HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.12.03 Planning Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
..,arml~ron, MH 55024
A prout! Past - A PromfslfIJ Futur.
Committed to Provld!~'- '1'Jh QJ.Ialltyl,,<'Ic~:,
TImely and ResportSHftsefvrce to All
Of Our Customers '{
.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 12, 2003
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) July 8, 2003
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) . Variance Request - Minimum Setback Requirement for Accessory Structures .
Applicant: Tim Donnelly - 1208 Fairview lane
b) Review of a Draft Master Plan for the Spruce Street Corridor Project
c) Zoning Code Text Amendments for Title 10 Chapter 6 Section 24: Model Home
Ordinance (Continued)
Applicant: City of Farmington
. 4. . DISCUSSION
~.
.
a) Discussion Regarding Future MUSA Allocation
b) Discussion Regarding Potential Text. Amendments to the Spruce Street
Commercial Zoning District
5. ADJOURN
,....
.
.
.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
City Planning Commission
left/'
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
Variance Request - Minimum Setback Requirement for Accessory
Structures
Applicant: Tim Donnelly - 1208 Fairview Lane
August 12, 2003
The applicant, Tim Donnelly, is seeking a variance from the mmlmum setback
requirement to construct a garage three (3) feet from the side property line. The
property is located at 1208 Fairview Lane and is zoned R-2, Low/Medium Density
Residential.
PLANNING DIVISION REVIEW
Applicant:
Attachments:
Property Location:
Existing Zoning:
Tim Donnelly
1208 Fairview Lane
Farmington, MN 55024
1. Application
2. Site Plan
1208 Fairview Lane
R-2 (Low/Medium Density Residential)
2020 Comprehensive Plan:
Low / Medium Density Residential
Existing Land Use:
DISCUSSION
Single-Family Residence
According to the City Code, accessory structures (including detached garages) in the
R-2 Zoning District must be located at least 6 feet from a side property line. As shown
.
.
.
on the attached site plan, the applicant is proposing to locate the structure three (3)
feet from the southern property line.
The Planning Commission must determine whether the reasons provided by the
applicant warrant approval of the variance. The City Code provides the following
criteria that must be met for a variance to be approved:
1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration,
topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved,
strict adherence to the regulations of this Title would cause undue
hardship. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue
hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this
Title.
As shown on the site plan, the proposed garage would be constructed
partially behind the existing house due to the irregular shape of the
property. Constructing the garage in compliance with the setback
requirement would not allow enough space between the house and the
garage for vehicular access. Constructing the garage closer to the rear of
the property may negatively affect an existing tree.
2. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of
land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to
other properties within the same zoning classification.
The size and placement of the house on the property causes the hardship.
The majority of properties in the R-2 zoning district do not have similar
access difficulties.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
The hardship was not created by the applicant.
4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality or be injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel
of land is located or substantially diminish property values.
The variance would not cause any of the above-mentioned adverse effects.
5. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the
public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the
public welfare or public safety.
The variance would not create any of the above-mentioned adverse effects.
2
.
.
.
6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship.
The variance would be the minimum to allow appropriate access to the
garage.
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider the requested variance.
Respectfully submitted,
C}~~
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
3
.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Farmington, MN 55024
651-463-7111 FAX 651-463-1611
Applicant Name ,--r;'""" D 0"''\.... II...,
Applicant Address /20f? [=;HI"Vl""...... '-- &"""/...c~-
Street City u
Phone Number , S"r - '1l.P - , Y1'p
Legal Description of Subject Property: (lot, block, plat name, section, township, range)
~,..,
State
S--s- 0 ;l. 'I
Zip Code
Current Land Use Current Zoning District
. SpecificNatureofRequest/ClaimedHardship: f3C.<..4<.o,><- -f1,..... /;J~ f'1--. he......' $11- L~"'5
"..........J C-Ios~ -& lfIV'o/-z-J-, I,;,,?. .,..,~;? ue.,,'7 It.......!.--f-p //,.'l;'C.. I....~ '~......
14.,... --t'tv.. JI4A~_' ~..ft "'At- /JIA-If.rlAj ( /1"'- -it- L-c..../-r_ D/ it- i,~/....>-~//.
Following Attached: (please check) _ Proof of Ownership _ Boundary/Lot Survey
_ Application fee ($200) _ Copies of Site Plan
_ AbstractJResident List (adjoining property owners only)
~ _ Torrens (Owner's DnbHeate Certificate ofTitle Reqnired)
Property Owner's Signature ~ ~
Date 7-1<}-03
.
Surveyor's
Certificate
RVEY FOR
DESCRIBED AS
TIM E PAR-LA DONNJ3LLY
LOT 12 'BLOC.K I J SUNNYSIDe ADDITION
~
9'3. b9 N 8<<103'1'02 liE
c
--
~'
-
()()
c
.
('(\
<
c
o
.g
11
~ -'...
- ~
~ -;
~ :. ~
t:-Q)
~<v
-:y
~
.~
4
~
~
NOT~:
ALL BE"AR.INGS ASS UMED
.
Top of Foundation
GarC1C1P F"I/")/"'\r
=
~
BENCHMARK,
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.cLfarmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
If V
Jim Atkinson l
Assistant City Planner
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Zoning Code Text Amendments for Title 10 Chapter 6
Section 24: Model Home Ordinance
DATE:
August 12, 2003
INTRODUCTION
The City of Farmington is proposing to revise Title 10 Chapter 6 of the City Code to
include provisions regulating the construction and operaUon of model homes. The
reason for the proposed ordinance arose from resident concerns regarding a model
home operating in their neighborhood.
DISCUSSION
Issues Concerning Model Homes
A number of issues led to the preparation of a model home ordinance. The residents
who spoke at the City Council meeting were concerned about the length of time a
model home would be open, traffic issues on a cul-de-sac with a model home, and the
opening of a model home in a neighborhood without any prior notice to the adjoining
neighbors.
