HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-19 City of Farmington A Proud Past-A Promising
430 Third Street Future
Farmington,MN 55024 Committed to Providing High
Quality, Timely and Responsive
Service to All of Our Customers
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 8, 2019
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(a) Approve Planning Commission Minutes
3. DISCUSSION
(a) Update on 2040 Comprehensive Plan
4. ADJOURN
City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.280.6800 - Fax 651.280.6899
444' Plt0 ' WWW.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Approve Planning Commission Minutes
DATE: January 8, 2019
INTRODUCTION
Attached, are the minutes from the December 11, 2018 regular meeting.
DISCUSSION
NA
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve the minutes from the December 11, 2018 regular meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Type Description
o Backup Material December 11, 2018 Regular Planning
Commission Minutes
Planning Commission
Minutes
Regular Meeting
December 11,2018
1, Call to Order
Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Ratty, Bjorge,Franceschelli,Kuyper
Members Absent: Tesky
Also Present: Tony Wippler,Planning Manager
2. Approval of Minutes
a. Approve Planning Commission Minutes
MOTON by Franceschelli, second by Rotty to approve the minutes of November 13,
2018. Voting for: Rotty,Franceschelli. Abstain: Bjorge,Kuyper. MOTION
CARRIED.
3. Public Hearings--Chair Rotty opened the public hearings
a. 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Jeff Miller of Hoisington Koegler Group presented the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Mr.Miller reviewed the various chapters highlighting the guiding principles and the
major updates. By 2040 the population is predicted to be 32,500. A new land use
category has been added, Mixed Use(Commercial/Industrial). This will increase the
flexibility for future commercial and industrial uses allowed in the Spruce Street Master
Plan/Pilot Knob Road area. The area along 195th Street between Pilot Knob Road and
Flagstaff, and the area south of the high school has been designated as agricultural. That
has changed to urban development. The land along Pilot Knob near CSAH 50 and south
has been guided to the new mixed use of commercial/industrial.
Chair Ratty spoke about the work session on the Highway 3 corridor. It is anticipated
there will be some type of zoning changes along Highway 3. Whatever those changes
are,that will be an amendment to this comprehensive plan.
Regarding the ag land,previously 940 acres had no expiration date. Now 815 acres of
that will expire in 2020. Within the past year, 125 acres were taken out of ag preserve
which will be available in 2026.
The Met Council has a requirement for all cities to meet a threshold for affordable
housing. The 2040 plan meets that need with 752 units allocated to affordable housing.
The Parks and Recreation Chapter shows new neighborhood park locations,future trail
corridors aligning with future streets. A section on trails has been added,which was not
included in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11,2018
Page 2
The economic development chapter has been streamlined to contain the purpose of
municipal economic development,roles and powers of the EDA,history of planning and
economic development, existing economic conditions,existing economic development
plans such as the Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the city's three-year strategic
planning process.
Planning Manager Wippler gave highlights of the comprehensive sanitary sewer plan and
surface water management plan. There were two significant updates to the surface water
management plan. There is an updated hydrologic/hydraulic model using atlas 14
precipitation. It is used to determine storm water ponding for development. This will
impact new development and existing development as far as maintenance. The other
change is the city's approach to regional ponding. Currently, this is regulated through a
surface water management fee which would go towards the acquisition and development
of regional ponds. With the new requirements,there would be more site development
level ponds to address both rate and volume control. There will be more small ponds
rather than large ponds.
The transportation plan includes working with neighboring cities and townships on
various connections.
Commission members asked various questions on the plan. Comments were received
from residents, the city of Lakeville and MnDOT. Upon City Council approval,the plan
will be sent to the Met Council. Commission members were very much in favor of this
plan and thanked all entities for their comments.
MOTION by Bjorge, second by Kuyper to close the public hearing. APIF,MOTION
CARRIED. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Kuyper to recommend approval of
the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the City Council. APIF,MOTION CARRIED.
