Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974 107 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 22, 1974 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Shirley at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Shirley, members Hanson and Hebert Absent: Members Nicolai and Sifferath Motion by Hanson, second by Hebert that the minutes of 12/26/73 be approved by changing the date in the first paragraph from 12/26/73 to 11/26/73. APIF, motion carried. The Commission discussed the request of Christ and Stella Hammer for a building permit and the attendant problems as expressed in a memorandum from the Zoning Officer dated 1/22/74. The Chairman said he would consult with the City Planner and report back to the Commission. No action taken. Motion made and carried to adjourn at 8:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford City Administrator 109 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR APRIL 2, 1974 (NOTE: This meeting was postponed from March 26, 1974 to the above date.) The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman. Present: Chairman Shirley, Members Hanson and Hebert. Absent: Appointees Gerths and Hoyer Also Present: Zoning Officer Ford. The minutes of January 22, 1974 were deferred to the next meeting. Mr. David Dahl, 712 4th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to request a sidelot variance from 6 to 2 feet for the construction of a garage. Motion by Hebert, second by Hanson that the above request be denied. APIF, motion carried. The developers of Westview Acres subdivision appeared before the Planning Commission requesting a blanket sidelot variance from 10 feet to 8 feet for lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Block 1, Replat of Westview Acres, 1st Addition. Motion by Hebert, second by Shirley that the above request be denied. Voting for: Hebert, Shirley. Voting against: None. Abstaining: Hanson. Motion carried. Mr. John Bredehorst appeared before the Commission in regard to his application for a building permit at 431 3rd Street South at which location he intended to convert an automotive garage to a retail furniture store. He was informed that in order to do so he would first have to obtain a variance for off-street parking of 24 spaces. Motion by Hanson, second by Shirley that the above matter be set for public hearing at 7:30 P.M. , April 15, upon payment of the normal $25.00 filing fee by the applicant. APIF, motion carried. Mr. Gene Harris appeared before the Planning Commission at an informal advisory meeting to discuss his proposed plat consisting of 9 lots immediately south of and facing 183rd Street West south of Hill-Dee 2nd Addition. The Planning Commission conveyed to him a consensus of general agreement to his proposal and suggested that he prepare a preliminary plat for presentation to the Commission at their meeting of April 15, 1974. The Commission requested the Administrator to insert in the Dakota County Tribune an article notify the public that the regular meeting of the Commission of April 23, 1974, has been changed to April 15, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. Motion made and carried to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford Zoning Officer 111 • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL APRIL 15, 1974 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Shirley. Present: Shirley, Hanson, Gerths Absent: Hebert, Hoyer Also present: Administrator Ford Motion by Hanson, second by Shirley that the minutes of January 22, 1974 and April 2, 1974, be approved. APIF, motion carried. The Planning Commission opened the Public Hearing as published, concerning the request for off-street parking variance by John's furniture at 431 3rd Street. The Commission, in considering this request, recalled the intent of the ordin- ance when it was adopted and which the problem of existing buildings in the downtown area without the requisite parking space, was taken into consideration and it was assumed that it would be handled through the variance route. Motion by Hanson, second by Shirley that variance #33 be granted. APIF, motion carried. There followed a general discussion concerning the merits of this provision of the ordinance. Several members of the audience joined in and there seemed to be two schools of thought: (a) that the provision is too harsh and too cumbersome to work with and should be amended, and (b) that although it may be difficult to work with in the existing downtown, commercial area that it certainly would be useful and would apply as commercial development takes place elsewhere within the B-2 zoning district. The Planning Commission laid the matter over for furhter discussion and recommended that it be coordinated with the newly constituted HRA. There also followed a discussion concerning the degree and uniformity of enforcement concerning building permits. Some thought that there should be more concentrated surveillance and inspection in that enforcement be uniform and more intense enforce- ment. It was also recognized that there appears to be a lack of understanding on III the part of the public as to various ordinances requiring permits and the various codes which have been adopted. There was a request from Gil 'Murphy, at 616 Linden Street, for a set-back variance. In this instance the existing building was set back 4 feet instead of the 6 feet required in the R-2 zoning district. What the applicant was requesting was to match an addition to the house to an existing building line. Motion by Shirley, second by Gerths that the Planning Commission hereby decide that in cases of this nature, it be the policy of the Board of Adjustment that no variance be required and that such construction be considered not extending, enlarging or altering an existing variance and that to allow this type of construction is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. APIF, motion carried. Mr. George Mohn, representing Westview Acres Development, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission for a second time to request again a blanket set-back variance for certain lots within the new Westview Acres Replat. After considerable discussion with the Planning Commission the Commission decided to take no action on the request. The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat of Gene Harris, consisting of nine platted lots facing 183rd Street West, on the south side and immediately south of Hill-Dee 2nd Addition. The Council recommended to the developer that he dedicate a 60 ft. street immediately west of and abutting to, lot 9, and with that consideration, Motion by Shirley, second by Hanson that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat be approved. APIF, motion III carried. The Planning Commission requested the. City Administrator to secure and present to the Planning Coiimlission suggestions and sample ordinance which would constitute amendments to the existing subdivision ordinance by requiring underground utilities. Motion made and carried to adjourn at 10:10 P.M Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford City Administrator r MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MAY 28, 1974 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Shirley Present: Shirley, Gerths, Hanson, Hoyer Absent: Hebert Also Present: Administrator Ford Motion by Hanson, second by Hoyer that 'the minutes of April 15, 1974 be approved as presented. APIF, motion carried. The Commission informally discussed with Mr. Robert Stegmaier the possibility of rezoning to Light Industrial, all or a protion of land which he owns on the North one half of the Northwest one quarter of section 13, 80 acres. Mr. Stegmaier in- formed the Commission that he was conducting preliminary negotiations with Central Telephone for a twenty acre site on which they might locate their district office. It was agreed that Mr. Stegmaier would prepare a more definitive plan for study by the Commission. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend to the Council that the park land immediately north and adjacent to the urban area be sold to higher and best use and the money be allotted to the Park and Recreation budget for land acquisition, retaining at least 100 ft. from the river. The Commission took no position concerning the proposed sale of City owned property on Linden Street. The Administrator explained to the Commission the problems encountered in approving the Hillview Subdivision Plat in which the County requested an additional 10 ft. of right of way. The plat was approved on condition that the developer grant to the County and additional 10 ft. but with the understanding that the Council would petition the Board of Adjustment for a 20 ft. set back variance. Motion by Hanson, second by Hoyer that a public hearing be set to hear the petition for variance at 7:30 P.M. , June 25, 1974. APIF, motion carried. In other action the Commission decided: 1. That the Administrator should furnish to the Commission a study pointing out the various ambiguities and conflicts within the ordinance concerning signs. 