Additionally, staff has been concerned about numerous requests from builders to
begin construction of model homes before roads and infrastructure have been
completed. The need for an ordinance to regulate these requests prompted the
drafting of the ordinance.
Proposed Ordinance Language
Staff proposes to deal with a number of issues concerning model homes including
limiting the number of building permits untH roads are paved and infrastructure is
installed and tested. Additionally, no final certificate of occupancy will be issued
until all infrastructure improvements have been completed. Each model home or
temporary real estate office will require an administrative permit in order for the City
to regulate the amount of model homes within a subdivision phase and to be apprised
of the location of the model home/temporary real estate office. Temporary parking
.
.
.
facilities for the temporary real estate office will also be required. Lighting and
signage will be regulated for the model homes/temporary real estate office as well in
order to insure that nuisance complaints are not received from adjacent residents.
The administrative permits shall terminate 3 years from the date of the issuance or
when 85% of the development is completed. This will insure that model homes are
not open for an indefinite period of time.
Previous Planning Commission Review
At its meeting on July 8, 2003, the Planning Commission directed staff to send the
proposed ordinance to local developers in order to receive comments regarding the
ordinance. The ordinance was sent to seven developers and two have responded. No
changes were recommended.
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider recommending approval of the proposed ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
q~~
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 6 OF THE
FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCERNING MODEL HOME PERMITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title 10, Chapter 6 of the Farmington City Code is amended to add a
new section 24 to read as follows:
10-6-24: MODEL HOMES:
.
(A) Purpose: The purpose of this section is to provide for the erection of model
homes, which may include temporary real estate offices, in new subdivisions
without adversely affecting the character of the surrounding residential
neighborhoods or creating a general nuisance. As model homes represent a
unique temporary commercial use, special consideration must be given to the
problems associated with them and special standards must be applied to
ensure reasonable compatibility with their environment.
(B) Procedure: The erection of a model home(s) and temporary real estate
office(s) shall require an administrative permit, as may be issued by the
Zoning Administrator.
(C) Qualifications: To qualify for a building permit for a model home, which may
include a temporary real estate office, the following shall be required:
1. Upon receipt of final plat approval and recording, one (l) building permit
for each builder not to exceed 10% of the final plat phased may be
granted. The Fire Marshal will determine if emergency access to the
model home from improved roads in the subdivision is adequate before
the permit is issued. Water supply must also be available along with the
completion of disinfection testing and approval by the City before
combustible material is installed on the building._No Building Permit will
be issued until the first lift of asphalt is completed. No final certificate of
occupancy shall be issued until infrastructure improvements including the
first lift of asphalt have been completed and approved by the City.
.
2. Upon completion of infrastructure improvements including the first lift of
asphalt within the respective final plat subdivision, additional building
106838
.
permits may be issued for model homes and/or temporary real estate
offices, provided that the number of model homes and/or temporary real
estate offices shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the lots with the
respective final plat.
(D)
Restricted Use: Model homes and model homes with temporary real estate
offices shall be used solely for the display and sale of home fixtures and
products, and real estate for the subdivision in which they are located unless
approved by the Zoning Officer.
(E)
Special Requirements:
.
1. Model homes and model homes with temporary real estate offices shall be
allowed in all residential zoning districts in which they are located and
shall be utilized solely for selling purposes of lots and/or homes within the
subdivision in which it is located.
2. Temporary parking facilities equal to four (4) paved spaces for a
temporary real estate office shall be provided. The overall design,
drainage, and surfacing of the temporary parking facility shall be subject
to the approval of the Zoning Officer.
3. Access from a temporary parking facility shall be directed away from
developed and occupied residential neighborhoods to the greatest extent
possible.
4. No model home or model home with a temporary real estate office shall
incorporate outside lighting which creates a nuisance due to glare or
intensity, as provided for in Section 10-6-8 of the City Code.
5. All signage shall comply with the sign regulations as contained in Section
10-6-3 for the zoning district in which the model home and/or temporary
real estate office is located.
6. No residential certificate of occupancy shall be issued for a model home or
model home with a temporary real estate office until such time as the
structure has been fully converted to a residence in compliance with the
International Building Code. Additionally, such conversion shall include,
but not be limited to, parking lot restoration and the removal of signage
and lighting.
7. The restoration of all temporary parking areas with appropriate
landscaping shall be completed by the end of the following growing
season.
8. The administrative permit shall terminate three (3) years from its date of
issuance or when eighty-five percent of the development is completed,
whichever occurs first, unless otherwise extended by the Zoning
Administrator.
.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication according to law.
lQglU~
.
ADOPTED this _day of
Farmington.
ATTEST:
SEAL
.
, 2003, by the City Council of the City of
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
By:
City Administrator
By:
City Attorney
Published in the Fannington Independent the _ day of
.
106838
,2003.
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Review Draft of Master Plan for Spruce Street
Corridor Area
DATE:
August 12, 2003
INTRODUCTION
A revised Draft of the Master Plan for the Spruce Street Corridor Area is now available
for the Planning Commission's review, comments and recommendations.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission reviewed an initial draft of a Master Plan for the Spruce
Street Corridor Area at a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting that was
held on July 16, 2003. At that time, the members of the Planning Commission
generally indicated their approval of and support for the contents of the initial draft.
The next step in the review/approval process, according to the timetable (attached)
for the Master Plan process, was an "open house" that was conducted at the Central
Maintenance facility on the evening of July 31, 2003. The open house was attended
by members of the Spruce Street Task Force, property owners, City staff, and a
number of other interested parties. Virtually all of the comments that were offered
were favorable.
During the week following the open house, some modifications of the "working draft"
of the Master Plan were made by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., to reflect public
comments and to incorporate additional suggestions that were offered by City staff
and consultants. Briefly, those changes included the following:
1.
The middle of the three proposed north/south roads between CSAH 50 and
Spruce Street, which was shown as having aT-intersection at Spruce Street
in the initial draft of the Master Plan, has been extended (across the river)
all the way to 220th Street to improve internal traffic circulation.
