District's existing high school
facility by as early as the District's 2007-08 school year, the District has "fast-tracked"
the Project with the intent of achieving substantial completion by approximately April
2008 (the "Completion Deadline"). In order to reach substantial completion by the
Completion Deadline, the District must commence Project design as early as March
2005. As Project design is dependent in part on identification and control of the Project
site, the District seeks to complete acquisition of the Project Property and termination of
the Agricultural Preserve by or before March 2005. In connection with the foregoing,
and prior to filing of this Notice of Intent, the District commenced proceedings in eminent
domain against the Project Property, the Owners and all other interested parties on
December 23,2004 (Independent School District No. 192 vs. Jay P. Chistensen. et aI.,
Court File No. 19-C2-041 0549). The purpose of such action was to immediately
commence the running of all applicable time periods under the eminent domain
proceedings in order to enable the District to effectuate a "quick-take" of the Project
Property at the earliest possible time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the
District remains cognizant of the requirements under Minnesota Statutes 9473H.15,
including without limitation the requirement that the District follow all procedures
contained therein prior to acquisition of the Project Property. Consequently, it is the
District's intent to delay the effective date of any acquisition of the Project Property by
eminent domain proceedings pending compliance with all' applicable procedures
contained in Minnesota Statutes 9 473H.15. The District's intentions in this regard were
originally discussed by the District's legal counsel, Jeffrey D. Carpenter, with Mr. Gregg
Downing at the MEQB on December 20, 2004, which discussions were further
confirmed by Mr. Carpenter by way of correspondence, dated December 20, 2004,
jointly addressed to Messrs. Jon Larsen and Gregg Downing at the MEQB.
B. Location.
The Project Property is located adjacent to Flagstaff Avenue inside, and adjacent
to. the western perimeter of the city limits for the City, as follows:
1. All of SW ~ of the NE ~ of Section 27, Township 114 North, Range 20
West, County of Dakota, City of Farmington (approximately 40 acres);
2. All of NW ~ of the SE ~ of Section 27, Township 114 North, Range 20
West, County of Dakota, City of Farmington (approximately 40 acres); and
- 3. A portion of NE ~ of the SE ~ of Section 27 , Township 114 North,
Range 20 West, County of Dakota, City of Farmington (approximately 30 acres).
The Project Property is legally described as follows:
The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, and the
Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, all in Section
27, Township 114 North, Range 20 West, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
1216566-3
2
RB
R JOE R BEN N.E T T
",3
, ALSO:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 27, Township 114 North. Range 20 West.
Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter
of said Section 27; thence South 00 degrees 19 minutes 57
seconds West, assumed bearing, along the east line of said
Southeast Quarter. 990.29 feet; thence South 89 degrees 57
minutes 18 seconds West, parallel with the north line of said
Southeast Quarter. 1320.15 feet to the' west line of the
Northeast Quarter of said Southeast Quarter; thence North
00 degrees 21 minutes 16 seconds East, along said west
.line, 990.29 feet to the northwest corner of said Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees
57 minutes 18 seconds East, along the north line of said
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 1319.77 feet to
the point of beginning.
Additional maps and/or drawings showing the project site boundaries are
attached as follows:
\ 1. Map showing the Project Property boundaries {enclosed herewith as
} Exhibit A-1);
2. Certificate of Survey for the Project Property (Parcel A thereon comprising
the Project Property, with Parcel B thereon comprising real property retained by the
Owners) (enclosed herewith as Exhibit A-2); and
3. A 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map including the entirety of the
Farmington community (enclosed herewith as Exhibit A-3).
C. Site Characteristics.
1. Date on which site became an aoricultural preserve.
The. Project Property became an agricultural preserve on or about
March 7, 1983, pursuant to the following: (A) that Metropolitan Agricultural
Preserves Restrictive Covenant, dated January 31, 1983, by Owners and .
Walter Christensen, a single person, in favor of the City of Farmington, as
recorded with the Dakota County Recorder on March 7, 1983. as
Document No. 618481; (B) that Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves
Restrictive Covenant, dated January 31, 1983, by Owners and Walter
Christensen, a single person, in favor of the City of Farmington, as
recorded with the Dakota County Recorder on March 7, 1983, as
Document No. 618484; and (C) that Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves
Restrictive Covenant, dated January 31, 1983, by Owners and Walter
1216566-3
3
RB
RIDER BENNETT
ytf
,/ -"'0
Christensen, a single person, in favor of the City of F~rmington, as
recorded with the Dakota County Recorder on March 7, 1983, as
Document No. 618485.
It is important to note that by Notice Initiating Expiration of a Metropolitan
Agricultural Preserve, dated August 21, 2003, and recorded with the
Dakota County Recorder on August 21, 2003, as Document No. 2098122
(the "Agricultural Preserve Expiration Notice"), the Owners independently
initiated expiration of the Agricultural Preserve on the Project Property, as
well as other real property owned by the Owners. This action was taken by
the Owners prior to negotiations with the District and without request by
the District, and are assumed to reflect the Owners' independent decision
to remove the their real property from the Agricultural Preserve. Pursuant
to the Agricultural Preserve Expiration Notice and Minnesota Statutes 9
473H.08, Subd. 2, and in the absence of the District's eminent domain
proceedings, the Agricultural Preserve will expire on August 21, 2011.
2. Acreaqe of site: Approximately 110 acres.
Is the whole site within an aqricultural preserve? If not, specify the
percentaqe within the preserve.
The Agricultural Preserve comprises all of the Project Property,
. together with additional real property that will be retained by the Owners
following sale of the Project Property to the District.
3. Provide any of the followinq if known:
a. SCS capability class(es) of the site: See August 4, 2004 letter from
Mark W. Osborn of McGhie & Betts, Inc., enclosed herewith as
Exhibit A-4.
b. SCS. soil classification(s) of site: See August 4, 2004 letter from
Mark W. Osborn of McGhie & Betts, Inc., enclosed herewith as
Exhibit A-4.
c. Aqricultural usaqes over last five years. To the best of the District's
knowledge, the usage of the Project Property over the last five
years has been limited to crop farming and related agricultural
uses.
1216566-3
4
RB
RIDER BENNETT
1r?
d.
Percentaqes of ~ite in the followinq:
cropland: 100% wetland: N/A ~: N/A
J
qrassland: N/A
woodland: N/A
brush: N/A
other: N/A
e. Other notable natural or human features (includinq drainaqe
systems ): There are no building structures located on the Project
Property. A pattern tile drainage system is apparently located on
the Project Property.
D. Consistency with Local and Reqional Comprehensive Plans.
1.
Is the proiect consistent with the local comprehensive plan? Please
explain.
)
The current Farmington Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2000 (the
"Farmington CP"), an excerpted copy of which is enclosed herewith as
Exhibit A-5, does not expressly address comprehensive planning for
public school development or expansion. For example, the Farmington CP
does designate certain areas in or adjacent to the City's urban centers as .
"Public/Semi Public", which areas include, among other things, the
District's existing school facilities. See Farmington CP at pp. 5-11; See
also, Farmington CP Map 3.1 (2020 Land Use Plan).. Beyond that,
however, the Farmington CP does not, in its planning through 2020,
appear to designate additional Public/Semi Public areas for future
educational facility expansion. This is understandable in' that it may be
unrealistic for the City to incorporate within its'comprehensive planning the
District's unique facilities needs.1 It is therefore assumed that such
facilities needs were, in part, outside the scope of the Farmington CPo
Consequently, the extent of consistency between the Project and the
'Farmington CP must be indirectly inferred from the content thereof.
The Farmington CP confirms that residential growth has increased
at the rate of 194 housing units per year since 1990, resulting in a near
doubling of the city's population from 1990 (5,940) to 1998 (10,641).
Projections through 2020 indicate estimated growth to continue at a
1 It is important to note that the District's attendance boundaries extend well beyond the
City, and additionally include a small portion of the City of Lakeville and Vermillion
and Hampton Townships, as well as substantial portions of Empire, Castle Rock and
Eureka Townships. Consequently, the District's facilities needs are dependent only
in part on population changes within the City, and instead are a direct response to
population growth on a larger regional basis as well.
1216566-3
5
RB
j)JJ
RIDER BENNETT
1216566-3
forecasted rate of 275 households per year, with a 2020 population
estimated at 27,090 persons. See Farmington CP at p. 4. In contrast, the
City's website currently indicates population growth in excess of those
projected in the Farmington CP, with the city's 2004 population exceeding
18,000 persons, as compared to the a projected 2005 population of only
16,310. Thus, actual and projected population growth within the City,
alone, indicates the probability of increased population pressure on
existing educational facilities, and supports the District's own projected
overcapacity problems. Consequently, and although not expressly
provided for in the Farmington CP, it can be assumed that the City has
anticipated the District's need for additional public school development
through 2020.
Consistent with the foregoing, and although the Farmington CP
does not expressly designate additional "Public/Semi Public" areas for
future public school development, it is important to note that the City has
included public schools as an allowed conditional use in the vast majority
of all presently existing developed and undeveloped real property within
the City limits (excluding only certain business, commercial and industrial
districts). See Farming Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5. Although zoned "A-1
Agricultural District", the Project Property, as now designated by the
District for its new Farmington High School site, also retains this favorable
zoning designation. Consequently, it is eligible for public school
development as an allowed conditional use. See Farmington Zoning
Ordinance S 10-5-5 (C).