2. The possibility of establishing an action time limit on special exceptions renewable at the discretion of the BOA. 3. Encourage the Council to proceed with a plan to deal with railroad blight as pointed out in a memorandum to the Council from Leon Orr. 4. To establish as policy a cut off date for agenda items, one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting itself. Motion made and carried to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford City Administrator IL • � G� 115 • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JULY 23, 1974 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman Present: Chairman Shirley, Commissioners Hanson and Hebert. Absent: Commissioners Gerths and Hoyer Also Present: Administrator Ford Motion by Hanson, second by Hebert to approve the minutes of May 28, 1974 with the following amendment. In paragraph six where a motion was made by Hanson and seconded Hoyer setting a public hearing, the date should be changed from June 24, 1974 to June 25, 1974. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Hebert, second by Hanson to set a public hearing on the matter of the request of Francis Efta for a sidelot setback variance at 621 4th Street. The public hearing is so set for 7:30 P.M. , August 20, 1974. APIF, motion carried. The Planning Commission agreed to move its regular August meeting from August 27, to August 20, 1974. The Chairman opened the public hearing in the matter of a request for sidelot setback variance, lot 1 block 1, Hillview Addition. This request for variance was being made by the City Council to accommodate a recently approved plat wherein the platter had agreed to dedicate an additional 10 feet to the County for R/W on County Road 31. Motion by Hebert, second by Hanson that the above variance be granted. APIF, motion carried. The Commission discussed with the Administrator the request for a sidelot setback variance from Raymond Berg, 22 Oak Street. After considerable discussion it was decided that the Chairman would contact Mr. Berg over the weekend to discuss with him alternate methods of accomplishing his objective. The Administrator discussed at length with the Commission the interpretation of the ordinances which was used in regard to the fire at the Al Fischer Building. This interpretation hinged upon the wording within the ordinance that if 51% of an existing or continuing non-conforming use was destroyed by fire it could not be rebuilt. This therefore, left the inference that if it were less than 51% that it could be built. It seemed ambiguous on the one hand to require compliance with the code as per the Fire Marshalls order and on the other hand to deny him a permit to proceed. Motion made and carried to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford City Administrator 117 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AUGUST 20, 1974 The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7 : 30 P.M. Present : Chairman Shirley, Members Gerths, Hanson, Hoyer II Absent : Member Hebert Motion by Hanson, second by Shirley to approve the minutes of July 23, 1974. APIF, motion carried. The Chairman opened the previously published public hearing on the request of Francis Efta, 621 4th Street, for a side-lot setback variance of from 6 feet to 2 feet . Motion by Gerths, second by Hoyer that the above variance be granted. APIF, motion carried. The request of Ray Berg to set a public hearing on his application for a variance at 22 Oak Street was considered by the Commission. Motion by Shirley, second by Hanson to deny the request based on the finding of the Commission that Mr. Berg' s predicament was self created by demolishing the existing structure and thereby removing him from whatever grandfather rights he might have possessed. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Hanson, second by Shirley to set a public hearing for 7: 30 P.M. , September 3, 1974, to consider the request of Farmington Development , Inc. , for setback variance on two newly created lots proposed to be created by the subdivision of Outlot A, Chateau Manor 2nd Addition. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Shirley, second by Hoyer that the Farmington Planning II Commission recommend to the City Council that the existing City Ordinances on variances and special exceptions be amended to provide for a two year period of time after which a variance or special exception becomes void if the rights therein granted have not been substantially exercised. APIF, motion carried. Motion made and carried to adjourn at 8 :45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford City Administrator A 119 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 3 , 1974 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 P.M. by the Chairman Present : Chairman Shirley, Gerths, Hanson, and Hoyer Absent : Member Hebert The Commission discussed with Mr. Terry Maurer the request of Farmington Development , Inc. to two sidelot setback variances on outlot A, Chateau Manor, 2nd Addition, on which townhouse condo- miniums were being constructed. Mr. Maurer informed the Commission that it was necessary to create two separate lots in order to be able to deed the property on which the completed ten units exists in order to secure financing for the remaining 8 units . It was the consensus of the Commission that a sidelot setback variance would be in conformance with the original approved plan of the townhouses and would in no way do violence to the intent of the ordinance in that the total density ratio to land would not be changed. Motion by Hanson, second by Gerths that sidelot setback variances #36 and #36 be granted contingent upon (a) the townhouse project be completed as originally planned (b) that a revised sewer and water on-lot distribution plan be submitted for approval and (c) the Council grants a subdivision waiver. APIF, motion carried. Motion made and carried that the Commission adjourn at 7:41 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford City Administrator 121 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SEPTEMBER 24, 1974 The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Shirley, Members Gerths, Hanson, Hebert, Hoyer Also present: Administrator Ford, HRA consultant Charles Tooker, HRA Commissioners Sifferath and Meehan Motion by Gerths, second by Hoyer that the minutes of August 20, 1974 be approved as presented. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Gerths, second by Hoyer that the minutes of September 3, 1974 be approved with the following amendment: Members present - Add Hoyer. APIF, motion carried. The Board of Adjustment sat to review a request for variance from Ken Hanson, Sr. , at 210 Oak St. for off-street parking from 24 to 21 spaces. It was explained to the Planning Commission that this involved an existing building formerly used as a warehouse which was now proposed to be leased by Peoples Natural Gas and converted to an office and retail storage and sales. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerths that a public hearing be set for Tuesday, October 8, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. Voting for: Shirley, Hebert, Gerths, Hoyer. Abstaining: Hanson. Motion carried. The Board of Adjustment then reviewed the request of John Luckow for off-street parking variance at 312 3rd Street from 33 to 10 spaces. It was pointed out that this involved the formerly referred to Thelen Building which had been subjected to fire in July of 1974. Mr. Luckow at that time had operated a body repair shop at the rear of that building facing on 2nd Street. He was in the process of acquiring the building frau the present owners. At this point the consideration of the board of Adjustment were deferred to take up the request by the HRA that any proposed development within an area defined by the HRA as the potential redevelopment project are be referred to them for their comments. It was explained that the proposed redevelopment project are would be carving to the Planning Commission for their comments and recommendation and frau there would proceed then to the Council for their approval. There was considerable discussion between members of the Planning Commission, members of the HRA present and members of the audience. The certain members of the Planning Commission indicated sane reluctance in delaying the request of Mr. Luckow which might occur by referring his request to the HRA. Commissioner Shirley indicated that he believed that the role of the Planning Commission to avoid vacate buildings and lots whenever possible in the downtown area. Commissioner Hebert stated that he thought it inadvisable to accede to the request of HRA in that in so doing it might indicate automatic approval of the Planning Commission of the proposed redevelopment area. He stated further that perhaps the Commission should address itself to the merits of the variance request itself before setting a public hearing. Motion by Gerths, second by Hoyer that the proposed development of John Luckow at 312 3rd Street be referred on an informal basis to the HRA for its comments and suggestions, such referral not to be construed as approval by the Planning Commission of the proposed redevelopment area boundaries and that the HRA suggestions and comments be remitted to the Planning Commission prior to October 8, 1974. Voting for: Shirley, Gerths, Hoyer, Hanson. Voting against: Hebert. Motion carried. Motion by Gerths, second by Hanson that public hearing be set in the matter of the request of John Luckow for off-street parking variance at 312 3rd Street, be set for Tuesday October 8, 1974, 7:45 P.M. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Gerths, second by Hebert that the proposed development of Farmington Lutheran Church of lots 7 thru 11, Block 3, Betzolds 2nd Addn, be deferred to the next meeting. APIF, motion carried. In an informal advisory session with the Planning Commission, Mr. Robert Stegmaier and his engineer, Mr. Houston, layed before the Commission a tentative plan for development on land now owned by Mr. Stegmaier in the extreme northern part of the City of Farmington. This meeting was by way of an exchange of ideas and concepts and no action was taken at this time. Motion made and carried to adjourn at 10:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford City Administrator 123 • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL OCTOBER 8, 2974 The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Shirley, Members Gerths, Hanson, Hebert, Hoyer Also present: Administrator Ford, HRA Members Shea and Snyder Motion by Hebert, second by Hanson to approve the minutes of September 24, 1974 as presented. APIF, motion carried. The Chairman opened the public hearing previously published on the request of Ken Hanson, Sr. for an off-street parking variance at 210 Oak Street. After some discussion the Chairman entertained a motion. Motion by Gerths, second by Hoyer that the above variance be granted. Voting in favor: Shirley, Gerths, Hebert, Hoyer. Abstaining: Hanson. Motion carried. The Chairman opened the public hearing on the previously published request of John Luckow on an off-street parking variance at 312 3rd Street. Two representatives from the HRA supplied same input to the Planning Commission in this regard. There were many comments concerning possible alternate means of accommodating both Mr. Luckow and the HRA. There was concern on the part of all present. that if Mr. Luckow were to construct a new building either on all or part of the subject parcel, the final development plan by the BRA might very well necessitate removal of that new building. It was agreed that Mr. Luckow would continue the operation of his business in his present quarters and that his request for variance and the public hearing, attendant thereon, would be continued indefinitely. In the meantime, the City Administrator would talk with the Building Inspector to allow Mr. Luckow to take steps to weather proof the existing concrete block walls. Means would also be pro- vided for him to connect to municipal sewer on 3rd Street if that became necessary. Motion by Hebert, second by Gerths that the public hearing on the above request for variance be continued indefinitely. APIF, motion carried. In the general discussion, the Planning Commission reaffirmed its consent to refer to the BRA any proposed development that fell within the proposed development area. The Administrator was asked, however, to clarify with the HRA that such referrals come back to the Planning Commission with comments as to the compatibility of the proposed development with the HRA plan without recommending as to the approval or denial of the variance or special exception itself. Motion by Hanson, second by Hoyer that the Planning Commission proceed, following Council approval, with a Downtown Parking space occupancy study utilizing the $1200 available to than in the 1975 budget, and for the Administrator to explore the various possibilities by which this could be done within the allotted amount of money. APIF, motion carried. The Planning Commission then addressed itself to the map which had been referred to the Planning Commission by the HRA indicating the proposed redevelopment project area boundaries. After considerable discussion the following recommendations were made and the Administrator instructed to convey to the HRA: (a) That the HRA consider including within the development area that block bordered by Elm, 4th, 5th and Oak on the basis that this area would be a natural expansion area for the present downtown area and is pre- sently zoned appropriately. (b) Consider including within the development area, that area North of Elm possibly all the way to Main between Third and Fourth Streets for the same reasons expressed above. The proposed development by the Farmington Lutheran Church for lots 7 thru 11, Block 3, Betzolds Addition, was laid over to the next meeting pending receipt of a response to the Administrators letter dated September 9, 1974. Motion made and carried to adjourn at 9:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford City Administrator 125 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR OCTOBER 22, 1974 The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7: 30 P.M. Present : Chairman Shirley Absent : Members Gerths, Hanson, Hebert and Hoyer IIThere being no quorum the Chairman did not open the meeting. Dr. Ralph Nordine, representing Farmington Lutheran Church discussed informally with the Chairman their development plans. He informed the Chairman the plans would be presented to the congregation on November 17, 1974 and they would hope to start before the first of December. The Chairman told him that the next regular meeting would be November 26 , 1974, but that he could call a special meeting on November 19, 1974 to accommodate a request for variance public hearing if necessary. Respectfully submitted for the Chairman, William J. Ford City Administrator APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NOVEMBER 26, 1974 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman Present: Chairman Shirley, Members Hanson, Hoyer Absent: Members Gerths and Hebert Also Present: Administrator Ford, HRA Consultant Chapman and in the audience all of the Farmington HRA members Motion by Hanson, second by Hoyer that the minutes of October 8, 1974 be approved as presented. APIF, motion carried. The Chairman took note of the minutes of October 22, 1974 at which there was not a quorum and instructed the minutes to be filed in the permanent book of minutes. The Chairman called to order the public hearing, notice of which was previously published in the request of the Farmington Lutheran Church for whatever variances the Planning Commission would require for the proposed construction at 501 Walnut. The Chairman entered into the record, the statement by the Zoning Officer, that in his opinion, the only variance based on the plan as submitted now required, would be an off-street parking variance of from 25 spaces to 21 spaces. The commission reviewed the proposed development plan with representatives from the church. The chairman then informed the members that he would entertain a motion to grant the variance. At this point Commissioner Hanson informed the commission that he was a member of the Church but did not feel there exisited a conflict of interest. Motion by Hoyer, second by Shirley that and off-street parking variance of from 25 to 21 spaces be approved. APIF, motion carried. A letter was read to the commission, signed by the City Administrator and addressed to the Jim Haugen Ford Co, at 301 Elm St. , informing Mr. Haugen that complaints had been received for lack of a screening fence on a portion of his property for which a setback variance had been granted by the Planning Commission in which he agreed to erect such a fence. The commission instructed the Administrator to contact the Jim Haugen Ford Co and to inform them that the variance could become null and void if such a fence were not erected. The Planning Commission discussed with Mrs. Anna Rother her request to remodel her basement at 516 3rd Street, and to carry on a home occupation consisting of a Beauty Salon. After considerable discussion with Mrs. Rother the commission de- clined to recommend to the council that the zoning ordinance be amended. It was pointed out to Mrs. Rother as per a letter to her from the City Administrator dated November 7, 1974 that her residence was in an R-3 Zoning District which did not permit home occupations. She was further informed that this action by the commission did not preclude her appealing directly to the council to amend the ordinance. The Administrator presented to the commission a request for a minimum lot size variance from Mr & Mrs. Vern Kelly on a newly created lot without a sub-division waiver at 14 Pine Street West. The subject lot is located in an R-1 zoning district without municipal sewer or water. This would require by ordinance a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. while the lot as drawn contains 22,182 sq. ft. After some discussion the commission declined to set a public hearing on this request and directed the Administrator to inform the applicants that if they wanted to pursue the matter that it should be placed on the agenda of the next planning commission.meeting to be held • at 7:30 P.M. , December 10, 1974. Mr. Bill Chapman, HRA Consultant, made a formal extended presentation to the Planning Commission of the Housing and Redevelopment program which had been approved by the HRA and referred to the Planning Commission at their meeting of November 20, 1974. Members of the Commission and all five members of the HRA took part in the general discussion as well as other members of the audience. The planning documents and maps were explained by Mr. Chapman and discussed thoroughly by the Planning Commission in detail. Motion by Hoyer, second by Hanson, that the Planning Commission approve in principle the central area land use plan and map as presented, which depicts the overall concept of development in the Downtown area and recommend it favorably to the council. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Hansen, second by Hoyer that the Planning Commission approve the reUevelopment plan as presented which consists of the following: 1. The narrative plan setting forth the objectives and guidelines. 2. Exhibit 'A' project map showing project boundaries and acquisition areas. 3. Exhibit 'B' land use plan depicting project boundary and permitted land uses. The Planning Commission recommended forwarding the plans to the council with a favorable recommendation. APIF, motion carried. • The commission deferred consideration of the parking space study foremat submitted by the consultants to the next meeting. In view of the upcoming Christmas Holidays, the commission set their next December meeting for 7:30 P.M. , December 10, 1974. The commission deferred consideration of the newly adopted County plat approval ordinance for review at their next commission meeting. Motion made and carried to adjourn at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford City Administrator WJF/kf • • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NOVEMBER 26 , 1974 �- 1 . Minutes of HRA meeting 2 . Public Hearing 7 : 30 P.M. - Request of variance , Farmington Lutheran Church, 501 Walnut St . ✓3 . Presentation to Planning Commission by HRA of the Proposed Farmington Redevelopment Plan. ti� 5 p�c� Sitio �. �✓� cc,��=ter :�L t_ C._ . J r ' e�onoolw IR�onoj e�o�ea B11 O AO Ii911'U N VA =10 M O W-1-11 A . "• •• •� «.«o« S1NV1'If3SNOJ DNINNVId �Ty wS���/wt� � ,^A v rj 1 / �I _ - •JOSSY f'NOSN3MS'NYWM]38 J Doend lVla!!3W WQ� �•IV I1N3051 �. I:: ..:•• rte: Is a: 2. j N. L::. r' tt Ru if .2n Lm ✓ .. _ -._ I _ -.. 'AML 1•. F- rr , F•' ra.. ♦M" fi• i r L-7r 1 7 t•' ] •i (.; � C..�:�:'�l ® moi C� '''.'�•�'3. . LL J III !.. :..:....:.:: J !! �.......:..:..r. :. r CTT7.,. ! CD '�F Q2 2m Em LLJ ILL u 4 . - -- _ Ian , it ��'! k r, � 4 • •�C'. �'�:_.r�----��'rte...:_-rti�� • Sf inwgga'Sr./�"'1:' �I: �,F '� si�'.L' '•SCI.: t..i• 'r•�e9�1 a a::ri•:� a7 oi�i' ( i �si!i•_1 �r' r� � ' _k. 1� p�� .••j 4 a 1 � � �i1 �j is .O a =�.I • TI i � 2°'�B"_a-va�+a�al� 1.�.-�+��_ � _ ES;r�l��ee '�Cr��.16,1:?�!! �'.�ae�iE' 4•e2� � .i -- '!�1-!e?k' r —• ;•�9�!e9Baeu:�� :effie±±?is� .:i::' �:,'��'.�sae�:'�S' .-�-��'�__ ;E�;;��i II<� -.� � �- •1�1 Y�-.Rli, itL o 7:1;. �► � ..:r...e=a.iG_ • " I' � r!• CIIx�elSes�:l ,� :::e"`L�7;,c.41: .�'.� �„!�•�Hyl!. .1.��"G•.—..�I�`�e__3p^'7+, ���.r�-.�.7 r.-s:N a.,.. ii .,.mig E e°° t- •�:"�__ °_ _•aR -a'1P .m �asaS_lo_�r!' e�'-:�_�__�y'eaaa G:.i<:.�I.:•;:i •»n: 7!I w"a'�� � � 1g •. r� �::laa:.'�Laaf".I �.7L.:•Y•L7�dil�i {p.6 ,� REDEVELOPMENTPLAN FOR DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA DECEMBER, 1974 PREPARED 8Y: NASON WEHRMAN CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES INC MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA AND t CHARLES TOOKER, CITY AND TOWN PLANNING FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA • CONTENTS Page The Redevelopment Plan comprises the following: _....,. A. PURPOSE i B. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1 I . Boundaries of the Redevelopment Area 1 2. Redevelopment Objectives 1 3. Types of Proposed Redevelopment Actions 2 C. LAND USE PLAN 3 1 . Explanation of the Land Use Plan 3 2. Land Use Provisions and Building Requirements — Permitted Uses 3 D. PROJECT PROPOSALS 5 Lund Acquisition 5 2. City and Authority Obligations 5 3. Rehabilitation 6 4. Land Disposition and Developer's Obligations 6 E. PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO MEET STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS 6 1 . Contract Regulations 6 2. Non-Discrimination 6 3. Vacation and Dedication of Public Rights®of-�Way 7 F. PROCEDURE FOR CHANGES IN APPROVED PLAN 7 LXH(BITS Exhibit A Project Map Exhibit B Land Use Plan r A. PURPOSE The Redevelopment Plan is prepared as the basic document for the guidance of re- newal efforts within the Downtown Redevelopment Project. The document is a guide for the City of Farmington, Minnesota, herein known as the "City" and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the City of Farmington, Minnesota, here- in known as the "Authority" in the performance of redevelopment activities. Re- development in accordance with this Plan is.considered essential for the correction and improvement of a seriously blighted portion of the central area of the City of Farmington. B. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1 . Boundaries of the Redevelopment Area a. The boundaries of the Renewal Area are shown in Exhibit A - Project Map. All reference to the project or project area refers to the lands within the boundary of the Downtown Redevelopment Project. b. Boundary Description tion Beginning at the intersection of the center of Elm Street and Fourth Street and extending southerly to the center of the alley between Spruce Street and Walnut Street then westerly to the center of First Street then norther- ly to the center of alley North of Elm Street then easterly to the center of Second Street then southerly to the center of Elm Street then easterly to the point of beginning. 2. Redevelopment Objectives P I With the basic goal of redeveloping the central area of Farmington, the Re- development Plan is intended to accomplish the following objectives through this redevelopment activity. a. Enhance the livability and preserve the inherent values of the City of Farmington through the elimination of seriously blighted areas of the community by: 1. Removing substandard, blighted, and obsolete structure*. 2. Removingdeleterious land uses and establishing sound land g use relationships. b. Foster economical) l y sound development in the protect area by: 1 . Making space for new sound business development in the business area. 2. Providing lands of sufficient size to permit economical and ap- propriate business area development. - i 3. Providing sound development that will assist in preserving and strengthening sound present development in the business area. 4. Encouraging new development within the project and in surround- ing areas. ' 5. Assuring development incorporating design of the highest standards in architecture, site planning, and landscape architecture.- 6. rchitecture.6. Intensifying land uses to a point that will assure a satisfactory property valuation and local tax return. i7. Providing adequate open spaces, and public areas to improve the environment. 8. Preserve architectural character and quality. 9.. Protect natural features such as trees. 10.- Provide for sound housing with particular concern for middle and ` low income, elderly and families. c. Provide modern public improvements as may be needed such as high quali- ty street facilities, utility systems, pedestrian spaces, environmental im- provements and public parking areas. ! d. Accomplish redevelopment in the central area of Farmington by: ■ 1 . Starting with project activities.that are feasible and expanding ' on the scope and involvement of the redeirelopment activity as warranted by local conditions within the redevelopment project: 2. Expanding on activities and the scale of the project as appro- priate to accomplish the above Redevelopment Plan objectives. 3. Perform redevelopments in such a manner that business area park- ing is accomplished incorporating perimeter parking. 3. Types of Proposed Redevelopment Actions The public redevelopment program for the Project will comprise the following activities as may be essential to accomplish the objectives:. acquisition of properties, relocation of site occupants, demolition of structures, site prepara- tion, reconstruction of streets, reconstruction of utilities, vacation and dedi- cation of streets, development of parking facilities, assembly of lands into . disposition parcels, disposal of land for public and private use, review of redevelopment proposals, conservation activities relating to structures and 2 , natural features that may be allowed to remain, develop housing, perform the appropriate financial activities, and enforce the requirements contained_ in the Redevelopment Plan. C. LAND USE PLAN 1 . Explanation of the Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan Exhibit B shows: a. Proposed street rights-of-way. b. Land proposed for parking and pedestrian area development. c. Land proposed for private use or sale for private or public uses. 2 . nd aProvisionsnt La Us and Building R uireme s - Permuted Uses 1 . GENERAL BUSINESS, RETAIL OR OFFICE Permitted Uses: Uses allowable within this area shall include.central business types of retail, office and general business activities. Use Objective: The development of attractive retail facilities for local and regional service. Alternate Use: Permitted alternate use of the land shall be public,. including public parking. ' Site Coverage: Maximum building and surface area coverage for de- velopment lands shall be ninety (90) percent of the total site area. A minimum of ten (10) percent of the site area shall be landscaped and maintained as open space or used as a pedestrian area. ' Buffer: In instances where this use abuts a property zoned for a residential use, all buildings, parking areas and 1 general paved areas shall be set back from the lot line a minimum of 10 feet. This 10 foot setback area shall be landscaped with lawns, planting or screen walls in a manner subject to Authority approval. Parking: All new developments on lands within the redevelopment 1 area must participate in the development of central area parking. This may be by developing on-site facilities, participating in joint ownership facilities_ :and/or contribut- ing to a City parking improvement program. The amount 3 of parking to be provided shall be up to four car spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail, office or business floor area. All parking is subject to Author• ity acceptance. Service: On-site loading facilities and space shall be provided fpr ' commercial uses with consideration given to minimize traffic obstruction and develop in a manner compatible with the pedestrian areas. Such development will be subject to Authority acceptance. 