Several additional "conceptual parking lots" have been added in the vicinity
of the athletic (practice) fields that are shown in the pipeline easement
area(s), to address concerns regarding excessive recreational parking along
the parkways and/or within residential or commercial areas.
2.
.
.
.
3.
A few "internal" east/west streets in the residential areas along 220th
Street have been moved to the north, so that their intersections with
north/south roads are further away from 220th Street.
Text and a related graphic have been added to the Master Plan to address
the future importance of a "commercial link" along Spruce Street between
Denmark Avenue and the existing downtown area.
Some typographical and spelling errors have been corrected.
4.
5.
This Memo will be accompanied by a copy of the revised draft of the Master Plan.
Tuesday night's Planning Commission meeting will include a public hearing on this
revised draft. After taking public comment(s), if any, the Planning Commission will
presumably be prepared to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding
either (a) modifying or (b) adopting the Master Plan. The Planning Commission's
recommendation(s) will then be considered by the City Council at its meeting on
August 18th.
If the City Council adopts the Master Plan at that time, attention will then shift to
preparing proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning Code revisions in
order to begin implementing the Master Plan. A public hearing on proposed
amendments and revisions will be conducted by the Planning Commission at its
meeting on September 9th.
ACTION REQUESTED
1. Conduct the public hearing regarding the proposed Master Plan for the
Spruce Street Corridor Area.
2. Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Master Plan.
.
.
.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OPPORTUNITY GRANT
MASTER PLAN TIMETABLE
TASK # TASK DESCRIPTION DATE(S)
0 Approve Contract with Hoisington Koegler Group February 3
1 Initial Meeting With Property Owners and Task Force Week of February 17 or
Kick-Off Meeting February 24
2 Assemble Base Information Complete by March 10
3 Document Existing Conditions/Tour Site Complete by March 10
4 Initiate Market Analysis Complete by March 10
5 Conduct 2nd Meeting With Property Owners March 27 (City Hall)
6 Conduct Workshop # 1 April 9 (Maint. Facility)
7A Conduct On-Site Planning Charrette - Information Session April 23 (City Hall)
- 11 :00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. (Day 1 of 3)
7B Conduct On-Site Planning Charrette 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. April 25 (City Hall)
(Day 2 of3)
8 Conduct Workshop #2 - 9:00 a.m. - Noon (Day 3 of3) April 26 (Maint. Fac.)
9 Review Concepts With City Council/Planning May 5, 8:00 p.m.
Commission (City Hall)
10 Develop the Preferred Alternative as the Master Plan May 7 to June 24
11 Assess the Financial Feasibility of the Master Plan May 7 to June 24
12 City Council/Planning Commission Review of Master Plan July 16, 2003
13 Conduct Workshop #3 - NeIghborhood Review July 31, 2003
14 Deliver Final Report August 8, 2003
15 Public Hearing (at Planning Commission) on proposed August 12, 2003
Master Plan
16 City Council Review/Adoption of Master Plan August 18, 2003
17 Public Hearing (at Planning Commission) on proposed September 9,2003
Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments and Zoning
Code/Map revisions
18 City Council Review/Adoption of proposed September 15, 2003
Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments and Zoning
Code/Map revisions
19 City Council lifts Moratorium October 6, 2003
[Revised 8/07/03]
.
.
.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF FARMINGTON
REQUEST: Public Hearing to review
a draft master plan for the development
of 450 acres of retail/office/residential.
LOCATION: 450 acres at the
southwest comer of Highway 50 and
Denmark Avenue.
WHEN: Tuesday, August 12,2003 at
7:00 p.m.; or as soon thereafter, as the
parties may be heard. All persons
desiring to be heard, in person or in
writing, will be heard at this time.
WHERE: Planning Commission
Meeting, City Hall Council Chambers,
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN.
QUESTIONS: Contact Kevin Carroll,
Community Development Director, at
(651) 463-1860 or e-mail at
kcarroll@ci.farmington.mn.us.
DATED: This 28th day of July, 2003.
/S/: Dan Siebenaler
Interim City Administrator
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651)463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
IWU
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT:
Discussion Regarding Future MUSA Allocation
DATE:
August 12,2003
INTRODUCTION
The City Council approved the reconvening of the MUSA Review Committee on June 16, 2003.
This decision was based upon Resolution No. R9l-0l and the attached memo dated October 15,
2001. At that time, the City Council approved the expansion of MUSA for five properties while
also requiring that the MUSA Review Committee reconvene in 12 months to review additional
areas for possible MUSA designation. The City Council also approved the reconvening of the
MUSA Review Committee because it meets the requirements in Performance Goal #1 for
managing the City's growth to insure quality and diverse development and future transportation
routes.
DISCUSSION
A. Procedural History
The MUSA Review Committee was created in June of 2000 after the Metropolitan Council
allocated 610 acres of MUSA to the City for the period through 2005, and because of the
growing number of requests by property owners/developers to gain MUSA for their properties.
The process included receiving applications from property owners/developers and gathering
questionnaires completed by the applicants. Initially, there were 12 applicants in the process.
The Committee then proposed criteria and weighted them to determine which properties most
closely met the criteria. Some of the applicants were eliminated because owners removed their
property from the process and/or some of the properties did not meet the criteria. The Committee
made recommendations for MUSA designation to the City Council after meeting monthly for a
year. The attached memos dated February 20, 2001 and October 15, 2001 explain the process
and approval of the MUSA in detail.
The table that appears below summarizes the results of the last MUSA review process. The
exempt properties represented land that was necessary for public facilities, quasi-public and
other institutional uses such as the Meadowview Elementary School site and Farmington
.
.
.