According to the Farmington CP, the Project Property is located in
what has been designated as the West Rural District. See Farmington CP
at 40. See also, Farmington CP Map 3.8 (District 6 West Rural). The City
has designated this district as an agricultural/urbanreserve not intended
for development until after 2020; provided that low density (1 unit per 40
acres) residential development is permitted. Rationales for limiting
development included a desire by property owners within the district to
preserve the area for agricultural use, a desire to maintain an agricultural
buffer along the City's western perimeter, the perceived "prohibitive costs
to upgrade Flagstaff Avenue, and associated access issues for sewer and
water. See Farmington CP at pp. 40-41. While development of the Project
.!:ropert~ as a R!!l2!.ic", ~c.hool ~~!!lConsis..tent wit~ t!Ja City's
expressed intentions under tbe_farmington Ce., such development
maintains some compatibility to the City's agricultural vision. The nature of
a public school facility, which would retain substantial green space (in the
form of recreational fields) and natural landscaping and vegetation, would
be significantly more compatible with an agricultural preserve than other
development options-including already permitted low density residential
development. Moreover, the District presently includes, as part of its
normal high school coursework, an extensive agricultural curriculum. See,
~, Farmington High School 2003-2004 Registration Guide Academic
6
RB
RIDER BENNETT
~1
1216566-3
Offering List at pp. 16-1B, enclosed herewith as Exhibit A-6. Moreover, the
District's current planning for the new high school contemplates an
expanded agricultural curriculum, possibly including a green house, a
micro-farm, research and experimental learning in areas of land use,
environmental factors, crop production, etc., soil and water conservation
work, and a learning lab. See Agriculture as it relates to Farmington High
School Programs now and in the future, enclosed herewith as Exhibit A-7.
Reflective of the City's projected population growth, the Farmington
CP additionally includes staged planning for expansion of the City's
existing Metropolitan Urban Service Area ("MUSA"), with as much as
1 ,620 acres of additional MUSA projected through 2020. See Farmington
CP at p. 42. The City's MUSA Staging Plan originally did not project a
westerly expansion of MUSA beyond its 1999 MUSA boundary. See'
Farmington CP at 43. See also, Farmington CP Map 4.1 (2020 MUSA
Staging Plan). Over time, however, the City has revised its MUSA
allocation, and is currently reviewing applications for a westerly extension
along the northwest perimeter of the City limits. See MUSA Allocation Map
(Revised on 10/15/04) enclosed herewith as Exhibit A-B. Until recently, the
proposed MUSA expansion did not extend as far as the Project Property.
In this regard, however, it is important to note that, in the Farmington CP,
the City allocated up to 350 acres of additional MUSA acres to
"Unanticipated Growth". See Farmington CP at p. 42. Moreover, in the
Farmington CP the City has illustrated the proposed MUSA areas as
"undesignated MUSA reserve". By not designating a fixed staging area,
the City has retained flexibility in its geographical allocation of MUSA
within the staging area. Finally, on November 15, 2004, the City Council
for the City approved the extension of MUSA to include the Project
Property upon removal of the Project Property from the Agricultural
Preserve. Following termination of the Agricultural Preserve, therefore, the
Farmington CP should be amended accordingly. See Council Minutes,
dated November 15, 2004, Paragraph 10(d) ("The Christensen Property
[a/k1a the Project Property] will be granted MUSA upon removal from Ag
Preserve if it wi'1I be used for a school") enclosed.herewith as Exhibit A-9.
Has the plan been or will it be amended to allow for this proiect? Please
explain.
See discussion above regarding the City's conditional agreement to
amend the Farmington CP to extend I'v1USA to the Project Property
following removal of the Agricultural Preserve. Subject to the foregoing,
the Farmington CP has not yet been amended in connection with the
Project. It is anticipated that the District and the City will be continuing
discussions relative to the Project as needed, and that the District will
seek such other and further amendments, if any, as may be required to
accommodate the Project.
7
HE
y~
RIDER BENNETT
../-'
1216566-3
2.
Is the proiect included in the adopted five-year capital improvements plan.
if one exists? Please explain.
The Project is not part of any five-year capital improvements plan for the
District. Rather, it has been separately identified, along with other needed
improvements and expansions, as part of a long-term facilities study
undertaken by the District, which culminated in a final Facilities Plan
adopted by the District in October 2004.
3. Is the project consistent with reqional plans? Please explain.
a. Metropolitan Council 2030 Reqional Development Framework.
The Metropolitan Council (the "Council") adopted its
comprehensive plan, known as the 2030 Regional Development
Framework (the "Framework"), in 2004. A copy of the Framework is
enclosed herewith as Exhibit A-10. The purpose of the Framework
is to provide a plan for how the Council and its regional partners
can address the challenges posed by increased population growth,
including traffic congestion, .increased demands on urban services,
and increased demands on natural resources. Framework at 1.
In the Framework,' the Council forecasts an increase in
metro-area population growth from 2,642,056 persons in 2000 to
3,608,000 persons by 2030. Framework at 2. Consistent with the
above challenges identified by the Council, it can be inferred that
the Council may have anticipated the District's need for additional
public school development in order to respond to this population
growth. In any event, such educational expansion is both consistent
with, and an inevitable by-product of, the general population growth
identified by the Council as a principal challenge t6 be addressed in
its planning.
II, order to address the above challenges, the Council
identifies the various policies, including the following:
i. Work with local communities to accommodate Qrowth in a
flexible. connected and efficient manner (Framework at 6).
The Project is generally consistent with this policy
enunciated by the Council. In this case, the Project Property
is proximate to 202nd Street West, a major arterial feeder,
and is located adjacent to an existing road, Flagstaff
Avenue. Moreover, while direct connection to existing
developments will not occur, nearly adjacent residential
development exists to both the east and the west. For a
display of development located to the east of the Project
Property, see Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry printouts
8
Rn
. RIDER BENNETT
'Y7
l )
ii.
enclosed herewith as Exhibit A-11. For a display of
development located to the west of the Project Property, see
Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry printouts enclosed
herewith as Exhibit A-12. In both cases these exhibits
include (i) a plat map marked to show the approximate
location of the Property, and (ii) an unmarked 2002 aerial
photograph of the identical site depicting nearby residential
development. This is a preferred placement for a high school
facility as it allows residential developers a greater
opportunity to incorporate the elements of the school site
into their own developments. thereby assuring adequate
buffer areas, where appropriate. Nestling a high school
facility immediately adjacent to existing development poses
a greater risk of unplanned for complications, including
increased risks of traffic congestion, inadequate buffer
zones, the potential for upgrading inadequate utilities, ett. 2
Work with local and reqional partners to reclaim, conserve.
protect and enhance the reqion's vital. natural resources
(Framework at 14). As partial implementation of this policy,
the Counsel emphasizes a strategy of designating additional
areas for regional parks that enhance outdoor recreation
opportunities. The Project is consistent with this policy in
that, though it would not formally serve as a regional park, it
would provide numerous park-like amenities to be enjoyed
by the community-both as part of the District's educational
curriculum, as well as part of the District's community
education and recreational curriculum. Moreover, as is the
case in virtually all communities, the high school recreational
fields, gymnasiums, and other amenities will likely provide
other meaningful public benefits during summer periods,
weekends and other times when normal. school activities are
not otherwise scheduled. Significantly, the Project Property
is located both on and adjacent to a proposed 25-acre park
site previously identified by the City in connection with its
long term park planning. See Existing and Proposed Park,
Trail, and Open Space Plan Map enclosed herewith as
Exhibit A-13). It is also important to note that, while the
Project would provide a replacement high school to the
2 The nature of a high school and its older student population creates unique dynamics
that complicate its placement immediately adjacent to existing residential
communities where high school placement was not previously anticipated or planned
for. Given the long time horizon applicable to a high school and its service to the
greater community, any perceived short term disadvantages associated with location
of the Project on the outskirts of the Farmington urban center are subsumed in both
the short term and long term advantages of its placement on the Property.
1216566-3
9
RB
RIDER BENNETT
jO
1216566-3
District's existing high school, there would be a net gain in
recreational amenities. Under the District's facilities plan, the
District intends to convert the existing high school into a new
middle school-thereby retaining many of the recreational
features at that site as well.
b. Dakota County Comprehensive Plan.
As with the Farmington CP and the Framework, The current
Dakota County Comprehensive Plan (the "Dakota CP"), adopted in
1999, an excerpted copy of which is enclosed herewith as
Exhibit A-14, does not expressly address comprehensive planning
for public school development or expansion. Again, the extent of
consistency between the Project and the Dakota CP must be
indirectly inferred.
In adopting the Dakota CP, the Board of Commissioners for
Dakota County (the "County") focused on an identified need to
manage growth within the County. See Dakota CP, Executive
Summary at 2. Growth projections in the County are projected to
increase from 316,272 persons in 1995 to as many as 456,160
persons in 2020, effectively representing almost a 50% increase in
population over that period. See Dakota CP, Executive Summary
at 3. See also, Dakota CP, Dakota County 2020: Yesterday, Today
and Tomorrow at 17-19. Based on such growth projections, it can
be assumed that the County has anticipated the District's need for
additional public school development through 2020 in order to
serve the needs of an expanding population.
According to the Dakota CP, the area within which the
Project Property is located has been designated by the County for
development "beyond 2015". See Dakota CP, Dakota County land
Use Policy Plan: 1995-2015 Forecasted land Use Change.