4. Adjourn
MOTION by Bjorge second by Kuyper to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. APIF,MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Muller
Administrative Assistant
ft City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899
'4, .4 reo, www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Update on 2040 Comprehensive Plan
DATE: January 8, 2019
INTRODUCTION
The Commission held a public hearing and subsequently recommended approval of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan at its regular meeting on December 11, 2018. Staff would like to provide the
Commission with an update on the status of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
Per State Statute, the city is required to complete its "deciennial" (2040 Comprehensive Plan Update)review
by December 31, 2018 unless an extension is granted by the Met Council. On December 17th, the City
Council adopted a resolution requesting an extension from the Met Council to allow additional time complete
the update.
The extension was necessary due to preliminary comments received from the Met Council on December 12,
2018. The Met Council preliminary comments are attached. Due to the timing of receiving these comments,
staff did not have the adequate amount of time to thoroughly vet the comments and make any necessary
changes or revisions to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan document to meet the December 31st submission
deadline. Any extension request had to be submitted to the Met Council by December 21, 2018 and had to
be accompanied by a City Council approved resolution.
Staff submitted an extension request to the Met Council on December 19th and requested the extension be
through June 30, 2019. The extension will allow the city the necessary time to incorporate any changes
and/or modifications to the update based on the comments from the Met Council and to ensure that the city
has a complete submittal.
ACTION REQUESTED
None. This is being provided for informational purposes only.
ATTACHMENTS:
Type Description
D Backup Material Met Council Preliminary Comments
December 11, 2018
Mr. Tony Wippler, City Planner
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Preliminary Review of the City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Metropolitan Council District 16
Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22057-0
Dear Mr. Wippler,
Metropolitan Council staff have reviewed the preliminary draft of the City of Farmington's 2040
Comprehensive Plan (Plan), received on September 18, 2018. In the preliminary review, staff focused
on whether the draft Update appeared to be complete and contained any major system issues or policy
conflicts. Time did not permit as thorough of a review as will occur when the Plan is officially submitted
for Council review. A more detailed review may reveal other important matters that were not identified
during this preliminary review.
When addressing the matters in this letter, City staff are advised to refer to the City's Checklist of
Minimum Requirements in the Community pages of the online Local Planning Handbook and the City's
System Statement:
City of Farmington's Checklist of Minimum Requirements:
https://metrocouncil.orq/Handbook/Files/Checklist/02394747 Farmington Checklist.aspx
City of Farmington's Community Page:
https://lphonline.metc.state.mn.us/CommPage?ctu=2394747&applicant=Farmington
City of Farmington System Statement:
https://metrocouncil.orq/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/System-
Statements/System-Statements/02394747 Farmington 2015SS.aspx
The preliminary review process found the following sections complete for review and did not identify
any major system issues or policy conflicts: Aggregate Resources, Implementation, Regional Parks and
Trails, Solar, Surface Water Management, Transit, and Water Supply.
Solar Access Protection & Development (Cameran Bailey, 651-602-1212)
The Plan is complete and consistent with statutory requirements (Minn. Stat. 473.859. Subd. 2;
Section 1036.235) and Council policy regarding planning for the protection and development of
access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems as required by the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act (MLPA).
Advisory Comments
Staff recommend enrolling in the following cost-free programs, which are designed to provide
planning, technical, and policy assistance to local Minnesota governments, as additional "solar
implementation strategies" in your Plan. These programs are very likely to effectively
complement your participation in the MN GreenStep Program:
390 Robert Street North I Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805
P. 651.602.1000 I TTY. 651.291.0904 I metrocouncil.org METROPOLITAN
Orr E«ctal Opporttuify Employer COUNCIL
Tony Wippler
December 11, 2018
Page 2 of 8
- U.S. Dept. of Energy's SolSmart Program - Solar Permitting, Zoning, and Development
- Xcel Energy's Partners in Energy Program — Energy Action Plan Development
Please feel free to follow up with Council staff for any additional assistance.