Lutheran Church. Property was also exempted from the MUSA review process within the
Industrial/Business Park or other industrial/commercial areas to promote tax base as identified in
the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The Middle Creek property was exempted from the
MUSA review process because it was a Planned Unit Development that was approved before
the MUSA Review Committee was established. The City Council approved the SeedlNewland
Communities property for 250 acres of MUSA. This was the only applying property that was
designated for MUSA. The following table identifies the properties that were designated for
MUSA by the City Council at its meeting on October 15, 2001:
Exempt Properties Total of 610 Acres
SchoollN ordseth 29.47
Farmington Lutheran 14.7
Middle Creek PUD 72.7
Devney/Ind Park 30.8
Remainine: Acres 462.33
Applyin2 Properties
Allen/N eilan
Bill Adelman (in City)
SeedlNewland Communities 250
RemainUm2Acres 212.33
During the period from October 15, 2001 to May 2002, Planning staff worked diligently to
complete the Zoning and Subdivision Code to comply with Resolution No. R88-00 (see attached
memo dated October 2, 2000). In light of concerns that were expressed by the Council regarding
the rapid pace of residential development in Farmington, Planning staff determined that
postponement of the MUSA Review Committee was practical. However, in recent months the
City has been receiving a number of requests for MUSA expansion to various properties in the
City. Additionally, staff has been preparing a lot inventory that will be presented to the Council
at an upcoming meeting to determine if the Council would consider additional land for growth to
meet the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan objectives.
B. Current Met Council MUSA Policy
Planning staff recently had a conversation with Farmington's Metropolitan Council Sector
Representative, Michael King, concerning the allotment of MUSA to the City of Farmington.
He stated that the City would be able to utilize the remaining 212.33 acres of MUSA that was
originally allotted to the City for the period from 2000 and 2005.
Additionally, Mr. King stated that because the Metropolitan Council may soon have '"excess
capacity" at the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Metropolitan Council would entertain
further requests for MUSA beyond the City's remaining 2000-2005 allocation of 212.33 acres if
the proposed MUSA designation areas were well planned.
City staff will be meeting with Met Council staff on August 14, 2003 to obtain further
clarification regarding these issues.
2
.
.
.
c.
Planning Commission Assistance
The City Council and Staff met recently on July 28, 2003 to further discuss the process for
reconvening the MUSA Review Committee. The minutes of that meeting are attached under
Council Workshop Project Updates - July 28,2003.
At the meeting, the Council determined that the Planning Commission should discuss the
composition of the committee, talk about the criteria used in the last MUSA review process, and
discuss a timetable and process for the review. An issue that also needs to be discussed at the
meeting is whether the MUSA Review Committee should only discuss MUSA allocation to 2005
that includes 212 acres, or go beyond that to the 2005-2010 allocation of532 acres. Commission
members will also be asked for their preferences regarding a timeline for the MUSA Review
Committee. Staff will also inform the Commission about which developers and property owners
have shown in interest in MUSA to this point.
Therefore, staff will discuss the material attached to this packet in detail at the August 12, 2003
Planning Commission meeting and gather comments on these items from the Commission
members.
ACTION REQUESTED
Discuss the items above and determine the direction that the Planning Commission would like
take during the MUSA Review process.
Respectfully submitted,
6ff~
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
3
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
/0 a-
(j)
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
City Administrator ~, \
FROM: David L. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 2005 MUSA Review Committee Recommendation
DATE: . October 15,2001
INTRODUCTION
The MUSA Review Committee held its final meeting on September 12, 2001 and forwarded a
recommendation for the 2005 MUSA to be designated this year.
. DISCUSSION
The MUSA Review Committee has met on a monthly basis for a number of months. After reviewing
all of the parcels that had been seeking MUSA designation, the MUSA Review Committee
recommended the following:
1. That 250 acres of additional MUSA be designated in the southern portion of the SeedlNewland
Orderly Annexation Area to promote and expedite the extension of 195th Street.
2. The previously approved exceptions to the MUSA Review process are also approved. (These
include the designation of MUSA for the new ISD 192 Elementary School, the Farmington
Lutheran Church, the southern portion of the Middle Creek PUD, and the remaining portion of
the Industrial Park.)
3. The remainder of the 2005 MUSA will be banked and considered for designation in the future.
4. The designation of only a portion of the available 610 MUSA acres will allow for planned and
orderly growth in Farmington.
5. A MUSA Review Committee will reconvene in 12 months to review additional areas for possible
MUSA designation.
This recommendation of the committee passed unanimously.
.
The Planning Commission reviewed this recommendation at their October 9, 2001 meeting and
recommended approval with a unanimous vote.
105
RESOLUTION NO. R91-01
@
.
APPROVING DESIGNATION OF 2005 MUSA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Fannington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 15th day of
October, 2001 at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch
None
Member Strachan introduced and Member Soderberg seconded the following:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended City Council approval of the
2005 MUSA Review Committee recommendations for the designation of the 2005 MUSA at its
meeting held on the 9th day of October, 2001; and
WHEREAS; the City Council reviewed the 2005 MUSA Review Committee recommendations
for the designation of the 2005 MUSA;
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2005 MUSA Review Committee
recommendations for the designation of the 2005 MUSA be approved with the following
conditions:
1. That 250 acres of additional MUSA be designated in the southern portion of the
SeedlNewland Orderly Annexation Area to promote and expedite the extension of 195th
Street to TH 3.
2. The previously approved exceptions to the MUSA Review process are also approved. (These
include the designation of MUSA for the new ISD 192 Elementary School, the Fannington
Lutheran Church, the southern portion of the Middle Creek PUD, and the remaining portion
of the Industrial Park.)
3. The remainder of the 2005 MUSA will be banked and considered for designation in the
future.
4. The designation of only a portion of the available 610 MUSA acres will allow for planned
and orderly growth in Fannington.
5. A MUSA Review Committee will reconvene in 12 months to review additional areas for
possible MUSA designation.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Fannington City Council in open session on the
15th day of October, 2001.
/ -1-1-,
Attested to the 2- day of October, 2001.
/~~
Mayor
.
SEAL
.
C
o
'w ~
Co
roo
c.
'X N
.W.s
( "0
V) Q)
:::> >
2 e
c.
I.{) c.
o<{
o
N
.
.!!!o
o ~
~<O
"C
~
11I.c
'fr ~
:;:00
; (; CX)
c:
::l
111
"e
Gl
E 0
E
o
u
III
III
Gl..l<:
c: ....