Notwithstanding the forgoing, however, the Dakota CP provides as
follows: -
For the most part, land use decisions in the County
are made by the cities and townships through their
zoning and land use plans influenced by regional
agencies. Dakota County does not have land use
authority. Therefore, the. . . future land use section is
a compilation of local and regional plans that will
influence County policies and plans.
See Dakota CP, Dakota County 2020: land Use Policy Plan at 10.
Consequently, and notwithstanding the County's designation of the
\
.RB
10
RIDER BENNETT
3/
Project Property for development beyond 2015, such designation is
not controlling.
c. Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Plan.
The Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Protection
Plan (the "Farmland PP") was adopted in 2002, an excerpted copy
of which is enclosed herewith as Exhibit A-15. The Farmland PP,
authored by the Dakota County Office of Planning, was prepared in
collaboration with, among other entities, the Dakota County Soil
and Water Conservation District (the "Conservation District"). The
Conservation District has no separate comprehensive plan.
The purpose of the farmland and natural areas protection
project (the "Protection Project") is to address citizen concern over
the loss of farmland and natural areas and to determine how to
protect such areas using incentive based tools. Farmland PP,
Executive Summary at Hi. The Protection Project identified three
primary incentive based approaches to farmland protection:
i. Conservation easements from willing sellers;
ii.
Voluntary enrollment in the Metropolitan Agricultural
Preserve Program: and
"
')
iii. Voluntary enrollment in agency cost share programs.
Farmland PP at 16. Under the Farmland PP, these approaches
were then adopted as the strategies for implementation of the goals
of the Protection Project's goals. See Farmland PP at 21 and 26.
The Project is consistent with the Farmland PP for the
following reasons:
i. The Project Property is not subject to a conservation
easement, nor has not been targeted by the Protection
Project for protection in such manner. See Farmland PP at
21.
ii. Although the Project Property is included within the
Agricultural Preserve, the Owners previously recorded the
Agricultural Preserve Expiration Notice, indicating their intent
and desire to remove all of their real property, including the
Project Property, from the Agricultural Preserve. At most,
the Project merely accelerates implementation of the
Owners' decision by perhaps six years.
1216566-3
11
RB
RIDER BENNETT
'0V
1216566-3
iii. As to protection of "natural areas", the Farmland PP is
inapplicable to the Project Property-as the Project Property
does not include any natural areas identified under the
Farmland PP as warranting protection. See Farmland PP,
Chapter 3 at pp. 27-50.
d. Vermillion River Watershed Draft Watershed Manaqement Plan.
In 2004 the Vermillion Watershed prepared a draft
watershed management plan (the 'Watershed Plan"). A copy of the
Watershed Plan is enclosed herewith as ExhibitA-16. At present,
the' Watershed Plan has not been formally adopted by the
Vermillion River Watershed Joint' Powers Organization, and it
remains subject to local and agency review.
The Watershed Plan identifies key issues requiring attention
including, among others, the following: (i) increased river flow;
(ii) threatened surface water quality; (iii) the impacted nature of the
Vermillion River; (iv) threatened sensitive resources; (v)threatened
ground water quality; and (vi) additional development. Watershed
Plan at ES-4. The Watershed Plan proceeds to address the 'above
issues by establishing such goals as preserving water quality,
maintaining and enhancing wetlands, protecting ground water,
conserving water resources, and. managing and protecting
floodplains. Watershed Plan at ES-5; Watershed Plan at 4-3.
Although the design phase of the Project has not yet
commenced, it is reasonable to assume that the Project is, or will
be, consistent with the Watershed Plan. The nature of the proposed
high school facility will minimize impervious development on the
site and maximize normal drainage, and will additionally provide
appropriate ponding to minimize or eliminate any adverse impact
on the Vermillion River watershed. Moreover, there are no
designated wetlands on the Project Property. The District fully
intends to comply with any and all laws, ordinances, codes and
regulations that may be applicable to the Project, including the
securing of any applicable watershed approvals.
12
RB
RIDER BENNETT
~'}
)
4.
Attach copies of relevant sections of the adopted local comprehensive
plan to this notice. (Note: if more convenient. enclose a copy of the entire
plan which EQB can use on a loan basis and return upon completion of
review.
See exhibit attachments referenced above.
E. Proiect Description.
Describe the proiect to be constructed on the site. emphasizinq aspects which
may affect aqricu/tural activities or the aqricultural nature of the preserve. Include
ancillary facilities, such as parkinq areas. utilities and roadways. Include site
plans or diaqraiTls as appropriate.
The Project is currently in the pre-design phase. Consequently, much of the
information provided below is conceptual in nature, and will be subject to change in the
future as the District enters the design phase and beyond.
)
The Project will consist of a new public school facility serving the District. At
present, the Project Property serves as the preferred site for development of the
District's new Farmington High School facility. Conceptually, the high school would be
designed for an estimated total student population of approximately 2,000 students,
covering grades 9 through 12, with future expansion capability up to approximately
2,400 students. The number of teaching, administrative and other support' staff serving
the high school is currently projected in the range of approximately 170 persons (subject
to increase in the event of high school expansion). The high school building and parking
areas are expected -to be located on the easterly portion of the Project Property,
adjacent to Flagstaff Avenue. Other high school amenities are expected to include a
variety of recreational and athletic fields, tennis courts, and a football stadium. A
preliminary concept plan depicting the Project is enclosed herewith as Exhibit A-17.
Utilization of much of the site for public school purposes will understandably alter
the agricultural character of that portion of the Agricultural Preserve that is located on
the Project Property. Though only a relatively small'proportion of the Project Property
will be improved with building structures, driveways and parking areas, much of the
balance of the Project Property, consisting of recreational fields and the like, will not be
suitable for future agricultural use. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the
agricultural nature of the preserve will be retained to some extent in connection with the
following:
1. First, as noted above, the District's projected coursework for the new high
school is anticipated to include an expansion of its existing agricultural curriculum. This
new curriculum may include, for example, a green house, a micro-farm, research and
experimental learning in areas of land use, environmental factors, crop production, etc.,
soil and water conservation work, and a learning lab. See Agriculture as it relates to
Farmington High, School Programs now and in the future, attached hereto as
1216566-3
13
RB
~4
RIDER BENNETT
1/---\
Exhibit A-7. A proposed locatton for certain of these agricultural features is depicted on
the preliminary concept plan. See Exhibit A-17.
2. Second, following acquisition of the Project Property by the District, it may
be possible for the Project Property to remain in agricultural production for the 2005
growing season. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the Owners have been
granted a right of first refusal to farm the Project Property, subject to the conditions set
forth therein. Should this occur, any loss of the agricultural character of the Project
Property would be delayed to only the last five-six years (depending on whether
agricultural production would occur in the last fractional year of the Agricultural
Preserve) in which the Agricultural Preserve would otherwise have remained in effect
under the terms of the Agricultural Preserve Expiration Notice currently of record
against the Project Property.
3. Finally, that portion of the remainder of the Agricultural Preserve that is
retained by the Owners and not conveyed by the Owners to the District will presumably
continue to retain its agricultural character.
Access points or routing for utilities service has not yet been definitively
determined due to the preliminary nature of the Project. However, it is presently
anticipated that access points will be from Flagstaff Avenue. Connecting points to
existing utilities and routing of such utilities to the Property is subject to further analysis
by both the City and the District.
F. Past or Current Environmental Review.
If state environmental review pursuant to EOB rules or any federal environmental
review has occurred for the proiect. describe the review and its results. List all
documents prepared as part of the review and any alternatives examined.
No state environmental review pursuant to EOB rul.es, or federal environmental
review has occurred for the Project.
G. Justification for Proiect and Evaluation of Alternatives.
Bv statute this notice of intent must include "a report iustifvinQ the proposed
action. includinq an evaluation of alternatives which would not require acquisition
within aqricultural preserves" (473H.15 subdivision 2).
The District recognized the growing need for educational facilities expansion as
early as March 2000. In November 2002, the taxpayers approved a referendum
designated to fund land acquisition, after which the District embarked on a diligent, but
unfruitful, land search. Committed to acquiring property on a cooperative basis with
willing landowners, the District eventually considered approximately thirty (30) sites both
in and outside the Farmington city limits. Many of these sites were deemed unsuitable
due to wet or inadequate soil conditions, site configurations prohibitive of a viable site
design, the existence of natural or man-made features that prohibited realistic
development, the unavailability of needed urban services, acquisition costs that
1216566-3
14
RB
?5
RIDER BENNETT
/--)
exceeded reasonable estimates of fair market value (based upon appraisals
commissioned by the District), or property owners who were simply unwilling to sell.
By 2004, the District was able to identify only two sites that met its development
criteria, which were reasonably priced, and where the owners were willing sellers.
These sites included the Project Property and a second site located south of the City in
the adjoining Castle Rock Township (the "Castle Rock Property"). While the Castle
Rock Property was larger in size, the actual buildable acreage was less, effectively
rendering it less desirable for high school development and more attractive for possible
future elementary school development. To compound matters, the Castle Rock
Property, was not adjacent to the City of Farmington, making annexation of the site
complicated. Moreover public sentiment, as expressed at various school board
meetings reflected opposition to location of the proposed high school on the Castle
Rock Property, and generalized support for its location on the Project Property.
Although acquisition of the Project Property will include the exercise by the
District of its powers of eminent domain, such is in this case consistent with the District's
desire to acquire property on only a cooperative basis. The District and the Owners
entered into the Purchase Agreement on a voluntary basis, with the understanding that
the District's eminent domain powers would be exercised as a result of the existence of
the Agricultural Preserve and the need for the District to so exercise such powers in
order to effectively achieve an accelerated termination of the Agricultural Preserve
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 9 473H.15.