Surface Water Management (Jim Larsen, 651-602-1159)
The City lies within the oversight boundaries of the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers
Organization (Watershed). Farmington submitted a draft Local Water Management Plan
(LWMP) update in August 2018. Council staff reviewed and commented on the draft LWMP to
the City and Watershed in a letter dated September 21, 2018.
Advisory Comments
If available at the time the City submits its formal Update, we request the City provide the
complete final LWMP in an Appendix in the Update and a summary of the LWMP in the body of
the Update, incorporating any recommended revisions from the Council and Watershed's review
of the draft LWMP. If available at the time the formal Update is submitted, we also request that
the City provide to the Council the date the Watershed approved the LWMP, and the date the
City adopted the final LWMP
Water Supply (Lanya Ross, 651-602-1803)
The Plan is consistent with WRPP policies related to water supply, including the policy on
sustainable water supplies, the policy on assessing and protecting regional water resources,
and the policy on water conservation and reuse.
The community has prepared a Local Water Supply Plan in 2018 that was submitted to both the
MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Metropolitan Council and reviewed under
separate cover in a letter to DNR dated 6/7/2018.
Advisory Comments
As the community finalizes its Plan, a map of designated drinking water supply management
areas (DWSMA) or wellhead protection areas may be included to support the discussion of land
use best practices on page 8-156. Data are available on the MN Department of Health website
at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/maps/index.htm. Useful files may include:
'Drinking Water Supply Management Areas—Groundwater' and 'Wellhead Protection Areas'.
The following sections of the draft Plan are considered incomplete. Changes in the draft Plan are
definitely needed before the Plan is submitted to the Council for formal review.
Land Use (Patrick Boylan, 651-602-1438)
The Plan is incomplete for future land use. To be complete, the final document must provide
density ranges on Figure 3.3 and Table 3.4
Advisory comments
Consider increasing the minimum density ranges for medium density residential land use
categories in the City and or in the future land uses. Recent residential development and re-
development are perhaps greater than the minimums for future residential land use areas.
Sanitary Sewer (Roger Janzig, 651-60-1119)
The Plan is incomplete for sanitary sewer review. To be complete, the Plan needs to address
the follo ing issues.
Tony Wippler
December 11, 2018
Page 3 of 8
• Include a table that details adopted community sewered forecasts 10-year increments to
2040 for households and employment; this should be broken down by each Metropolitan
Disposal System Interceptor; and Subsurface sewage treatment systems.
• The Plan shows an expanded MUSA; the final document needs to state how many acres
are being added to the 2030 MUSA and what are the forecasts for that area
• The Plan needs to include an electronic map or maps (GIS shape files or equivalent)
showing the following information:
o Existing sanitary sewer system,
o Lift stations.
o Existing connections points to the metropolitan disposal system.
o Future connection points for new growth if needed.
o Local sewer service districts by connection point.
o Intercommunity connections.
• The Plan needs to include a copy of intercommunity service agreements entered into with
an adjoining community, including a map of areas covered by the agreement and tables that
provide the following local system information:
o Capacity and design flows for existing trunk sewers and lift stations.
o Assignment of 2040 growth forecasts by Metropolitan interceptor facility.
Inflow and Infiltration (Ill)
To be complete, the Plan must define City's goals, policies, and strategies for preventing and
reducing excessive inflow and infiltration (I/I) in the local municipal (city) and private (private
property) sanitary sewer systems.
• Include a summary of activities or programs intended to mitigate I/I from both public and
private property sources.
• The final Plan must describe the requirements and standards in Farmington for minimizing
inflow and infiltration.
• Include a copy of the local ordinance or resolution that prohibits discharge from sump
pumps, foundation drains, and/or rain leaders to the sanitary sewer system.
• Include a copy of the local ordinance or resolution requiring the disconnection of existing
foundation drains, sump pumps, and roof leaders from the sanitary sewer system.
• Describe the sources, extent, and significance of existing inflow and infiltration in both the
municipal and private sewer systems.
• Include a description of the existing sources of I/I in the municipal and private sewer
infrastructure.