'~~ 0
co
.~
Ui 0
.g ~
.:
E
=50
Gl <0
::a:
'0
Gl
~o
3: ('i')
o
....I
3: 0
o 0
....I ~
@
~
o
I
o
~
I
o
~
"C
2
ro
"C
c.
::>
(/)
c
ro
(jjCl
.c:::::>~
ICJ~
Council Minutes (Regular)
October 15,2001
Page 2
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
b) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Community Development/Fire
Department
Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation
Authorized Disposal of City Property - Administration
Approved Facilities - Change Order 1 - Engineering
Received Information Quarterly Building Permit Report - Community
Development
Acknowledged Quarterly Customer Service Report - Administration
Set November 5,2001 Public Hearing Various Licenses and Permits-
Administration
i) Approved Bills
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
.
c)
d)
e)
t)
g)
h)
r@)
Councilmember Strachan noted in the Customer Service Report for April, May, and June,
every respondent said staff was courteous and helpful.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
AWARD OF CONTRACT
9.
/.~
..*~
PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) MUSA Review Committee Recommendation - Community Development
The MUSA Review Committee held its final meeting on September 12, 2001 and
forwarded a recommendation for the 2005 MUSA to be designated this year. The
committee was comprised of Mayor Ristow, Planning Commission Chair Dirk
Rotty, Parks and Recreation Chair Dawn Johnson, School Board Member Bob
Heman, and Community Development Director Dave Olson. Their
recommendations are as follows:
.
That 250 acres of additional MUSA be designated in the southern portion
of the SeedlNewland orderly Annexation Area to promote and expedite
the extension of 195th Street.
The previously approved exceptions to the MUSA Review process, are
also approved including the designation of MUSA for the new ISD 192
Elementary School, the Farmington Lutheran Church, the southern portion
of the Middle Creek PUD, and the remaining portion of the Industrial
Park.
The remainder ofthe 2005 MUSA will be banked and considered for
designation in the future. There are 212 acres left from the 610 acres after
the 250 acres to the SeedlNewland property and after the exceptions are
approved, that will be held in the bank and considered for future
designation.
The designation of only a portion of the available 610 MUSA acres will
allow for planned and orderly growth in Farmington.
1.
2.
3.
4.
r-- ,
!
Council Minutes (Regular)
October 15,2001
Page 3
.
.
11.
.
(f)
5. A MUSA Review Committee will reconvene in 12 months to review
additional areas for possible MUSA designation.
MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R91-01
approving the above recommendations of the MUSA Review Committee. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
b) Consider Resolution - Livable Communities Act Participation - Community
Development
By participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing
Incentives Account the City agrees to establish affordable and life cycle housing
goals. Participation in the program allows the City to be eligible for possible
funding for projects under the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable
Communities Demonstration Account, and the Local Housing Inc~ntives
AccQunt. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION
R92-01 authorizing continued participation in the Livable Communities Act
Local Housing Incentives Account for 2002. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
c)
Speed Humps InforlDation - Engineering
Staff forwarded to Council information regarding speed humps as a traffic
calming device. If more discussion is needed a workshop could be held.
Collector streets, which are wider, are not recommended for speed humps. Staff
will bring a proposed workshop date to the next Council meeting. Costs and
examples of proposed streets for speed humps will be brought to the workshop. A
policy regarding speed humps could be developed at the workshop.
d) Dakota County 2002-2006 CIP - Administration
A draft 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program was received from Dakota
County. An East-West corridor link is crucial to Farmington. A portion of this
corridor, 195th Street, is included in the CIP.
e) Letter from Charter Communications -Administration
A letter was received from Charter Communications regarding changes in channel
lineup.
t) AMM 2002 Policy Adoption Meeting - Administration
The AMM Annual Meeting is November 1,2001. City Administrator Shukle will
be attending and recommended Council also attend.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Embers Avenue Traffic Issues - Engineering
Staff conducted traffic surveys on Embers A venue at two locations: between
187th Street West and 186th Street West, and between Embry Avenue and
Ea~lewood Trail. The average speed ranged between 26 mph and 28 mph. The
85t percentile speed, which is the speed 85% of the cars are driving or lower
.
1.
2.
3.
.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
2005 MUSA EXPANSION
City Hall Council Chambers
Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ADOPT WORKSHOP AGENDA
REVIEW PROPOSED MUSA EXPANSION CRITERIA
REVIEW TRUNK SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REVIEW W A TERMAIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REVIEW THOROUGHFARE PLAN
REVIEW PARKS PLAN
REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
REVIEW 2005 MUSA DESIGNATION QUESTIONNAIRE
10. REVIEW ANNEXATION APPROVALS
11. ADJOURN
~
(j)
.
City of Farmington
City Council/Planning Commission Workshop
Proposed MUSA Expansion - Zoning Ordinance Update
Farmington City Hall- August 30, 2000
A joint City CouncillPlanning Commission workshop was called to order by the Farmington City
Council and Planning Commission to discuss issues associated with a possible expansion of the
City's MUSA boundary and to discuss the implications of this issue on the need to update the
City Zoning Ordinance, in support of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
Present:
Mayor Ristow, Council Member Strachan, Planning Chair Rotty, Commissioners
Barker, Johnson, Larson
Council Members Cordes, Verch
Absent:
Others in attendance: City Administrator Erar, Community Development Director Olson, City
Attorney Poehler, Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Mayor Ristow and Planning Chair Rotty. Mayor
Ristow began the meeting by introducing Community Development Director Olson. Olson began
by giving a brief presentation and overview of the issues within the staff report. Olson indicated
that the Metropolitan Council recently distributed a letter to the City indicating that the City was
authorized to develop areas within the MUSA Staging Plan through 2005. Olson further stated
. that the City of Farmington has an additional 610 acres of MUS A available to allocate.
At 7:10 PM, Council Member Soderberg arrived at the meeting.