) Based on the District's current enrollment projections, the District's existing high
school will exceed student capacity by as early as the 2007-08 school year. By the
2008-09 school year, the projected completion date for the Project, and assuming the
Project is not completed, the District would exceed student capacity at the existing high
school by 3%. Moreover, projected over capacity would increase further to 38% by the
2013-14 school year. To compound matters, the District's capacity problems will be
straining all of its facilities throughout this period, with projected over capacity at all
existing facilities for grades 1-12 ranging, depending on the site, from 22% to 43%. For
these reasons, in addition to the Project, the District will be simultaneously embarking
on building expansion and renovation projects throughout ma'1Y of its facilities (including
additional site acquisition and construction for an additional elementary school) in an
effort to provide adequate student space in response to the growing demands arising
from continued population growth in the Farmington and greater community. In light of
the above, the District has real and urgent space needs that will shortly overwhelm its
capacity absent immediate action. The District has a legal obligation to provide
educational services to all residents within its attendance boundaries-irrespective of
ongoing population growth. Consequently, the District is legally compelled to respond to
suc,h changing circumstances by providing adequate educational facilities to service an
ever-increasing student base.
Finally, it is important to note the fact that in this instance the Agricultural
Preserve will independently expire on August 21, 2011 due to the 2003 recording by the
Owners of their Agricultural Preserve Expiration Notice. This notice was filed by the
1216566-3
15
Rn
.*
RIDE R BENNETT
Owners in advance of any negotiations with the District and wholly independent of the
acquisition contemplated under the terms of the Purchase Agreement. Consequently, in
the absence of the present action by the District, the Project Property will shortly lose its
Agricultural Preserve status in any. event. Moreover, by continued leaseback of the
Property to the Owners during 2005, it may be possible to extend the agricultural use of
the Property for an additional year-effectively resulting only in a 5%-year acceleration
of the Owner's prior decision to terminate the Agricultural Preserve.
For the above reasons, the District asserts that acquisition and development of
the Project Property, including termination of the Agricultural Preserve is both necessary
and justified.
H. Effect on the Normal AQricultural Use of the Land.
State whether the proiect will interfere with. preclude the use of. or in any way
prevent the continued aQ-ricultural use of the land. or the practical 'use of farm
equipment. irriqation systems and other facilities normally. associated with
farmina at this .site. Will mitiQative measures be adopted to overcome
interference.
See discussion in Paragraph E above. Given the nature of the Project and the
need to convert the vast majority of the Project Property from agricultural use into public
school facilities and related amenities, continued agricultural use of the Project Property
after 2005 would generally not be possible-except to the extent undertaken as part of
the District's planned agricultural curriculum. While mitigation measures in the form of
decorative landscaping, the establishment of ponding for drainage purposes, and
implementation of elements of the District's planned agricultural curriculum may be
undertaken-which would have the impact of reducing "interference", the scope and
nature of the Project is such that "overcoming" such interference would not be
reasonably possible.
1216566-3
16
RB
RIDER BENNETT
?7
\'
Ag Preserve - Notice of Intent from Farmington ISD 192, dated and received January
19,2005 for this property located at Flagstaff Avenue and - 202nd Street.
North is toward the top of this page. Flagstaff Avenue is on the right edge of the subject
property (i.e. N-S) and would be the eastern edge of the subject property. The property is
within the city limits at the city's western edge. Note the already established residential
development to the west (left side of this page).
--
.~ " ~ '"' T -;. ~~j ~ ?1~":~"'~::".;..:~+J .,..:~,
3
~',~,:,. ,',1.
~~. - .
.~,E-,~
;S~~
..
I. -
.
.. ..
.
-
..
III
--.
._-.
iii ...", I
'.
. ....., . IIi
. .~...
: II! III
.lIR..
,.--
I · '.. iii, II
-. .
--
=; II, IliI "", .,.,'"
II' ','. t'.~ J:':';'3
;l;;,,,,,,,,,':'~';!1:J
:f
~
~_t
..
;~
I%~,~,~,;,i ,1
:::;1I!i, .,.
~ '""II;'l'!:I .....
;>"','"'1 --
-'
~~1 ...
~,
10';',
'~,
B"
.'.
III
I:{w-
II ..
!!. :
.1]. _II- ... '
_ iii __.- .'
II. ',' . - ·
,....... . _-a. ..
, ,,' -'
.... -.' .'
..." -
...... II I
. --
." ..
II
.
.
1
'"'
:,.
1
_ ~~';.'i( J;' t', ~,.l'. :'
!
I
IIl!I
IIIIIl!!II
~
~
I!IiII
-.
_.111
.
.. mlI
,.' III
-.-
.. II
,.:,~.".j.
Ill!!~~~~~
"""'~~ III
.' ".,.,- .-
II ... .,- .... ·
I, ,-,... .. ,,-
":,1,- '. - .- -.
.', '-",' , II.......
B, ....' --..
..".- --
.' ... -
1'1' .__ ..IL
--
'.'
~'M__' . ... ~' .
I
II';
1
r
J
. ;:;
:~. ":j':f
for, :~...
-
.-
I . l!IIil
. II
_Ill
II
..
-.
,,",,::
'~' <:~lJi~~t;f~~:;~
I ""t,; ,I, " .'.."
I' ,"~~;2.," _ ..';'" _,...,....'~..
1 . - . ,- ';':'1'". -,' ,,".' "-III,
" ~ ' ~'l.,;~ ~.!~~. rt!~ -~~.~ .... .. --,
., .. ' ~", - . .. .. ".
.. .'. .. ....... --.' .
.-
".'Ir,...:..' ".'~.,..",.
.', " ..' I!I ..'" _. ._.. II,
- -' I 11....- ..
.' -.... .!!!-..- .'-:= :
_.... . - III
"".""..:Ill'.":'"","~~ct'll . IIilll!'l'; -
H
..
.....
._ . III
.- -
IJ
iiiilill'
-.
~III
Jl
..
II!
I11III
..
~'. -,,~,.. .l:'t;t>.t~l\'
Christensen property in Farmington (110 acres) to be taken by eminent domain action by
Farmington ISD 912. This image shows new Farmington High School Concept Plan
overlayed on an actual photo of the property as it is now.
38
~,
Q
i}
....
'0
"
'"
....
~
~
..J
.......
u
.~
~!
'i)
o
o
......
\J
:}
~
~
'\
,
~
~~~.
,k
"
~
l'"
~
~
~
"-
t'
V)
'-
~
;>4'
~
~:a
~"rI.l
~=
.,. ~
Z~
O,~
~..~
~<a
R
~
~\
',"-"'~'::-'.....
'-=
.rI.l
.;~
00 Q
;:J~
~.~
~..u
'Q
.~
'~
. . ';I
.rI.l
. =
,'. u
oS
s:: .~
.~ ~
.... 0
~ ?o
8:'.;:j i
o s::
..... 0
tIS t)
~.geg
.....0,.0
tag.o
(.) $-4.1"""'1
~ p.u
'~i
.... .....
00 tIS
0.9-
z.~
ta
>;'-<
00
::l
e <I) g
..9 3 .~
d t) .....
'" u::l s::
o q...; 0
c.t:l 0 t)
s::"'do"g
o ~ s:: ::l
'.;:j t) ~ 0
'en ~ 1:: ,.0
("f') 0 0 0
8:"S! g.....
O~I-<U
..... 0.. ,.c:
ta ~ ~.~
U 0 0 ~
!.I::"'d"d
........ 0..
5b ~ '5
.... I-<..;:j
en ta
\':-..,
~
~
~
~
~
....
S
.n 0
~~
0..'0
.... ;>
.~ -.=
"S~"'d
p.~o
~ gs < ~
o en s::
g p ta
~~
<l)
en 0.0
P.s
::E~
]
....
.....
<
r/.l
~
~
t)
.S gs
o
("f')]g
"d ~
0..
....
t)
.~
0..
.....
o
s::
<I)
tIS
P=1
o
.....
tIS
. n.....
..... :>.
ta.....
p.~
'5 '.;:j
.... tIS
"S'O
0..1-<
oo<e:
N 00 en
~~
0.......
<~
~.s
::E~
]
....
.....
~
~
~
S 50
~8~
~ P-o]
o 0....
b~-;;;
tIS 0 00
o~~
ta ~ S
~ ~ 00....
0...... .~
0...... 00
~ s:: 0
0.... P-o
I/").....P-o
. 0 0
~s::~
0,......,0'
~o~
<&
~
~
6h
8
0..
~
00
o
~
00.0
<e:
.S
.....
8
i'
g.
~
o
~;e
o 00
00 00
o 0
I-< P-o
p.. ~
0.00
<'.;:j
~'en
.... 0
("f') e g:
o 0
g.~
1-<0'
p.~
~ .n
~ ~
~5O
o 0
-' I-<
P-o
~
~
~
=..c
\:)
~
.....
6
t)
tIS
d .=
.;:;1 "'d
"'d tIS
~.~
00 ;j ~
~,.o'E
"'d no
tlSta,.o
~.....-
op..
~ 0....
;>U
e'en 0
o~.....
g.]
I-< 0
p.. I-<
S-
O
U
N
e~
&~ ~
80~
p.up..