2. PUBLIC PARKING Permitted: Public parking for service to central area uses. Use Objective: The development of attractive parking facilities in public ownership with appropriate vehicle and pedestrian access.. This Redevelopment Plan assumes that the City will take on the responsibility of operating off-street.parking fa- cilities a- c i 1 i he on a district basis. Alternate Use: Public or private uses compatible with the business area and the Redevelopment Plan Objectives. Site Coverage: Maximum building arkin structures) coverage shall g 9 �p 9 9 be 90 percent of the total site area. A minimum of 10 percent of the site area shall be landscaped and ma into i ned as open space or used as a pedestrian area. 3. HEAVY BUSINESS OR LIGHT INDUSTRY Permitted Uses: Uses allowable within this area shall include fringe , ' business type uses, service uses, minor manufacturing and uses compatible to a sound central community area. Use Objective: Provision of space for relocation of uses that are not compatible with a retail, office or business location but are important to be located in the central area, Provision of space requiring immediate access to vehi- cle parking. Alternate Use: Permitted alternate useof land shall be public. Parking: Al new developments on lands within the redevelopment area must participate in the development of central area parking. This may be by developing on site facilities, participating in joint ownership facilities, or contribut- 4 ing to a City parking improvement program. The amount of parking to be provided shall be up to four car spaces per 1,000 square feet of heavy business or fight industry floor area. All parking is subject to Authority acceptance. Service: On site loading facilities and space shall be provided subject to Authority acceptance. 4. MULTIPLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL Permitted Uses: Uses allowable within this area shall include multiple family housing in accordance with local regulations. D. . PROJECT PROPOSALS I . Land Acquisition Identification of Property to be acquired - Exhibit A Project Map, identifies real properties to be acquired for clearance and redevelopment. Properties can be purchased on the basis of any of the following: a. Properties containing deteriorated substandard or blighting influence buildings. b. Properties necessary ry tocrat adequate parcels of Land for proper re use. c. Properties necessary to produce appropriate land for development by occupants relocated by this or other public action. ' d. Properties as necessary to provide space to accommodate the apparent market that is in accordance with the objectives of the-Plan and is of -benefit to the financial feasibility of the Project. e. Properties that are in a use that is contra to this Plan. p contrary 2. City and Authority Obligations a. Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan serves to obligate the Authority to diligently perform the various Redevelopment Actions of the Plan in order to accomplish a successful redevelopment activity. b. Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan serves to obligate the-City to aid in the activities of the Authority in the performance of public improve- ments, development of public parking facilities generally in accordance with this Plan and cooperate in the financial activities in order to assure redevelopment success. 5 i 3. Rehabilitation a. The Authority will press for the rehabilitation of buildings remaining within the boundaries of the Project to be brought to a reasonable level of improvement in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan Objectives and local codes. Assistance wi 11 be provided as possible to help owners ' find the method and means to perform such improvement. b. Structures for which rehabilitative action is found to be infeasible may be ' acquired by the Authority. Upon the acquisition of such properties, the Authority may demolish the structures and dispose of properties for uses in accordance with the Plan. .1 4. Land Diseosition and Developer's Obligations a. The redevelopers of properties, their successors or assigns will be required by contract with the Authority to observe all provisions of the Redevelop- ment Plan. The contract and the disposition documents for Authority land sale will detail the provisions, standards, and criteria for achieving the objectives and requirements set forth in this.Plan. The Authority will select redevelopers of land on the basis of their proposals, determination of their ability and timing for the performance of improvements, and conformance to the Redevelopment Plan. b. Disposition of properties may be through fixed price offerings, through nego- tiations..where objectives are determining factors or by other means which in the determination of the Authority will best assure the attainment of the Cityand Authority objectives of this Plan. Disposition of land for public use will be performed by direct negotiation. c. On-site utilities for an prima use, including among other things, elec- trical h' _ trical lines, telephone lines and other communication and utility lines, shall be constructed by the developer and shall be placed underground. E. PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO MEET STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS 1... Contract Regulations ' Every contract for sale, lease, or redevelopment of property within.the project area shall include prohibitions against land speculation and will require com- pliance with all applicable State and local laws and ordinances. 2. Non-Discrimination Every contract for sale, lease, or redevelopment of property within the project . area shall include prohibitions against discrimination or segregation by reasons of race, color, creed, religion, sex, or national origin, and shall require that 6 i 16 such provisions be made a covenant running with the land and be binding upon the redeveloper and his successors in interest to the property. Vacation and Dedication of Public Rights-of-Way Vacations and dedications of public rights-of-way shall be accomplished by separate actions in accordance with State law and local ordinances.and will be initiated by the Authority. F. PROCEDURE FOR CHANGES IN APPROVED PLAN This Redevelopment Plan may be changed or modified at any time relating to any and all aspects of the project before or after the lease or sale of the project area lands, or por- tions thereof, by Authority resolution authorizing necessary changes or modifications of ' the Plan. If proposed modifications alter or affect the external boundaries or substantially alter or affect the general land use established by the Plan, however, such modifications shall be adopted by the Authority and by the City Council after a public hearing as re- quired for the original adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. 1 7 MAIN ST. I � � I ' ■I I■Z F O w U) ELM :1■1■I■1■I■1■1■1■1■I■1■1■1■1■1■I■1■1■I■1■1■1■1■I■I■1■LI■I■I ST. 1, G ■ D 1• 13(:) a la L7 T s �' IL 13co `- ■ 1:10 ('� —� 130) 'l:J w R ■_ j a P) b ■_ ■ t 5 • 4 ■ EI►�?�� rnry I 4 1--1 �'J l0 41 6 6 OAK ; ST. 3 f(2 LS(q l0 10 3 I 11 1 1 1If 1 17 i9 �I _■ ■ lll��7 � I ■ _■ O RAII � la N �_ ■ 1 1 Q 3 OCJ SPRUCE : ST. i >(� 4 O ,2 G ❑ Is � -7 1■1■I■I■I■I■I■1■1 ` I■1■1 ■ F- CC LLLL o WALNUT ST. PROJECT MAPI ACQUISITION AREAS PROJECT BOUNDARY 1■1■1■I■I■I■I■1■1■ REDEVELOPMENT PLAN DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT loo aoo scale HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NASON,WEHRMAN,CHAPMAN,ASSOC.INC. NORTH FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA MIN NORTH LILAC DRIVE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA MAIN ST. i ■I I■z � z ■ O U U) U) C/) U) i • i i ELMST. i ■ G i HB ■ 1 1 ■ OAK ; ST. i � i � P SPRUCE : ST. i i i H ■ ■_ _■ ' i I■I■I■I■I■I■I■uI u1■I ■_ H Co Ir 2 O LL L Ll- E: i WALNUT ST. PERMITTED USES LAND USE PLAN P PUBLIC PARKING H MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT BOUNDARY I■I■I■II■I■I■I■I■I■ HB HEAVY BUSINESS OR LIGHT INDUSTRY B GENERAL BUSINESS, RETAIL OR OFFICE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ° ioo aoo scale HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NASON,WEHRMAN,CHAPMAN,ASSOC.INC. iNORTH FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA �r DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT REPORT HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY for the CITY of FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 1974 Prepared By NASON, WEHRMAN, CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA and CHARLES TOOKER - CITY and TOWN PLANNING FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PURPOSE OF STUDY 1 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INFORMATION 3 1 . Land Use 3 2. Occupancy 3 3. Building Condition and Obsolescence 3 PROJECT SELECTION AND INVOLVEMENT 6 1 . Condition Summary 7 2. Redevelopment Summary 7 3. Acquisition 8 4. Relocation 9 5. Disposition 10 FINANCE REPORT 11 1 Genera 1 11 2. Estimate of Project Cost 12 3. Basis of Financial Feasibility 13 RENEWAL PROCEDURE 14 MAP EXHIBITS 1 . Building Use Map 2. Building Conditions 3. Property Map 4. Disposition Map PURPOSE OF STUDY The Central Area of Farmington, Minnesota is bounded generally by Pine Street on the north, Fifth Street on the east, Maple Street on the south, and First Street on the wesr. Within this area lies the Central Business District of Farmington. This District is bounded generally by the Burlington-Northern Trackage on the west cnd Trunk Highway 50, which is Elm Street,on the north and residential areas on the south and east. A can;ral area study was prepared and information is presented in the separate report which relates to the Central Area which is a part of the Community Development Plan. This Dowr;town Rede- velopment Project Report evolves as a study relating to a defined redevelopmeot project within the central area of Farmington and the limits of this project are shcw•n on various exhibits of this Report Lnd may be described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the certer of Elm Street and Fourth Street and extending southerly to the center of the alley between Spruce Street and Walnut Street then westerly to the center of First Street then northerly to the center of alley North of Elm Street then easterly to the conte; of Second Street then south- erly to the center of Elm Street then easterly to the point of beginning. The central area of Farmington and the defined redevelopment project area contain build- ings with deteriorated and obsolete conditions, inadequate parking, a mixture of various commercial service, inadequate housing and light industrial uses surrounded by residen- tial development. Nearly all land is occupied by urban deve!opments and a substantial parcelization of land has taken place over ry period of years to a point that adequate -,ize tracks of land for new development are unavailable. The businesses and the businass area do not now serve the general public in a proper manner. Shopping strips and business districts are forming elsewhere on open land to the detriment of the business district of Farmington. This Downtown Redevelopment Project Report serves to address the problems of condition and obsolescense within the project area ane serves to recommend further redevelopment activities in accordance with state statutes, which will serve to improve upon the central area of Farmington. It is readily apparent that redevelopment will not take pace and improvements will not be made to the central area of Farmington without the actions and the activities of a redevelopment program of some form. T1!e redevelopment project as defined is somewhrt extensive and, therefore, the activity serves to provide the legal framework and start of a program of improvement in the central area. This Report serves to do the following: 9 (1) Review the conditions existing within a segment of the central area of Farmington. (2) Define an appropriate program for redevelopment of a segment of this area. (3) Define and display implications of a project relating to acquisition, relocation and disposition. (4) Display financial feasibility of accomplishing she redevelopment program, and (5) Direct a systematic outline of a program of events in order to accomplish redevelop- ment for this portion of Farmington. Some of the survey and research activities that are presented within this report are per- formed in order to determine the logical and the general eligibility of a renewal type program in accordance with Minnesota law. This Report also includes the Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Redevelopment Project for the City of Farmington. This document is included for local consideration of the Authority, Planning Commission and Council. Activities of this study were performed by the office of Nason, Wehrman, Chapman Associates, Inc. of Minneapolis, and Charles Tooker, City and Town Planner of Farmington. Planning Activities were in coordination with the Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority of Farmington which is the organization with the primary responsibility for the performance of redevelopment activities. 2 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INFORMATION In order to make determinations as to public improvement activities, information has been gathered relating to the Project area. Such information gathering has related to building conditions, building obsolescence, occupancy, and land use within the segment of the Central Area of Farmington. Information for each of these items is presented below. LAND USE Existing building use information has been gathered as related to the various occupants of the various kinds of land use and presented in map form as an exhibit entitled, Build- ing Use, Map No. 1 . Information gathered reflects the fact that most of the buildings within the area of consideration were constructed in the late 19th century or earlier 20th century and are now in use for commercial or service purposes. Some upper floors of business buildings are residentially occupied. The area includes many small one and two story business buildings, vacancy, upper floor residences and burned out areas. The area also includes a number of active business occupants so important to a business area. Park- ing is somewhat unorganized and an orderly system of off-street parking does not exist. City office, financial institutions and Telephone Company facilities within the eastern segment of the project are key good uses as is the Post Office in the southern segment. Trucking activities and auto related uses (garage and service) are somewhat adverse to the area. OCCUPANCY Occupant information has been gathered relative to properties within the subject area and a tabulation of occupants to be affected by redevelopment activities is presented within the segment of this report entitled Project Selection and Involvement. As a result of information gathered, it appears essential that special consideration be given to each and every business and residential occupant within the segment of the business area that would be affected by the renewal program. BUILDING CONDITIONS AND BLIGHTING INFLUENCE The project area was surveyed and analyzed to determine the extent of inadequacy of buildings. An exterior survey of buildings was performed to determine and rate building conditions and obsolescence. Upon determining generally the redevelopment to be per- formed, further interior surveys were made to be sure of conditions of questionable build- ings. The results of survey are presented on Map No. 2 entitled Building Conditions. Building conditions as indicated on the map entitled Building Conditions are defined as follows: 3 Substandard - Buildings which are deteriorated or dilapidated to a point beyond which a prudent person would go to remodel or repair to present day stan- dards for future use. Deteriorated - Buildings which are deficient to a point requiring extensive repair or replacement beyond normal maintenance but not to a point warranting c lea rance. Sound - Buildings needing only normal maintenance in order to continue in use in accordance with present day standards. The Blighting Influence Survey was conducted along with the exterior building surveys. Blighting influence isan element overriding the previous structural consideration and provides the further basis for the determination that redevelopment is a logical and appropriate public action. A building may be obsolete as well as substandard, deteriorated or sound. The obsolescence factors itemized and defined below may seem at first glance to be individual characteristics, but on closer study, they are found to be inherently related. One fac- tor alone does not generally justify an 'obsolete" classification, however, when two or three factors apply on the same building, the obsolete characteristics become more ap- parent. The criteria used for determining building obsolescence is as follows: Obsolescence Factors: 1 . Use conversion obsolescence a. improper conversion to present use. b. vacant space not appropriate for conversion to desirable business district use. ■ 2. Space obsolescence a. inadequate size for resent use. q P b. excessive space for present use. co building size not compatible with contemporary business practice. 3. Age obsolescence a. budding age such that, despite acceptable maintenance, construction technology used in original structure make building unsuitable for ex- tended use. b. building designed for specific use does not now meet contemporary codes for re-use. 4. Functional obsolescence a* lack of proper facilities for efficient or proper operation. b. lack of growth potential. 