Olson reported that property owners have begun to request MUSA for their properties totaling to
492.2 acres within the City and another 189.9 acres outside of the City calculating to 682 acres ur
72 more acres than is currently available in the 2005 allotment. Olson reported that of the
proposed acres within the City 276.35 is low density, 22.8 acres is low/medium density, 146.16
acres is medium density and 0 acres are proposed for high density residential. He indicated that
the City Council and Planning Commission would need to determine whether a shifting of
acreages within the various land uses would be desirable relative to the land use acreages
provided in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Soderberg: Will the Empire Treatment Plant be stressed if we shift some of the
proposed low density acreages to medium density?
Planning Chair Ratty: Should we follow the 2020 Comprehensive Plan that was recently
approved by all bodies or follow the desires of the Developers? If there is a shift to allow more
medium density, we will be in the medium density market for years to come.
Commissioner Johnson: How does medium density residential affect the schools?
.
ISD #192 Representative Mark Beltz: The school district has determined that medium density
residential doesn't affect the school district as much as low density residential. Most of the
medium density areas are for empty nesters with fewer students projected in this land use.
@J
.
Commissioner Johnson: If we're not concerned about the school district, are we still changing
the landscape of the City with more medium density residential?
Council Member Strachan: Do we want a concentration of medium density in the City like Apple
Valley or BurnsviIle allowed years ago? Don't we want the medium density mixed in with other
residential land uses throughout the City?
Olson continued his presentation to the next issue concerning the proposed MUSA Expansion
Criteria. He reviewed the ten criteria proposed by staff and asked for comments or revisions from
the City Council and Planning Commission.
Planning Chair Rotty: Revise Criteria #3 to include "service and employment opportunities"
along with promoting the tax base for industriallbusiness park properties.
Commissioner Barker: Revise Criteria #4 by expanding the central area of City to include Pilot
Knob Road on the west.
ISD #192 Representative Mark Beltz: Requested that schools be included in Criteria #5 to show
the significance of this land use.
Council Member Strachan: Since the Comprehensive Plan states that we want both small town
and new development characteristics, should we include a criteria stating that the proposed
property provides a mixed use of low and medium density residential rather than one land use
type for the entire property?
.
City Administrator Erar: The criteria list needs to be flexible, therefore the list should not be
prioritized.
Planning Chair Rotty: Agreed that the list should not be prioritized.
Olson continued his presentation dealing with the issue of annexation and requests made by
property owners to annex their property, thereby seeking MUSA. Olson stated that the City has
received annexation petitions for three properties totaling 320 acres of which 270 are developable
acres.
Olson discussed the need to update the Zoning and Subdivision Code to conform to the approved
2020 Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the update might take approximately 10 months to
accomplish. He further stated that it would be very difficult to review the new proposed
developments that are not currently in the MUSA at the same time the update to the City's
Zoning and Subdivision Code is occurring. Therefore, City staff recommends that the City
Council and Planning Commission consider postponing the approval of a majority of the newly
available MUSA until this process has been completed.
Commissioner Larson: Is 10 months enough time to complete this process? Shouldn't we
consider 12 months?
Planning Chair Rotty: We owe our residents a good plan, therefore we should take our time and
allow for the entire 12-month period.
.
City Administrator Erar: Homebuilding and platting will continue on properties already approved
with MUSA.
.
.
.
@
Olson presented the final issue concerning exceptions to MUSA designation including the
approval of MUSA for non-profit and other governmental uses, Industrial Park expansion and the
completion of previously approved Planned Unit Developments (PUD). The PUD proposed for
consideration is the Middle Creek Estates project that has been approved through the PUD and
preliminary platting process.
ISD # 192 Representative Mark Beltz: Include schools as a separate use along with non-profit and
other governmental uses in determining exceptions for MUSA designation.
Peter Gualtieri: His company desires a moratorium on platting and not on MUSA designation
due to the need to plan the 795 developable acres in the soon-to-be annexed northeast area of the
City. He further explained that his company couldn't begin planning this tract of land without
knowing that they have MUSA designated for the property.
City Administrator Erar: The City could work on a duel track by updating the Zoning and
Subdivision Code while evaluating MUSA requests and comparing them to the list of criteria.
Therefore, by the end of the proposed 12-month time frame, property owners and developers
would know whether their property is scheduled for MUSA designation.
Olson asked for a consensus on the five issues.
1) Revise the criteria as previously stated.
2) All were in favor of requiring properties to be annexed pnor to MUS A designation
consideration.
City Administrator Erar: Properties that are within the City should be given first priority for
MUSA designation.
3) Council Member Soderberg: There should be no shift of MUSA acres from the low density
residential to medium density residential since the 2020 Comprehensive Plan was approved
and the City was satisfied with the outcome.
Mayor Ristow: There needs to be more discussion concerning this topic since it is so
important to the future look of the City.
4) All were in favor of revising the time frame for completion of the duel track from 10 months
to 12 months.
5) Planning Chair Rotty: Concerned about designating MUSA to Middle Creek Estates because
other Developers might perceive the process as unfair.
Other City Council and Planning Commissioners were mixed on the exception for Middle
Creek Estates.
Planning Chair Rotty: Do we need a resolution for the postponement of MUSA designation?
City Attorney Poehler: The City Council needs to approve a resolution for the postponement of
MUSA designation including the approval of the exceptions to MUSA designation.
.
The joint City CouncillPlanning Commission workshop was adjourned at 9: 15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planing Coordinator
.
.
@
.
.
.
/Oe
@
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Council Members,
City Administrator fg-'
\
Lee Smick, AICP(\ n
Planning CoordinatorYX
FROM:
SUBJECT:
2005 MUSA Review Committee - Executive Summary
DATE:
February 20, 2001
INTRODUCTION
The following information describes the proposed function, process and schedule for the 2005 MUSA Review
Committee. Acceptance of the methodology of this Executive Summary is requested by the City Council,
Planing Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Independent School District #192 School Board.