.~ 2 0
oS "'d .:::
~.....oo
("f') 0 ::l 6
.....O,.c:
~ ~ 0
sol-<
0.. C'l e
000
_C'lu
~.s
o I-<
t:l .g
0..
~
~
~
~
~~
8~
"'d i::n ~
~.~ .9
I-< u 00
0.0 u::l ~
~ q...; 0
.... ::l t<
1;; 00 0
.;< 2 0
~ ~~"
o d tIS,.:::;
~",g,.o
~ 0 s iE .~
gs I/") 0 0
B ~~
t) ~ 00
tIS,.c: B
:>'oot)
tIS.... tIS
~P=10
.~ ~ B
t:l~..E
'-"
"t:l e
~ ~
tIS....
;.~
o tIS
;"d
;> n
tIS 2
,.c: 'en
N"'do
'3.....
0('<)
~~
~]
!:l 00
r/.l ....
-S P=1
V"l e
N 0
Nc.t:l
o
.....
"'d
o
~ "'d '€
p.tao
o ~
,.000
01/") U
..... ~
o P=1 .g
~ <.~
,..s::::en"'d
("f') Uo
::goe
........ 0
0000
~.~ :>.
\+-<00.....
~er9
..... 0 00
~c.t:l ~
tIS P-o
~
~
~
(:)
~
tI}
~
l:<
NN("f')("f')
NN("f')N
("f')NN~
-
a ~ ~
~ ~ .~ ~
a~~~ ~
~ ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..
~ ~o~~~
~1~~~8~
~ !.i 0 ~ ~ Q
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
If)
~
0"\
~
..
rI.l
~
=
rI.l
rI.l
....
c,..
Q
C
....
~
~
-
S"
Q
u
-
c~
--
=~
u
.... u
-:=
~c.
ogc.
'"Q<
........
5~
e ...
rI.l c:>
rI.l ~
~ c:l
rI.l c:>
~z
~ II
-;;=
C>~
l::i c:>
.= ~
i II
::::,-4
~ a
~=
.... ....
c:log
~ ~
!~
arll
...N
C.:f
~ t)J)
.c ....
a=
= II
z~
0"\
~
3~
~~ - =--"
City Council Workshop
July 26, 2004
age 4
6. COUNCIL/SCHOOL WORKSHOP
This will be held August 2, 2004 at 7:00 a.m. at the Middle School East. Community
Development Director Carroll distributed a map showing the school district boundaries
and the three proposed sites for a new High School. They include the Christensen
property, Angus property, and Peterson-Empey properties. The Christensen property is
scheduled to come out of ag preserve in 2012. The Empey property is scheduled to come
out of ag preserve in 2013. The Peterson property is currently under review for MUSA
allocation. Staff then distributed a chart showing a ranking of issues with each property
regarding annexation, MUSA, ag preserve, comprehensive plan, roads, utilities, and soil
conditions, wetland, floodplain. This ranking showed the Peterson-Empey property
would have a fewer number of complex issues.
The issue of properties being in ag preserve was discussed. There are two ways to get out
of ag preserve. One way is to have a property owner petition the Governor to get an
executive order to get the property out. No one has used this method for a school district.
The other option is using eminent domain, condemning the entire site. The school would
have to do this with the ChristenSen property. Staff questions whether they can do this as
the school has already entered into an Option Agreement. They would also have to give
a notice to the EQB. If the EQB feels it would have a negative effect on other properties,
the EQB can put it on hold for a year and require a public hearing.
Some have said this is a school district issue and they should pick the site they want.
Others have said because of the ~pact this will have on City development plans, it
would be appropriate for Council to take a position. At the meeting, the school board
will go over the task force issues, site locations, working together on recreational
facilities, etc. City Administrator Urbia will provide Council with a spreadsheet showing
infrastructure costs. Councilmember Soderberg would like to know more about
removing properties from ag preserve. Especially the history of removing the Donnelly
property from ag preserve.
8. ADJOURN
MOTION by Fogarty, second by Fitch to adjourn at 9:52 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
~P7~
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
10
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: City Administrator David Urbia
Mayor-Elect Kevan Soderberg
City Councilmember Christy Fogarty
FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Issues Related to Two Potential High School Sites (Angus and Christensen)
DATE: December 2,2004
INTRODUCTION
City Administrator David Urbia has requested that background information be provided for the City
Council regarding certain issues related to the two sites that ISD 192 has identified as potential
locations for a new high school. This information is needed in connection with an upcoming meeting
on December 3,2004 involving two City Council members, two ISD 192 Board members, ISD 192
Superintendent Meeks and City Administrator Urbia.
DISCUSSION
As I understand it, it is anticipated that the issues to be discussed at the upcoming meeting may
include (but will probably not be limited to) the following:
1. City of Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan
2. Transportation
3. Commercial Development
Each of these issues will be discussed below in connection with the Angus and Christensen sites. No
other potential high school sites will be addressed in this Memo, although City staff members are
prepared to do so upon request.
I. Comprehensive Plan
A. Angus Site
The Angus property is located in Castle Rock Township. The City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan does
not specifically address properties that are not within the City limits and/or that are not the subject of
an Orderly Annexation Agreement. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan therefore does not include a land
use designation for the Angus site. If the owner of the property petitioned for annexation, and if the
4/
requested annexation was approved, the 2020 Comprehensive Plan would eventually have to be
amended to designate a ~pecific land use category for the annexed property. At that time, the existing
and anticipated uses of adjoining properties would be taken into consideration.
The property to the northwest of the Angus site (the former Empey property) was recently annexed,
arid the City has received a concept plan for a residential development on that site. The land to the
immediate north of the Angus site (the existing golf course) has recently been discussed as a potential
site for a new residential development. The land to the northeast of the Angus site is an existing
residential development.
In light of the evolving development pattern referred to above, it seems more likely than not that the
2020 Comprehensive Plan would be amended to give a residential land use designation (low, low-
medium, medium or high density) to the Angus property in the event of an annexation of that
property. A high school would be an acceptable use within an area that was designated for residential
development, and the infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, etc.) necessary to support a high school
would presumably be present as a result of the nearby residential construction activity. Giving the
Angus property a "Public/Semi-Public" comprehensive plan designation would also be an option. In
short, siting a high school on the Angus property would not be inconsistent with the 2020
Comprehensive Plan (because the Plan does not "cover" that property), and the Plan could be easily
amended to designate a "high school compatible" land use for the Angus property that does not
conflict with other portions of the Plan. It seems likely that the Metropolitan Council would approve
such an amendment.
B. Christensen Site
The Christensen property is located within the Farmington city limits, so the 2020 Comprehensive
Plan specifically addresses it. The land use designation for the Christensen property is "urban
reserve." The Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Handbook defines "urban reserve" as a rural
area "..with overall density of I unit per 40 acres (1/40) for any new development or 'cluster'
development that does not preclude future development at urban densities between 2020 and 2040.
Local staged plans for the years 2000 to 2020 should protect these areas for later urbanization."
Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan elaborates upon the urban reserve designation in several
locations, including the following:
Page 10:
Maintain Working Farms
2,395 acres within the existing city limits are currently devoted to agriculture. Farmington wants to preserve and
maintain its working farms along the western and southwestern sections of the City. This policy will reinforce
Farmington's small town character and these agricultural areas will act as a natural boundary between Lakeville and
Farmington. The City will designate 2,072 acres, of these agricultural areas as urban reserve areas, which will protect
farms until at least 2020 and allows for very limited residential development of one unit per 40 acres.
*********************************************************************************
Page 12 rirrelevant portions omittedl:
Jf2---
1. It is the policy of the l;jty of Farmington to providefor quality controlled growth in stages.
Strategies
* Concentrate and maintain the existing agricultural uses in the southwestern and western sections of the City.
* Preserve the City's existing agricultural uses and character as a natural edge between Farmington and Lakeville
and as a distinctive feature of Farmington's small town character.
*********************************************************************************
Pages 12-15 firrelevant portions omittedl:
2. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to plan new neighborhoods and to
enhance existing viable neighborhoods to maintain a small town character.
Specific Neighborhood District Planning objectives:
F. District 6-West Rural District
1) Maintain and preserve the existing agricultural uses along the
western edge of the City, which also creates a natural open space buffer between the City of Lakeville and
Farmington.
1) Promote residential clustering of homes that is consistent with minimum lot requirements in agricultural
districts.
*********************************************************************************
Pages 23-24 firrelevant portions omittedl:
14. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to maintain its working farms.
Strategies
* Designate the western areas of the City currently in agriculture use as urban reserve areas which will protect the
community's working farms and allow them to continue until at least 2020
* Do not provide additional infrastructure in these urban reserve areas; maintain the development needs as they
currently exist in agricultural uses.
15. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to maintain the existing agricultural preserve as an urban reserve of
1,275 acres and to expand this area in order to consolidate the agricultural preserve areas into more strategic areas
and allow for new residential development in specified areas of the City. 797 acres of existing agricultural areas will
be added to the urban reserve area for a total of 2,072 acres. These acres will be located along the western section of
the City with a concentration in the southwestern quadrant of the City.
Strategies
* Unify and concentrate all agricultural uses, both agriculture preserve and other agricultural areas, into one large
area sweeping through the western and southern western sections of the City and designate these areas as urban
reserve areas.
* Redevelop 102 acres of existing agricultural uses in the north western and central sections of the City for low-
density residential development.
16. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to provide developable areas with major
infrastructure improvements. The urban reserve areas should not receive these
improvements.
tf-;
Strategies
* Do not allow additional infrastructure improvements into the urban reserve areas.