• Include a summary of the extent of the systems that contributes to I/I such as locations,
quantities of piping or manholes, quantity of service laterals, or other measures. If an
analysis has not been completed, include a schedule and scope of future system analysis.
• Include a breakdown of residential housing stock age within the community into pre- and
post-1970 era, and what percentage of pre-1970 era private services have been evaluated
for I/1 susceptibility and repair.
• Include the measured or estimated amount of clearwater flow generated from the public
municipal and private sewer systems.
• For quantifying I/I, some communities have used the EPA guidance to determine the annual
I/I and peak month I/1
https://www3.epa.qov/region 1/sso/pdfs/Guide4Estimatinginfiltrationinflow.pdf
• Include a cost summary for remediating the Ill sources identified in the community. If
previous I/I mitigation work has occurred in the community, include a summary of flow
reductions and investments completed. If costs for mitigating I/I have not been analyzed,
Tony Wippler
December 11, 2018
Page 4 of 8
include the anticipated wastewater service rates or other costs attributed to inflow and
infiltration.
For new trunk sewer systems that require connection to the Metropolitan Disposal System, the
Plan must include:
• A table that details the proposed time schedule for the construction of the new trunk sewer
system.
• Type and capacity of the treatment facilities, whether municipally or privately owned.
• Copies of the associated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State
Disposal System (SDS) permits.
Community Wastewater Treatment and individual Subsurface Sewage Treatment
Systems (SSTS) (Jim Larsen, 651-602-1159)
A number of SSTS remain in operation in the City. City Code adopts Dakota County On-Site
Sewage Treatment System Ordinance 113, as amended, by reference. To be complete for
review, the Plan will need to address the following items.
The Plan will need to incorporate additional information to render this element of the plan
complete for review. Council staff requests that the City confirm (either in their response to our
preliminary Plan review or in their formal Plan submission) that there are no public or privately-
owned Community Wastewater Treatment Systems (other than as yet unspecified number of
individual SSTS remaining in operation in the City) or incorporate a short discussion of any
existing operating facilities and a map depicting their location.
Specifically needed to be included in the final Plan for it to be found complete for review is the
number of households and businesses that continue to be served by operating individual SSTS
in the City, a `dot' map depicting their locations in the City including highlighting of any areas
known to have nonconforming systems or systems with known problems, and a description of
the City's SSTS maintenance management program for compliance with MPCA Rule 7080-7083
regulations. (For reference, the City's 2030 Update indicated there were 85 systems in
operation in the City at that time.) If the City or their planning consultant needs any assistance
or guidance in preparing the SSTS location map, please contact Steve Hack, MCES GIS
System Administrator at 651-602-1469 or Steven.Hack(�metc.state.mn.us.
Transportation (Russ Owen, 651-602-1724)
The Plan is incomplete for transportation. To be complete, the Plan needs to include:
• Identify any specific future rights-of-way that need to be preserved.
• Identify changes to Farmington's major/minor collector system and include in a table or
highlighted on a map.
Advisory Comments
• Figure 5.1: this map should show functional classification as well as existing ADT/HCAADT.
This would ensure that volumes for all principal and A-minor arterials are included in the
Plan.
Bicycling and Walking
The Plan is incomplete for bike/ped required elements. To be complete, the final document
must include:
• A map depicting all Tier 1 and Tier 2 RBTN corridors and alignments within the City.
Tony Wippler
December 11, 2018
Page 5 of 8
• The final plan must show the relationship of the RBTN to the local bicycle network of off-
road trails and on-street bikeways, including all existing and planned connections.
• The map should also include locations of regional employment clusters, activity center
nodes, and other local activity centers.
Freight
The Plan is incomplete for freight. To be complete, the Plan needs to identify any local
roadway issues or problem areas for goods movement.
Additional Advisory Transit Comments
• On page 5-119, the final plan document should change the reference to the Red Line
service extension to a "proposed extension of Red Line service to a future station....."
• On page 5-119, please consider changing the dial-a-ride service provider from DARTS
Transportation Services to "Transit Link, a service of the Metropolitan Council."