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Expansion Criteria on October 2,
2000 upon approval of the 2005 MUSA Designation Postponement Period. The 2005 MUSA Review
Committee is proposed to be formed to act as a canvassing board performing within a legislative process to
recommend to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council the designation of MUSA acres to
properties petitioned by the owner.
Committee Membership
The voting portion of the Committee would comprise the Mayor, Planning Commission Chair, Parks &
Recreation Chair, ISD #192 School Board member along with the City's Community Development Director.
This Committee will recommend whether to grant 2005 MUSA designation to requesting properties.
City staff will serve as ex-officio non-voting members and include the City Administrator, Director of Public
Works/City Engineer, Chief of Police, Parks & Recreation Director and Planning staff in providing technical
resources to the Committee during the review and evaluation process. Staffs role in the initial Committee was
limited to determining the relative importance of Council approved 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria and
preparing a Calculation Spreadsheet for the voting Committee.
The voting Committee is charged with the task of evaluating 12 properties within the City limits and
potentially 4 other properties currently being considered for annexation to determine the feasibility of
designating MUSA to these properties. The Committee will work within the boundaries of the legislative
process evaluating and recommending to the Planning Commission and City Council which properties best
meet the requirements for MUSA designation. The Committee is limited to allocating 610 acres (less the
acreage utilized for the approved exceptions) of MUS A identified as the 2005 MUSA Expansion in Table 4.1
of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
. 6.
7.
@
DISCUSSION
2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria
The voting Committee would utilize the following criteria to evaluate the properties for possible designation of
MUSA:
1. Proximity of property to transportation corridors (i.e. 195th Street between Akin Road and TH 3, 20Sth
Street between CSAH 31 and TH 3, etc.) to promote construction of transportation corridors as
identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
Proximity to existing infrastructure and whether it is economically feasible to connect to existing
and/or planned infrastructure identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
Proximity to the central area of City to promote the connection of the northern and southern portions
of the City.
Feasibility of providing municipal services (police, fire, public works, or parks) to the proposed
property .
Other criteria that may be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff
suggestion: Development must occur within 5-year time frame.
Variety of land uses proposed by developer (i.e. Low, Low/Medium, Medium and High Density
Residential, Business, Industrial, etc.) that supports the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
MUSA expansion areas should generally follow section lines, natural drainage ways and sanitary
sewer districts.
Methodology for Assigning Weights to the Criteria
As previously discussed, City staff is recommending relative weights to be assigned to each criteria and
preparing a Calculation Spreadsheet for the voting members of the Committee.
The final score that will determine if a property will receive MUSA will be a composite of the fIXed weight
percentage multiplied by a points variable. In preparing the 2005 MUSA Review Committee Calculation
Spreadsheet, the Committee determined that the list of criteria should be weighted in order of priority on a
percentage scale. The variable points assigned to each property would be in the range of 1 to 5; thereby
creating a composite score that takes into account the Committee's perception of the property's importance for
MUSA designation and multiplied by the assigned weight for each criteria.
The attached table shows a sampling of the MUSA Property Rating System for two fictional properties. In the
table, Property A was assigned points depending on the criteria calculating to 29.5. Property B acquired the
same number of total points (29.5) but were scored differently because of the weights assigned to the points.
In the case of Property A, the final score totaled to 4.1 and the score for Property B was 4.325 thereby ranking
Property B at a higher level of importance for receiving MUSA designation. This sampling shows that points
assigned may calculate to the same number, however because of the assigned weights and how they scored for
each weight assists the review committee in achieving a qualitatively distinct, but statistically valid outcome to
the final scores.
.
2
.
.
.
([f)
The following discusses each criteria and the rationale for weighting the criteria as shown in the calculation
spreadsheet.
1. Proximity of property to transportation corridors (i.e. 195th Street between Akin Road and TH 3, 20Sth
Street between CSAH 31 and TH 3, etc.) to promote construction of transportation corridors as
identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The Committee determined a weight of 0.20 of a total of 1.0 for this criteria because the property
under consideration should have immediate or future access to the City's transportation system. The
property owner should also illustrate the ability to connect to the City's transportation system via
proposed transportation corridors and the willingness to participate in the cost of constructing these
corridors.
2. Proximity to existing infrastructure and whether it is economically feasible to connect to existing
and/or planned infrastructure identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The Committee determined a weight of 0.20 noting that to make the property developable, access to
existing and/or planned infrastructure was crucial to the viability of the development.
3.
Proximity to the central area of City to promote the connection of the northern and southern portions of
the City.
The Committee determined a weight of 0.15 because the central area of the City, even though some
parts lie outside of the City limit line, should be considered a valuable location transportation
corridors, commerce and open space. The connection of transportation routes (19Sth Street, 1 sl Street,
20Sth, etc.) could increase traffic flows throughout the City and the region. Areas for commerce could
be expanded north of the Downtown Business District. Housing and open space areas could be more
centrally localized to the City. Finally, the accumulation of properties to the west of Trunk Highway 3
could assist in formalizing the City's boundaries.
4.
Feasibility of providing municipal services (police, fire, public works, or parks) to the proposed
property .
The Committee weighted the criteria at 0.15 because the property under consideration will need to be
provided with police, fire, public works services and park facilities.
5 Other criteria that may be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff
suggestion: Development occurs within 5-year time frame.
The Committee weighted the criteria at 0.15 because of the importance of developing the property in a
timely manner. This eliminates the possibility of wasting valuable MUSA acreage to properties that
are not prepared to be developed and/or avoid land speculation that would unnecessarily drive housing
costs to higher levels.
6.
Variety of land uses proposed by developer (i.e. Low, Low/Medium, Medium and High Density
Residential, Business, Industrial, etc.) that supports the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The Committee weighted the criteria at 0.10 identifying the need to vary the types of land uses on a
property to provide for lifecycle housing while supporting the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The
3
.
.
.
(fj)
criteria was weighted at a lesser degree because the properties seeking MUSA designation should
comply with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
7.
MUSA expansion areas should generally follow section lines, natural drainage ways and sanitarY
sewer districts.