*********************************************************************************
Page 33:
STAGED DEVELOPMENT
33. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to stage its growth based on availability of infrastructure.
Strategies
* This relates to the idea of keeping the City in balance with nature while providing a variety of housing
opportunities and high quality infrastructure. This will result in development planning that considers the
desirability of extending services to an area before the area can develop. This policy results in cost-effective
extension and repair of City infrastructure in a staged manner.
*********************************************************************************
Pages 40-41 :
District 6 - West Rural
This district contains most of the agricultural lands within the community as illustrated on Map 3.8. The district relates to
the vision to maintain and enhance the existing rural character of the City and provide a buffer of open space between the
developed City of Farmington and the City of Lakeville.
The district will be maintained as working farms and is designated as agricultural/urban reserve. The urban reserve areas
will not be developed until after the 2020 time frame, however, the owners of property in this area wanted to have the
opportunity to develop their property in densities of I unit per 10 acres if City infrastructure was available to the property.
On page 51 of the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint, it states the following:
"provisions for residential densities greater than one unit per 40 acres is acceptable if the development
will be clustered. Such clusters will be considered temporary until full urbanization occurs around
them. Local plans and ordinances will need to require that the temporary clusters be connected to
central sewer and other city services when they become available and that the temporary clusters be
designed and laid out in accordance with local subdivision regulations, including dedication of future
utility and infrastructure easements."
However, densities such as this will be limited in this urban reserve area.
The vision statements for the City determined that this district would remain in agriculture and was unsuitable for growth
at this time because of the following reasons:
I. The owners of property in this part of the City have indicated a desire to keep it as an agricultural use.
2. Fl;igstaff Avenue would require an extensive and costly upgrade to the City's transportation system considering the
condition of the existing roadway and the need to upgrade the entire road (to CR 50) to a collector status as proposed
in the Thoroughfare Plan.
3. A 15" sewer line is proposed for this area, however, the nearest connection for the trunk sanitary sewer facility would
be at 195th Street at the northern edge of the Charleswood development.
1-/-0/-
~
4. The Water Distribution Plan proposes a 20" water line along with an underground water storage tank in this area. A
16" water line has been constructed at the western edge of Pine Ridge Forest and provides a readily accessible
connection for water services in this area.
5. The Surface Water Management Plan indicates ponding in the southeastern portion of the area. These areas are
required to meet the Surface Water Management Plan.
6. The Wetland Map illustrates a wetland area on the east side of Flagstaff Avenue. The map also shows a greenway
along the eastern portion of the area. A wetland boundary survey is required at the time of development.
7. The vision of providing an agricultural buffer on the western side of the City to the year 2020 would be fulfilled if the
753 acres of residential development is proposed elsewhere in the City.
The strongest argument for maintaining this district as agricultural is illustrated by the property owners living in the
district. Some of the landowners hold large acres of land and expressed their desire to continue farming in this area. An
additional argument consists of the lack of adequate transportation routes and available sanitary sewer in this area. The
fmal argument consists of the City's vision to maintain and preserve working farms within the City while providing a
natural buffer to the west.
*********************************************************************************
The placement of a multi-million-dollar high school campus on the Christensen property, the
construction ofthe infrastructure needed to support it, and the resulting development pressure that
would inevitably and prematurely arise in its vicinity would be inconsistent with and contrary to most
or all of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan provisions summarized above. At this point, it is impossible
to predict whether Metropolitan Council staff members would be concerned about the magnitude and
potential impact of this type of departure from a Plan that was previously reviewed and approved by
the Met Council. It is similarly difficult to predict whether the owners of other agricultural properties
located within the urban reserve area will be concerned about their farming operations being
adversely affected by what some might consider to be the premature conversion of the Christensen
property to a non-agricultural use.
II. Transportation
A. Angus Site
Inasmuch as the Angus site is not referred to in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan (due to its current
location within Castle Rock Township), the "Transportation Element" of the Plan does not provide
much useful guidance with regard to the potential transportation impact of a high school on that site.
However, the use of the Angus property as a high school site is not inconsistent with any of the
transportation routes that are identified on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan (Map 9.1, which immediately
follows page 110 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan), nor is it inconsistent with any of the existing or
planned transportation corridors that were identified in connection with Dakota County's East-West
Corridor Preservation Study (see attached "Preferred System Plan" dated April 2003).
B. Christensen Site
The City has been provided with a conceptual layout for the construction of a high school on the
Christensen property. It appears that this layout would be incompatible with the future 208th Street
alignment shown on the City's 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. This alignment goes through the southern
Lfl?
..
half of two of the three 40-acre sections that ISD 192 apparently intends to purchase from the
Christensens.
Several years after the adoption and approval of the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan referred to above, the
future 20Sth Street alignment was revisited by Farmington, Lakeville, Dakota County and others as
part ofthe Dakota County East-West Corridor Preservation Study. By that time, the original plan to
connect 208th Street to Cedar Avenue just north of the existing Ardmore Village mobile home park in
Lakeville was "blocked" by the platting of the South Creek (a/k/a Spyglass) residential development,
which is now under construction to the immediate north of Ardmore Village. The revised 208th
Street alignment that resulted from the Dakota County East- West Corridor Preservation Study shifts
208th Street to the north to create a 4-way intersection at Cedar Avenue and 202nd Street. In several
ways, this new alignment is superior to the route shown on the City's 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. Its
main advantage is the fact that it lead directly into and through a portion of downtown Lakeville on
its way to Interstate 35.
The conceptual high school layout referred to above appears to be incompatible with the 208th Street
alignment that resulted from the Dakota County East- West Corridor Preservation Study. The City of
Farmington approved the Dakota County East-West Corridor Preservation Study in a Resolution that
was adopted by the City Council on April 7, 2003. The 208th Street alignment appears to bisect one
of the three 40-acre sections that ISD 192 intends to buy.
Whether or not viable alternatives to the approved 208th Street alignment exist is presently
undetermined. Shifting the 208th Street alignment to the north of the Christensen parcels would seem
to necessitate crossing a wetland area located on the east side of Flagstaff Avenue (see attached map).
Connecting 208th Street to 200th Street at Cedar Avenue would put west-bound drivers on a route that
does not lead directly into downtown Lakeville. A short distance west of Cedar Avenue, 200th Street
takes a 90 degree turn to the left and heads south to 202nd Street, at which point drivers would have to
make a 90 degree turn to the right to get to downtown Lakeville. In addition, the further that 208th
Street is moved to the north, the less value it will have as an east-west route that is (or should be)
approximately mid-way between the two nearest major east-west corridors (the existing Highway 50
and the future 195th Street corridor).
III. Commercial Development
A. Angus Site
City staff members have recently heard comments from Farmington business owners (and others)
regarding a belief that placing a new high school on the south~ east or southeast side of downtown
Farmington would help existing businesses and enhance economic development opportunities by
ensuring a constant flow of high-school-related traffic (students who drive, parents, teachers,
participants in sporting and artistic events, etc.) into and/or through the downtown and the planned
Spruce Street commercial area.
t-f~
"
B. Christensen Site
City staff members have also recently heard comments from Farmington business owners (and
others) to the effect that placing a new high school on the Christensen property would reduce the flow
of traffic into and through the downtown business district and the Spruce Street area. There appears
to be a concern that a high school located directly on the Lakeville border will result in high-school
related traffic (i.e., customers) being more inclined to frequent Lakeville and Apple Valley businesses
rather than Farmington businesses.
*********************************************************************************
City staff members are available to provide the City Council with further research and/or analysis
regarding any other aspect(s) oflSD 192's high school site selection process.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kevin Carroll
Community Development Director
if7
.
~020 Comprehensive Plan
<" ~
I
u
,?
/.j City Boundary
c==J Urban Reserve
_ Commercial
_ Industrial
c==J Business Park
D Low Density
D Low Medium
D Medium Density
c==J High Density
I~I Public/Semi-public
_ Park/OS
_ Env Sen Under
_ Restricted Development
DRaW
N
W*E
s
Revised on February 19,2004
MUSA Allocation
Revised on 11/15/04
-
tif<il'1 Existing MUSA
I:::J MUSA Approved in 2004
I:::J MUSA Approved Contingent upon Annexation
I:::J MUSA Allocated in 2006
I!!I MUSA Allocated in 2009
.. MUSA Allocated in 2012
.... MUSA Allocated upon Removal from Ag Preserve
..... School Use Only
I:::J MUSA Allocated upon Plat Approval
.. Not Recommended for MUSA at this time.
I:::J MUSA Approved (Orderly Annexation Area)
E::IA9 Preserve until 2012 - MUSA not Rec. at this time
E::IA9 Preserve until 2013 - MUSA not Rec. at his time
I:::J Ag Preserve - No current expiration date ~
_ _. Future 195th Street Extension WT E
Detailed View of#14
Tollefson
7
Empey
10
Garvey
0.5
,
Future 208th Street Extension
o
s
0.5 Miles
,
--.
2020 Thoroughfare Plan
City of Farmington
./ "'.. I i :JJ L
I I I
I I l ~
,_ _ L I I ~ t
-
, I
, ~-----
I \'
I I
~ I ~ ~
I ,
I l
I \ ""'\ .
I I ~ t
I "1!1o __ ...
n I - --
"'"1- ... I ~
, ..