Forecasts (Paul Hanson, 651-602-1642)
The Plan is incomplete for sewer-serviced forecast. To be complete, the City needs to provide
a table with sewer-serviced numbers for population, households, and employment, for 2020,
2030, and 2040. Although the Plan describes development during various staging periods in
districts throughout the City, no table was found that delineates population.
Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ):
The Plan is incomplete for TAZ required information. To be complete, the final plan needs to
include a map and table depicting TAZ information.
Housing (Hilary Lovelace, 651-602-1555)
The Plan is incomplete for housing review. To be complete, the final Plan must include the
following items in the final document.
Existing Housing Needs
• The list on page 4-80 is a good summary of needs, but more detail is needed for the Plan to
be considered complete. Discussion of each table before and after this page does not
explore why the items in the list on page 4-80 are needs. An inclusion of a narrative
paragraph or two that describes why the needs listed were chosen in response to data
presented earlier in the section would likely resolve the incompleteness.
Projected Housing Needs
Land guided to address the City's allocation of affordable housing need for 2021-2030 is not
consistently described in the document. Specifically:
• Mixed-Use has a listed minimum density of 9 units/acre on page 4-83 but lists a minimum
units/acre of 6 on page 3-33.
• Land use tables on p. 3-37 and 3-39 show 44.67 and 40.68 (81.36 x 50%) for Medium
Density and Mixed-Use acres available to develop between 2021-2030, respectively. But
the Development Potential table on page 4-83 shows 41.21 and 37.24 acres in these
categories. To be complete, the final submission needs to clarify this issue.
Implementation Required Elements
All tools need to be linked to a circumstance in which they will be used, whether that be a
specific time in the future (i.e. by 2022) or after certain conditions are met (after passage or a
formal City policy or community workgroup.) Other tools are not linked to a circumstance in
which they will be considered, such as to support housing affordable at 30% AMI or below.
Tony Wippler
December 11,2018
Page 6 of 8
To be considered complete, each tool must include what circumstances and when applicable, a
sequence of implementation:
• Zoning and subdivision ordinances — please define "ongoing basis."
• TIF—what types of affordable housing (i.e. AMI% band, large unit affordable) and
circumstances (i.e. in mixed-use projects) would the City consider supporting TIF use?
• Housing Bonds — indicating bonds would be considered on a case by case basis is not
specific enough to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. What
types of housing (i.e. AMI% band, senior affordable) and circumstances (i.e. high density,
mixed incomes) would compel the City to consider issuing conduit bonds?
• TBRA— please provide some detail as to what criteria would be used to determine if a
project is "qualified."
All housing tools described must be linked clearly and consistently to stated housing needs,
including needs connected to the three bands of affordability. Some tools do not specify which
AMI band will be prioritized in the City's consideration of the tool, including the following tools
specifically:
• Municipal Housing Bonds can be issued by the City directly (and not only through the
Dakota County CDA). Please indicate if the City would consider issuing bonds directly and if
so, for what types of housing needs.
• Tax Increment Financing (TIF), include which AMI bands would be prioritized with this tool
• Use of LCA LCDA or LCA LCDA-TOD funding, include which AMI bands would be prioritized
when considering this tool
• Dakota County HOPE
• Some circumstances and sequence of use include description of"low- and moderate-
income" households. Defining those categories with AMI bands elsewhere in the Plan will
make these descriptions consistent.
In the Plan, some widely used tools to address housing needs aren't included. To be consistent
with regional policy, tools must be acknowledged, and to be complete, the plan should state if,
and if so when and why, it would consider using them to address housing needs:
• City support or direct application to specific resources within the Consolidated RFP put out
by Minnesota Housing, include circumstances in which it would be used and which AMI
bands would be served with this tool
(https.//metrocouncil.orq/Handbook/Files/Resources/Fact-Sheet/HOUSING/The-
Consolidated-RFP.aspx)
• Effective referrals to partner organizations — in addition to the many services noted that are
provided by the CDA -that address housing needs
(https://metrocouncil.orq/Handbook/Files/Resources/Fact-Sheet/HOUSING/Effective-
Housinq-Referrals.aspx)
• Participation in housing-related organizations, partnerships, and initiatives
(https://metrocouncil.orq/Handbook/Files/Resources/Fact-Sheet/HOUSING/Collaboratinq-
on-Housing-Strategies.aspx)
• Preservation of expiring low-income housing tax credit properties.