4 5. Obsolescent or adverse blighting influence a. character of building such that it impairs desirable growth and new construction on adjoining property (blighting influence). b. character and type of building is not compatible with the develop- ment of a strong, healthy business complex. i 1 5 PROJECT SELECTION AND INVOLVEMENT Study activities served to define a redevelopment type project for an eight block segment of the Central Area of Farmington. This project area is shown on exhibits of this report. Various things can be accomplished in the name of redevelopment, however, only limited activities will be performed for initial actions. Successful performance of the project will provide the incentive for further rehabilitation and redevelopment with or without public assistance. The initial activities defined are limited enough to be handled and performed within a reasonable time, yet large enough to provide a significant spark of improvement and change. The extent of the project area is such that the benefits of performance of a project utilizing the "tax incre- ment" features of the State Statutes relating to redevelopment are worthwhile. Federal assistance for redevelopment is seeked in order to help financially accomplish the activities, however, with the limitation of federal funds, the above financing method is considered essential. Project activities reflect recommendations as generally contained in the early comprehen- sive plan and also the recent Central Area Development Plan, Project conditions and implications and activities are described in this section. Although building conditions and obsolescence exist warranting substantial acquisition and clear- ance, only partial acquisition is contemplated early. The Redevelopment Plan determined as a result of this study serves to authorize limited initial acquisition. However, the ex- pansion of acquisition and clearance based on the terms of the Redevelopment Plan are es- sential to the success of redevelopment. A summary of project involvements together with exhibits showing these involvements is presented. 6 CONDITION SUMMARY BLIGHTING NON INFLUENCE BLIGHTING TOTAL SOUND BUILDINGS 6 40 46 DETERIORATED 1 33 34 SUBSTANDARD 2 29 31 TOTAL 9 102 111 TOTAL of substandard plus other buildings that are obsolescent or blighting 38 REDEVELOPMENT SUMMARY An eight block project. Purchase of 17 properties. Relocation of 11 resident and 14 non-residence occupants. Removal of 20 buildings. As a part of total project activities, it is essential for the City to purchase properties for public parking use as called for in the Plan. j ACQUISITION Acquisition will be accomplished by the Authority as shown on the Property Map No. 3. The following represents a tabulation of parcels within the project contemplated for acquisition by the Authority. PARCEL NO. (Old) PARCEL NO. (New) NAME OF OWNER AREA (Approx.) 6196 14-77000-024-22-1 Herman E. Kossow 6194 14-77000-010-22-1 Paul Bunyan Dairy Store 1,810 6193&95 14-77000-022-22-1 Newman M. & Gilberg Kuchera 9,780 6190 14-77000-020-22-1 Fred M. Seed & G. E. Stelzel 9,750 6192 14-77000-021-22-1 Roy W. Almquest & Donna 2,250 6155&56 14-77000-060-19-1 Alfred F. Fischer 16, 150 6157 14-77000-070-19-1 Alfred F. Fischer 10,200 6158 14-77000-090-19-1 Alfred F. Fischer 5,760 6161 14-77000-093-19-1 Percy C. Steele & Wife 3,360 6154 14-77000-040-19-1 P. H. Feely & Son, Inc. 11,880 6149 14-77000-010-19-1 Frederick Griebe, Sr. 10,200 6210 1477000-061-23-1 Lisle J. Baltes, et, al. 3,300 6055 14-77000-050-08-1 P. H. Feeley & Son, Inc. 13,200 j6054 14-77000-040-08-1 Barbara Thomas 10,200 6053 14-77000-030-08-1 Merle H. & Rose McClintock 10,200 60522 14-77000-022-08-1 Leslie & Marlene Krueger 5, 180 6052 14-77000-021-08-1 Willard & Mildred Ackerman 6,2200 6051 14-77000-020-08-1 Cecil Lord 9,000 ACQUISITION AREA 140,820.00 8 RELOCATION • The following is an indication of project relocation involvement based on the extent of acquisition contemplated: 1 i R6sids noes 14 Non-residence occupants As a preliminary acquisition, the Authority contemplates reviewing occupant needs, providing assistance by seeking relocation resource information and aiding occupants in their selection and relocation. The Authority will assist and compensate relocatees in accordance with State law. From the information presented above, and with local knowledge of relocation resources (both business and household) it is believed that relocation can be accomplished satis- factorily. Every effort will be given to aid relocatees find adequate quarters and co- ordinate in order to minimize hardship. 9 DISPOSITION A review was.made of potentials for land sale. It appears that central area disposition potentials include office and retail business, residential and public. Uses logical for public development include parking and pedestrian developmert . The Authority would expect to dispose of the parcels for the following uses. PARCEL USE AREA A PUBLIC (Pedestrian Way) 21 210 sq. ft. B PUBLIC (Parking) 13,970 sq. ft. 1 C GENERAL BUSINESS 12,000 sq. ft. D GENERAL BUSINESS 531980 sq. ft. E GENERAL BUSINESS 10,200 sq. ft. F PUBLIC PARKING 11,880 sq. ft. G PUBLIC PARKING 26,350 sq. ft. H GENERAL BUSINESS 3,360 sq. ft. I GENERAL BUSINESS 5,760 sq. ft. Public sales will be negotiated and private sales will be made on the basis of satisfac- tory development proposals. Map No. 4, entitled Disposition Map, shows the above areas. For estimation purposes, it is assumed that land sales may be made for a value in excess of $1.25 per square foot. On the basis of 139,710square ft. of land sale, it is assumed that disposition proceeds will be about $174,000. 10 FINANCE REPORT General With the findings made that conditions exist within the Downtown Area warranting a rede- velopment activity and assuming that there is a market for some land sales, the important task is to define a feasible program. With the limitation of available Federal renewal type Community Development funds, local financial feasibility for redevelopment is essential. A basis assumption in the preparation of this Report is that the tax increment financing pro- vision of the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act (Section 462.585 of the State Stat- utes) be utilized in financing the renewal activities. This project assumes that Housing and Redevelopment Authority will sell revenue bonds to finance the redevelopment project costs. At the time that the Redevelopment Plan for the project is approved by City Council, the Authority will notify the County Auditor to certify as to the assessed value of real property within the project area. Based on the proportion of assessed value to the increased assessed value within each following year, the County Treasurer shall remit to the Authority the in- crease tax increment as provided by law. The tax increment funds shall be received by the Authority and utilized for the retirement of the bonds until the public redevelopment costs of the project including interest have been paid. As an alternative for later determination and by agreement, the City may is- sue the bonds for retirement by the tax increment provisions in accordance with state sta- tutes. Early activities of the project involve the acquisition of lands that will serve to assemble parcels of land forre-use. Various central area type uses such as retail and office uses needing space within the business area of Farmington may be interested in the acquisition of redevelopment lands produced. Any of various uses may develop to the extent neces- sary to assure financial feasibility. Because of the importance of the financial aspects of this project, it is essential that finan- cial feasibility be assured. It is further essential that the Authority and the City have ample assurance that the finance plan as approved by the Authority and as authorized by Council is truly workable. In order to assure this, finance information is presented in this section. In order to further assure success, the Redevelopment Plan is prepared and the redevelop- ment procedure is defined within this report stating an orderly sequence of events which will allow the Authority to judge the adequacy of development proposals before the Author- ity takes the steps to commit the purchase of properties within the project area. This step is not only essential for financial security of the project, but further for the purpose of get- ting the best possible interest rate on bonds to be marketed by the Authority. It appears that the project as defined can be performed by acquiring properties as designa- ted and performing necessary relocation, demolition and public improvement activities. City purchase of lands and development of parking facilities is essential to the disposition and redevelopment of Authority lands. Success will depend on the sale of redevelop- ment land for solid new uses with building values such that a substantial real estate tax return will be realized. The Estimate of Project Cost provides the financial basis for project feasibility. ESTIMATE OF PROJECT COST Administration $ 30,000 Legal Services 5,000 Acquisition Expense 17 properties @ $500 8,500 Disposition Expense 9 properties @ $800 7,200 Relocation Expenses 25 relocatees @ $100 $2,500 Moving costs 25 @ $500 12,500 Relocation Payments Business 14@ $2,000 28,000 Residents 11 @ $9,000 99,000 142,000 Advance Planning (Central Area and Redevelopment) 10,000 Real Estate Purchase 512,000 Site Clearance (20 buildings @ $700) 14,000 Site Improvement Pedestrian Development 7,000 Other Environmental Improvements 33,000 40,000 Interest ($100,000 @ 8% for 2 years) 