I / \
J , , ~
- . .
t~ I / ,\ --
G I I
I
~ f'1---J ~ l
, I' ~
~ - Ul
- ~\
l :M ,
nA I rl
~------ - ~
"- .~
.... . - .
.....
rJl'" ....,... . - ~\
--
~ \ ~ (/1
J ~ IW~
-- /
- ~-~
'~ --t-'---U , ~ J:J
-- - --- 11
rf h ..--... ::::L,
.-'i ~ ~ \ -.J
b.. I u-r f n
r-~
~ I-' --' U
) vr
J
I--- f c
~
I:i ~ L
6 I m~LbJ,
~ ! n
Ir,-,
II
Legend t J ~ I L
: :? <:: l
~Existing ~ inor Art~rial N : V
1111 r-
~Future M mor Arterial
/!\I. Ex isting Collector
Z,' Future Co lIecto r
"/:\I Existing Minor Collector
I './ Future Minor Collector
,,'Future Roadway
('V~ City B ou nda ty
City P arc el Map
Seal e
0.5
.
o 0.5
'1 Miles
~E:THI5 IMP 15 ~ PIA~ ItI~Q
Pu~P06BEi OItL"t AIt DSMOuLO If:JT
BE u5EDIO~E:>;tD" ~El.su01;~E~r:;
U1r.I"_~"""''''.c-''''''''..H.
.
o.
~~
~~ 0
fi
~~
M
>-
-0
:::l
-
(j)
l-
s::: 0
ctl -0
"C
0- ('I') l-
e 0
E e U
N Ul
.....Q)
- ...J Q)
Q) I/) ii: S
... >a
::Jcn c.. -
III
.~'O <( co
L1. Q) - W
... 0 >-
... III C
J!! <( :::l
Q) 0
... U
0- co
0
~
co
0
~~!
iH
~ ~ ~
)If
f
~ ~
~ ~ ~
i ~ ~,
z ~
:i
w
en
-g
~
i
o
::>
rt:
z
o
z
::;;
~
o
'-'
~
~
~
o
.
l
o
~ j
~ i i ~
.b U .f: Ci
II : I
~
~
Ii: .
~ H "0
OIl .2 - 'E III
j l~ ~ ~ ~
!!l i5 'z ~ ~~
~ -~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 8.~.
~~~$~~~
II lJD 0
. 1! ~
~ ~~
5 '08
1,"1 ~I
~ ~
i~ ~
I ~~ ~ ~
&1<8 ~I "
~~ W! ;
'C ~ Go: riiij;o >
j III ~ili~
+J
C
Q)
E
c
en +J
<l: c
Q)
I.... E
0
-0 0-
'c 0
I.... Qj
0 >
u Q)
+J 0
(/) (/)
Q)
3: (/)
<1:l
~ en
(/) >-
<1:l 0-
W U)
Q)
+J -0 E
U) Q)
(/) 0
(5 0 I....
0- "-
0 0 c
.c I.... 0
U c.. :c;
U) >- u
.c +J Q)
en c C
::J C C
~ ~ I 0 0 'iij -0
~ -0 U u 0.. c
Q) <1:l Q) <1:l
(/) +J I.... -0 :;::;
0 0 ::J 0 Q)
0- ~ +J 0 3:
0 <1:l ::J u::
I.... 0 u..
c.. . D I
D I .
.
I .
.
'aMi JJ 5
(/)
(])
:J
(/)
(/)
Ioo--l
c
o
~
CO
-l-J
1-
o
0..
(/)
C
CO
1-
I-
(])
-l-J
-
o
o
..c
u
(j)
..c
0'1
.-
I
""0
(])
(/)
o
0..
o
1-
0...
0"
U1
'5
o
o
N
" ..
" .
/
I
[?
U1
"C
c;
N
o
o
Co> ,
nl1:JCl
".
o
'b
ill.
()
o
v
o
o
N
o
f')
L..
OJ
.0
E
OJ
>
o
z
c
o
"0
~
ro
OJ
L..
U
CITY OF LAKEVILLE AND CITY OF FARMINGTON
RESOLUTION
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
DATE April 7, 2003
RESOLUTION NO. 03-60
MOTION BY Rieb
SECONDED BY Wulff
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DATE
April 7, 2001
RESOLUTION NO. R?1-n1
MOTION BY Soderberg
SECONDED BY Fogarty
< )
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Councils and staff representatives of the cities of Lakeville and
Farmington have reviewed the proposed Corridors B, C, D, E identified in the Dakota County
East West Corridor Study located in the cities of Lakeville and Farmington during a joint meeting
held on March 10, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Lakeville and Farmington have concluded that the proposed'
corridors B, C, D, E are generally consistent with their respective Transportation or
Thoroughfare Plans for the cities of Lakeville and Farmington; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Lakeville and Farmington further support the following positions
or clarifications regarding the proposed corridors:
Corridor B
The City of Lakeville does not support the extension of Corridor B east of the Lakeville
City Limits until the mining activities in Lakeville and the adjacent areas in Empire Township
have been completed.
I -;
r---'
Based on the County's 2025 Traffic Forecasts, Corridor B would appear to be more
appropriately classified as a Major Collector rather than a Minor Arterial and thus 100 feet of
proposed right-of-way plus additional 1 0 foot trail easements from Cedar Avenue to Pilot Knob
Road would be sufficient.
53
u
I
; \
LJ
;- -\
H'.i
i
;J
The City of Lakeville would consider acceptance of the turn-back of Dodd Boulevard
from Cedar Avenue to Pilot Knob Road contingent on it being upgraded to a three-lane roadway
from Gerdine Avenue to Pilot Knob Road.
The City of Farmington asserts the necessity of several future connections from
developments in the City of Farmington through Lakeville to Corridor B.
Corridor C
The cities of Lakeville and Farmington support the potential designation of Corridor C as
a Minor Arterial and with a four-lane divided roadway design and concur that the transition of the
alignment of the Corridor C alignment at 18Sth Street on the east to 19Sth Street should occur in
the area identified as the Study Area on the Lakeville / Farmington - Work Session - Planned
Land Use Map.
Corridor D
The cities of Lakeville and Farmington support the potential future designation of
Corridor D as a Collector and acknowledge that this corridor would remain a city street in both
cities.
Corridor E
The cities of Lakeville and Farmington support the Corridor E (Ash Street) alignment to
be constructed as a three-lane roadway between Denmark and TH 3 as an interim design until
such time that traffic volumes indicate the necessity of four lanes and Dakota County programs
further improvements to the roadway. Further the cities of Lakeville and Farmington support
long-range consideration of the designation of Corridor E as an Arterial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lakeville City Council and Farmington
City Council support the Dakota County East-West Corridor Study as prepared subject to the
positions and clarifications contained in this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day 7th of
April
J 2003.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
~1
r;
-}~ a ' c::?
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day 7 of i..-r2_t-~
- v
,2003.
u
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:/~Ma~~
Mayor
-I'~ a ~
Attested to the /0 day of ,i 7_
c/
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(
CITY OF LAKEVILLE )
,~ I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 03-60 is a true and correct copy of the
resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeville at a duly
L-.i authorized meeting thereof held on the 7th day of April 2003, as shown by the
minutes of said meeting in my possession.
Charlene Friedges
City Clerk
(SEAL)
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
(
CITY OF FARMINGTON )
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No,/f.:?3-.o3 is a true and correct copy of the
resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington at a duly
authorized meeting thereof held on the ~~ day of C2:r:z.-.z-Y 2003, as shown by the
minutes of said meeting in my possession. i/
n
~
)
City_.~ler
(SEAL)
s5
FEB-24-2005 THU 0]:19 PM
MN PLANNING
65] 296 3698
P. 03
City of Farmington
3-25 Oak Street. farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
@
~~ ~~-::
September 7, 2000
Jon Larson
Principal Planner
Environmental Review Program
Minnesota Planning Environmental Quality Board
300 Centennial Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
RE: Notice of Intent - Donnelly Property
Dear Mr. Larson:
The City of Farmington has been informed that Farmington Independent School District
No. 192 has filed with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) a Notice of Intent for
eminent domain action as provided in the MiImesota Rules Chapter 473H.15, Sub.2.
This action is being taken to acquire land to build a new elementary school in Section 23
of the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota also known as the Donnelly
Property,
The City received Met Council approval of its 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update on
March 22,2000. The Future Land Use Map (Map No. 3.1) of the Comprehensive Plan
designates the Donne..l.QL.pr.operty ~ "LQw Density- Residential.)' This area is also
included in the MUSA Staging Plan (Map No. 4.1) and contained in the Comprehensive
Plan.
The ~~~gu~~Q..~e~~ntary ~c~~ is ~2.~~i~~~ ~th ,the J";~~li' ~R!9ved~...
~~~!1~~.Q<L~[~l1(~u~.iY~.,,!~,l,al,1_and IS considered a Conditional OSe m the R-I Zoning
District. Application for a Conditional Use Permit will be made once a site plan has been
prepared.
Therefore this letter represents the City of Farmington's support of the Fannington
School District's effort to seek early retirement of the agricultural preserve designation
forthis property. If you have any questions, please contact me at 651.463.1860.
. .
~(p
FEB-24-2005 THU 01:19 PM
MN PLANNING
651 296 3698
P. 04
..
Sincerely, ,..
~p
avid L. Olson
Community Development Director
cc: Mayor and City CoUncil
John F. Em, City Administrator
Lee Smick,' Planning Coordinator
Mark Beltz, Farmington Indepcnden~ School District No. 192
~r-7
FEB-24-2005 THU 01:22 PM
yx.