• Advocating for a Community Land Trust model to create and preserve affordable
homeownership opportunities, including which % AMI would be the target audience for this
tool.
• Specific tools that preserve naturally occurring affordable housing, including partnerships
with sources of preservation financing (MN Housing, Greater Minnesota Housing Fund's
Tony Wippler
December 11, 2018
Page 7 of 8
NOAH Impact Fund), and 4(d) tax incentives.
(https://metrocouncil.orq/Handbook/Files/Resources/Fact-Sheet/HOUSING/Housin_q-
Preservation.aspx)
Advisory Comments
• With respect to a Fair Housing policy, local fair housing policies do not mean that cities
should or can manage or administer Fair Housing complaints. A local fair housing policy
rather ensures the City is aware of fair housing requirements with regard to housing
decisions and provides sufficient resources to educate and refer residents who feel their fair
housing rights have been violated (this can be as simple as having links to resources on the
City's website). The Metropolitan Council will require a local Fair Housing policy as a
requirement to draw upon Livable Communities Act (LCA) awards beginning in 2019. To
learn more, and review a template local fair housing policy, please refer to the following
resources:
o Creating a Local Fair Housing Policy webinar:
https://www.voutube.com/watch?v=38JY4pNGnZ8Meature=youtu.be
o Best Practices: https://metrocouncil.orq/Handbook/PlanIt/Files/Webinar-Fair-Housin_p-
Handout2.aspx
o Policy Template: https://metrocouncil.orq/Handbook/Traininq/Webinars.aspx- click on
Handout 1 under the Implementing A Local Fair Housing Policy at the bottom of the
screen.
• Council staff encourages the City to consider an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) policy or
allow them as a permitted use. This is a unique way to diversify housing choices within
existing single-family neighborhoods.
• For Dakota County CDA's Family Housing Partnership, Family Townhome, LIHTC and
HOPE programs, the Plan notes that the City will refer people to those programs. For the
Senior Housing and Workforce Housing program, the Plan notes that the City will work with
the CDA to find appropriate sites for (presumably) new housing. It is not clear if the former
programs no longer exist, and so the City can only refer people to existing units under those
programs, or if the City is stating an explicit priority for the latter two programs when the
CDA is considering new development.
• All the existing housing data (including the number of low-income households that are
housing cost burdened) sourced from the Metropolitan Council has been updated with 2016
data. The City can find updated Existing Housing Assessment on Farmington's community
page in the Local Planning Handbook and updating any relevant data.
Implementation Plan
• Supporting or sponsoring an LCA grant is not accurate. For LCA grants, the City must be
the applicant and must be a participant in the program. Farmington is currently a
participating city in the Livable Community Act program.
• Related to LIHTC properties, it may be prudent for the City to track the affordability
expiration of properties to respond to the needs of those that may be evicted if rents are
raised in addition to the included language on the support of new LIHTC properties.
• The "Scattered Site Housing Program" is not described thoroughly. Is the City's role to point
out opportunity sites for the program to the County? How often/by what means does this
happen? Is there an annual assessment of potential sites?
In summary, the submitted draft Update is missing a number of items and may require revision. If you
Tony Wippler
December 11, 2018
Page 8of8
have any questions or need further information regarding the comments in this letter, please contact
Patrick Boylan, Principal Reviewer at 651-602-1438.
Sincere/ ,
Lis=Beth Bar has, Manager
Local Planni g Assistance
CC: Wendy Wulff, Metropolitan Council District 16
Patrick Boylan, Principal Reviewer
Raya Esmaeili, Reviews Coordinator
llrafsshare.mc8 CPU Prelim2040.docx