16,000 Contingencies + 10% 78,500 GROSS PROJECT COST $863,200 DISPOSITION PROCEEDS (Redevelopment - 85,300 sq.ft.) 106,200 (Public Use - 54,410 sq.ft.) 68,000 174,200 NET PROJECT COST $680,000 12 BASIS FOR FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY The redevelopment project area involves about eight blocks in the central area of Farmington. The following assumptions are made concerning project financing: 1 . The eight block area is estimated to have a 1974 Assessor's Market Value of about------ $2,500,000 2. The reassessment now in progress may serve to increase the market value in 1975 by one-third over the 1974 base or a total of about------ $3,300,000 3. Project activity will serve to remove properties with estimated Assessor's Market Value for 1975 (based on the Real Estate Purchase price) of about---- $ 512,000 4. It is expected that the improved building and land value of lands sold for redevelopment may have a value (assuming 1976 construction of)---- $1 ,623,000 5. The normal increase of property values can conservatively be estimated at three percent per year. 6. Projections of cost of project and repayment of bonds, it is assumed that maximum bonding would be on the basis of the net project cost plus 2 years of interest at 6% on689,000 (689,000 + 12%) would be approximately------ $ 730,000 On the basis of the above assumptions, a tabulation was prepared as a test of the tax increment. Assuming the bonded amount on the above $730,000 and a tax increment ranging from $13,824 in 1975 and $556,464 for 1989 (15 years in the future) there ap- pears to be no problem in repaying the bonds together with reasonable debt service. 13 RENEWAL PROCEDURE ' On the basis of the project defined within this report, it appears that a redevelopment acti- vity in the central area of Farmington is feasible. The state statutes require that communities preparing to perform a redevelopment activity must seek federal assistance when available. At the present time, the new Federal Community Development Act rules are in preparation. Federal funds for redevelopment may be available by a proper application from the City of Farmington to HUD. The public bodies of Farmington should proceed in an orderly manner 1 to perform a local redevelopment activity in accordance with the state statutes. In order to satisfy local law, and perchance funds are available, it is important to seek diligently to gain Federal assistance in the activity contemplated. The following steps are suggested: 1 . Housing and Redevelopment Authority accepts the Downtown Redevelopment Project Report as a guide to redevelopment activities and further adopt the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Redevelopment Project. 2. Authority transmits the Redevelopment Plan together with the supporting Planning Report to the Planning Commission and request report on the Plan. 3. Planning Commission review and report to the Authority and Council in regard to the Plan. 4. Authority transmits Redevelopment Plan and supporting preliminary planning report to the City Council with the request for adoption. 5. City Council reviews the Redevelopment Plan and supporting documentation, holds a public hearing on the Plan and takes action in accordance with State Statutes. 6. Authority requests County Auditor to certify to the assessed value of real property ' within the project area. 7. The City prepares a Community Development Plan, Program and Application to the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and seeks Federal assistance for this project and other important local improvements. 8. Authority transmittal of a certified copy of the Redevelopment Plan and the support- ing documentation to the Minnesota State Housing Commission at the State Planning Agency. r9. Authority completes background documentation and prepare promotional materials to aid in the seeking of developers for the redevelopment of lands within the Project. 10. Authority receives and reviews development proposals and upon the receiptt of sotis- factory proposals, the Authority (or the City) proceeds with the process of selling redevelopment (tax anticipation) bonds to cover the Authority performance of re- development activity. 14 11. Authority proceeds to perform redevelopment activities including the purchase of property, demolition of structures, relocation of occupants, performance of neces- sary project improvements, and the disposition of land to private and public de- velopers. 12. City proceeds to establish a parkirg improvement program, to purchase land from the Authority and develop needed parking facilities as called for within the Re- development Plan. 13. City accomplishes zoning changes as necessary to accomplish redevelopment. 15 MAIN ST. ■I 1■Z ■ O U H U, U) ■ G i ■ ELM :I■1■I■I■1■I■I■i■1■I■1■1■I■I■I■I■1■1■1■1.1■1■I■1■1■1■1■LI■1 ST. 14 `�� yy .. ._.'.• 13(4) isiA+F?; � E[i _ � t � j w R ■_ ■ IL Ll _■ j F s ■_ ■ 1 ■ OAK ; ST. 17 ELEA i RAIL U 'gyp N ■ 0 ■ • ® a ;x ® ■ OR gob, I o �2> .x ■ i SPRUCE i ST. ■ j, o lll■1■Ill■l■I■1■I Dim ■_ o a = cc �- E-L 7 F- LL O WALNUT ST. ' LEGEND STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION BUILDING USE CULTURAL PROJECT BOUNDARY TRADE 1■1■1■1.1.1■1.1.1. SERVICES ® TRANSPORTATION RESIDENTIAL UNDEVELOPED ( OR VACANT DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT o loo 400scale HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NASON,WEHRMAN,CHAPMAN,ASSOC.INC. NORTH FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA MAIN ST. co ---------�1010—IiAlmo z 0 w co c~n co co wi ELM ST. t : 14 It) P3 13(1) th LE (K) ■ u 13 OAK ST. 2 ■ 1XI ON Fill 019 go i SPRUCE i ST. ' : ❑ 0 Q 0 EM 13 13 ------ ---- cf) cc cc 0 F7 LL WALNUT ST. LEGEND BUILDING CONDITIONS SOUND PROJECT BOUNDARY DETERIORATED SUBSTANDARD OBSOLESCENT - DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 01 100 400scale HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MASON,WEHRMAM,CHAPMAN,ASSOC.INC. NORTH 1415 NORTH LILAC DRIVE FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA MAIN ST. U) •I I■z � z O U UU) i ' ELM :I.I.I■I■I.I.I.I■I.I.I■I■I.I■I.I.I.I■I■I■I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I ST. ' 6 6196 � 6 • 6195 6190 & ■ 6192 i ■ ■ 7- OAK ; ST. i 6154 61 i ■ ■ ■ ■ 6161 ' 6155 & 6156 ■ 6158 SPRUCE 6157 : ST. i 6052.5 i 6052 i 6051 Tr r I■I■uI■ui■I■In ■I■I ■_ 055 605 0 _ U05 F- CC = O LL LL u- u- WALNUT ST. PROPERTY MAP NOTE: ACQUISITION PARCELS 6149 PROJECT BOUNDARY I■I■I■I■I.I■I.I.I. ARE SHOWN AS FOLLOWS: DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ioo aooscale HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NASON,WEHRMAN,CHAPMAN,ASSOC.INC. NORTH 1415FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA ' MAIN ST. ■I I■z z O U ELM i I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■ul■uI■I■I■I■I■i■I■I■I■I■I ST. ■ i G � i G G i G i i OAK ; ST. f F G ' G SPRUCE : ST. i cr G i ■ G r L■I■I■I■I■I■I■I■I ■In ■_ H OC = O FL u' F- u WALNUT ST. ' DISPOSITION PARCELS ARE SHOWN F DISPOSITION MAP DISPOSITION PARCELS A. 3,300 SQ. FT. PROJECT BOUNDARY I■I.I■I■I■I■I■I.I■ B. 13,970 SQ. FT. F. 11,880 SQ. FT. C. 12,000 SQ. FT. G. 26,350 SQ. FT. D. 54,000 SQ. FT. H. 3,360 SQ. FT. E. 10,200 SQ. FT. I. 5,760 SQ. FT. ' DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT o Ioo 400 oscale HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NASON,WEHRMAN,CHAPMAN,ASSOC.INC. 1 NORTH FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 129 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL DECEMBER 10,1974 The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Shirley, Members Hanson and Hoyer Absent: Members Gerths and Hebert Mr. & Mrs. Vern Kelly informally discussed with the Planning Commission the Possibility of a variance for minimum lot size on a lot which they had created at. 14 Pine Street through a parcel split filed with the County. It was shown that the lot was located in an R-1 zoning district without municipal sewer or water. The ordinance showed that such a lot would require 40,000 sq. ft. and the newly created lot had approxi- mately 22,000 sq. ft. The City Administrator explained to the Planning Commission that this particular ordinance had begun to become very troublesome in instances where you have a single owner of one or more abutting lots with no intension to build, resell or develope. The Commission recommended to the City Council that either an acceptable method of strict enforcement of the present ordinance be devised or that the ordinance be amended to make it more workable. The Planning Commission declined to grant a variance and took no action. Motion by Hoyer, second by Hanson that the Downtown parking space occupancy study plan as submitted by Charles Tooker be approved and that he be authorized to pro- ceed in accordance with the proposal. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Hanson, second by Hoyer to recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Ordinance, section 10-7-1 (D) be amended to permit home occupations in the R-3 zoning district in single family residences only, as a permited use. APIF, motion carried. The balance of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of the new Dakota County Plat review ordinance and its significance to the City of Farmington. Motion made and carried to adjourn at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, William J. Ford City Administrator