0<,,-, EV"?r)
(~,C=" -~
" -7' ;)
MN PLANNING
651 296 3698
~
AiL- U rEA
GfiJe
. .{ t /1., rt.A
..- pI,J;: ~G fNbl\
This is not an action item.
Notice ofIateDt to remove laod from Agricultural Preserve statu. through
Eminent Domaio Action (FarnUngtoD)
Presenter: Jon Larsen, EQB staff. 651-296-3865
t$~ Materials tudoled:
-r:+C- 1. Extract of Chaptet 4 73H.l S
IV'! ! N!-t-;...~S 2. Notice ofIntent filed by Farmington Independent School District 192,
$''/:-:: Including attachments .
--r#i=
,- .
(O-ICf-'Zer-o Issue before the Board:
() tr.. Farmington School District 192 has filed with the EQB a Notice of Intent to take an
Eminent Domain Action on land that is in Agricultural Preserve status.
II-f (1- z.o CtC>
IE 6J:,!5
.-,r' ,"'-......
(06?"'1'8''''V
The school district is CUlTently seeking to situate a new elementary school (with
community education and preschool services) in the Fannington area. The school
district decided that the optimum site, according to their criteria, was a parcel of land of
approximately 59 acres of farmland owned by Robert Donnelly Jr., Karen and Brian
Donnelly within the corporate limits of the city of Farmington. The school district has
the authority to take the land through an eminent domain action, condemning it for a
public purpose and compensating the owner. In this particular case, since the land is
currently designated for agricultural preserve, there is a further. requirement to.comply
with provisions of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act (Minn. Statutes Chapter
473H.02 to 473H.17). An extract of Chapter 473H.15 covering the eminent domain
action portion of the statute is included in your materials.
When farmland is in As Preserve status the owner i9 given certain benefits in return for
limiting the land use to strictly agricultural or ag-related uses. It protects the land from
special asseqments or restrictive-local and state regulation, assures equitable tax.es, 'and
provides for orderly means of planned use. The owner must agree to the land remaining
in Ag Preserve status for at least 8 years in return for these benefits. She or he may file
a notice initiating termination of Ag Preserve status which then becomes effective 8
years from the filing date. However, Chapter 473H 15 provides that an entity with
eminent domain authority can initiate an early termination by following the procedures
required. The primary requirement under that procedure is to file a Notice of Intent
with the EQB.
9
P. 12
r-t'
FEB-24-2005 THU 01:22 PM
MN PLANNING
651 296 369B
The Notice of Intent is required to contain a report justifying the proposed action,
including evaluation of alternatives which would not require acquisition within
agricultural preserves. The EQB is then given 60 days to review the proposed action in
consultation with affected units of government to determine tbe effect(s) of early
termination and its relationship to local and regional comprehensive plans. If the action
appears to be unreasonable the Board could take further steps. If it is not deemed
unreasonable, no further action is required from the Board.
Background:
On three previous occasions this type of notice has been submitted to the EQB. In
those instances the Board took no action, believing that the early termination of As
Preserve statuS was not unreasonable.
The entire parcel farmed by the Donnellys consists of 1700 acres, of which the school
district wants S9 acres. This smaIJer parcel is bounded by three through ltI:e~ on thL
north. south and east sideS';",and by a creek on the west side. This 59-acre parcel is .
contiguou~ to the current MUSA linctin what is tenned the ClMUSA staging plan ar~"
and also effectively surround.ed by curre!?-t or pr~osed deve~pment.
Signifiant Issues:
The evaluation of environmental effects relative to this eminent domain action is
limited to the impact of removing the land from As Preserve status by early
termination. This is not a review of the potential environmental effects of any proposed
subsequent development, i.e. a possible new elementary school. n refers only to the
change in status from Ag Preserve to some other use. The City ofFanmngton bas
. alreadv zoned this area as residential. as reflecte4 in their comvrehensive Dlan. This site
provides a suitable location for placement of an elementary school whose catchment
area would be bounded by natural land features such as' major roadways and the creek.
The use of this site as an elementary school represents a compatible land use. This land
will almost inevitably be developed to a more,intensive use within five to ten years.
Staff recommendation:
The item is presented at this time for information only. No action is required from the
board at this time. The Notice of Intent was tiled with the EQB on Septemberll, 2000.
After 60 days the school district may start the eminent domain action ifthe EQB has
not intervened by ordering the action be stayed for a further 60 days for the EQB to
take additional steps. After circulating the notice of intent to affected units of
government the Board may review any comments or objections. If the Board finds that
the action is reasonable it may conClude' that no further review is necessary under the
statute. .
Copies of the Notice ofIntent were circulated to the Metropolitan Council and the City
of Farmington as potentially affected units of government No comments or objections
10
P. 13
~1
tiN PLANNING
P. 07
FEB-24-2005 THU 01:20 PM
651 296 3698
specific finding by the Minnesota municipal board that either
(a) the expiration period as provided for in section 473H.08 has
begun; (b) the township due to size, tax base, population or
other relevant factors would not be able to provide normal
governmental functions and services; or (c) the agricultural
preserve would be completely sUITounded by lands within a
municipality.
This section shall not apply to annexation agreements
approved by the Minnesota municipal board plio! to creation of
the preserve.
HIST: 1980 c 566 s 14; ] 982 c 523 art 32 s 11
==473H.15
473H.15 Eminent domai.n actions.
Subdivision 1. Follow procedures here. Any agency of
the state, any public benefit corporation, any local, county or
regional unit of government, or any other entity possessing
powers of eminent domain under chapter 117, shall follow the
procedures contained in this section before (1) acquiring any
land or easement having a gross area over ten acres in size
within agricultural preserves; or (2) advancing a grant, loan,
interest subsidy or other funds for the construction of
dwellings, commercial or industrial facilities, or water or
sewer facilities that could be used to serve nonfarm structures
within agricultural preserves.
Subd. 2. Notice of intent to EQB. At least 60 days
prior to an action described in subdivision 1, notice of intent
shall be filed with the environmental quality board containing
information and in the manner and form required by the
environmental quality board. The notice of intent shall contain
a report justifying the proposed action, including an evaluation
of alternatives which would not require acqui!;ition within
agricultural preserves.
Subd.3. EQB review. The environmental quality
board, in consultation with affected units of government, shall
review the proposed action to determine the effect of the action
on the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and
agricultural resources within the preserves and the relationship
to local and regional comprehensive plans.
Subd.4. EQB order. If the environmental quality
roo
FEB-24-2005 THU 01:20 PM
MN PLANNING
651 296 369B
P. DB
board finds that the proposed action might have an unreasonable
effect on an agricultural preserve or preserves, the
environmental quality board shall issue an order within the
60-day period for the party to desist from such action for an
additional 60-day period..
Subd.5. Hearing. During the additiona160-day
period, the environmental quality board shall hold a public
hearing concerning the proposed action at a place within the
affected preserve or otherwise easily accessible to the preserve
upon notice in a newspaper having a general circulation within
the area of the preserves, and individual notice, in writing, to
the municipalities whose territory encompasses the preserves,
the agency, corporation or government proposing to take the
action, and any public agency having the power of review of or
approval of the action, in a manner conducive to the wide
dissemination of the findings to the public.
Subd.6. Joint review. The review process required
in this ~ection may be conducted jointly with any other
environmental impact review conducted by the environmental
quality board.
Subd. 7. AG may sue to enjoin. The environmental
quality board may request the attorney general to bring an
action to enjoin any agency, corporation or government from
violating the provisions of this section.
Subd. 8. Does not apply to emergency. This section
shaH not apply to an emergency project which is immediately
nece~sary for the protection of life and property.
Subd.9. EQB suspension. The environmental quality
board shall be empowered to suspend any eminent domain action
for up to one year which it determines to be contrary [0 the
purposes of sections 473H.02 to 4731-1.17 and for which it
determines there are feasible and prudent alternatives which
have less negative impact on the agricultural preserves.
Subd. 10. When agricultural preserve ends. The
agricultural preserve designation and all benefi.ts and
limitations accruing through sections 473H.02 to 473H.17 for the
preserve and the restrictive covenant for that portion of the
preserve taken, .shall cease on the date the final celtificate is
filed with the court administrator of district court in
accordance with section 117.205.
hi
FEB-24-2005 THU 01:19 PM
MN PLANNING
B51 29B 3B98
MINr.lESOTA PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
"I
;.,.._~'-"'_.._--:::-~----.....
/ Ot;cembcr ::..~~9Q..---.j
'--..........-.....~-
'Mi:. Gregory OhIo Superintendent
Fanningt.on Independent Scbool Disuict #192
510 Walnut Street
Fanningwn, Minnesota 55024-1389
Dear Mr. Ohi,
The period for comment relittive to your Notice of Intent fOt Farmington ISD to acquire cerrain lands by
eminent domain action ha:> now expired. without the EQB receiving any comment that would prompt an
action from the Board.
Per YI)Ur reques[, we now renun to you the copy of the FarmingtOD 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
included with yOtlI' Notice of Intent materials.
If you have any questions please caJlme at 651-296-3865.
Sincerely,
~~
Jon Larsen. Principal Planner
Environmenkll Review Program
P. 02
658 Cedar St.
St. P~ul. MN 55155
Telephone:
651-296-3985
Facsimile:
651-296-3698
TrY:
800-627.3529
www.rnnplan.
state.mn.us
100% post-consumer
recycled content
0'2-