The Committee weighted the criteria at 0.05 noting that this was given the least priority due to fact
that not all properties can follow section lines, natural drainage ways or sanitary sewer districts.
However, the criteria still remains important to formalizing the City's boundaries and utilizing existing
or proposed infrastructure in the sanitary sewer districts.
Methodology for Revisions to the 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria
At the October 2, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council approved various criteria for determining if a
property met the requirements of receiving MUSA. Given the importance of ensuring appropriate criteria in
the MUSA evaluation process, the 2005 MUSA Review Committee reviewed the criteria in greater detail and
determined that revisions were needed. The following illustrates revisions made to the original list and the
justification in removing or adding criteria.
Removal of Criteria from the 2005 MUSA EXlJansion Criteria List
Criteria #3: Property within the Industrial/Business Park or other industrial/commercial areas to promote tax
base as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
The criteria was removed from the original list because Industrial Park expansion has been identified as an
exception to the 2005 MUSA Postponement Period. The exception was approved by the City Council on
October 2, 2000. There are two lots remaining in the Industrial Park. The HRA has authorized negotiations to
begin with the property owner of the next planned phase of the Industrial Park and the lIRA will need
assurance that MUSA will be available if an agreement is reached to purchase the property and the financing
for the expansion is approved.
Secondly, the criteria was removed because the proposed Business Park currently has 125.65 acres within the
MUSA. This provides for an adequate surplus of acreage in this category to 2005. Additionally, the southern
portion of the proposed Business Park outside of the current MUSA is landlocked until development occurs
along CSAH 50 or CSAH 31 is extended to CR 72. Plans for an extension of CSAH 31 have not been
discussed by the County and would most likely be beyond the 2005 timeframe.
Finally, Table 4.1 shows that business park acres have not been allocated for MUSA Expansion until after
2015. This allocation may change to 2010 by either shifting the allocation or utilizing unanticipated growth
acreages as the need for business park acres increases, however, this will not occur before 2005 because of the
adequate supply of business park acreage.
Criteria #5: Property that provides location for necessary public facilities - public, quasi-public and other
institutional uses.
The criteria was removed from the original list because the public facilities were included as exceptions to the
MUSA Expansion. The exceptions include non-profit and other governmental uses. In this case, the new
elementary school for the Farmington School District needed assurance that MUSA would be available for
construction to commence in a timely manner on their site. Additionally, Farmington Lutheran Church is a
part of this exception category because of its institutional use status.
4
.
.
.
@
Criteria #9: Property cannot be considered for MUSA designation until an annexation petition has been filed
and approved by the Council and filed with the State Planning Agency.
The criteria was removed because the Committee determined a property must be within the City limits at the
time of MUSA designation.
Additions to 2005 MUSA Expansion Criteria
Criteria #5 Development must occur within 5-year timeframe.
The Planning Commission and City Council determined that it was important that any property owner
receiving MUSA be prepared to develop the property within a 5-year timeframe. This eliminates the
possibility of wasting valuable MUSA acreage to properties that are not prepared to be developed and/or avoid
land speculation that would unnecessarily drive housing costs to higher levels.
Additionally, the 5-year development timeframe allows the City to track the number of housing units through
proposed development plans, giving the City a better perspective on future growth trends in 5-year increments.
Methodology for Revisions to the Property Owners List
In reviewing the properties on the original list of petitioners, the following were added for MUSA designation
consideration for the various reasons.
Additions to the Propertv Owners List
Additions to the list include property owners that have recently petitioned for MUSA designation include the
following:
H - Dave Finnegan (East of Akin Road and south of Autumn Glen) - This property was added after the
property owner filed a request to receive MUSA on the property. A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan
and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation.
I - Molly Murphy (North of the Farmington Middle School Campus) - This property was added after the
property owner filed a request to receive MUSA on the property. A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan
and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation.
J - Babe Murphy (Within City limits, north of Molly Murphy Property) - This property was added after the
property owner filed a request to receive MUSA on the property. A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan
and Rezone the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation.
L - Dakota County Highway Shop (South of CSAH 50) - This property was part of the MUSA swap with
Bristol Square and Glenview Townhomes. Approximately 5 acres was removed from the Dakota County
property for the MUSA swap. Therefore, the property has been included in the list of properties to be
considered for MUSA designation.
P - Michael Devney (East of the Prairie Waterway along CR 72) This property was added after the property
owner filed an annexation petition for the property. A petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone
the property is required before the property may be considered for MUSA designation.
5
.
.
.
@
Scheduling
The following is a tentative schedule for the MUSA Review Process:
Presentation and acceptance of2005 MUSA
Review Committee methodology at City Council
February 19,2001
Presentation and acceptance of2005 MUSA Review
Committee methodology at Planning Commission
February 27,2001
Presentation of 2005 MUSA Review Committee methodology
at Parks & Recreation Commission
March 7, 2001
Meeting of 2005 MUSA Review Committee to Designate MUSA
April 30 - May 4,2001
The week long meeting of the 2005 MUSA Review Committee will take place between April 30 and May 4,
2001. During this time the committee will review the petitioned properties and utilize the MUSA Calculation
Spreadsheet to determine the final score for each property. Each committee member will score the property
separately and final tabulations will be averaged for a final score.
ACTION REOUESTED
Consider acceptance of the Executive Summary, methodology and schedule for the 2005 MUSA Review
Committee and forward any recommendations to the Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation
Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
g~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
6
.
.
.
@)
SAMPLE MUSA PROPERTY RATING SYSTEM
Property A
Points Score
3 0.6
4 0.8
5 0.75
4 0.6
5 0.75
3.5 0.35
5 0.25
29.5 4.1
Criteria
1. Proximity to Transportation Corridor
2. Proximity to Existing Infrastructure
3. Proximity to Central Area
4. Feasibility of Providing Municipal Service
5. Development Occurs within 5 Years
6. Variety of Land Uses
7. Section Lines
Total
Weight
0.20
0.20
0.15 -
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.05
1.00
Property 8
Points Score
5 1
5 1
3 0.45
3.5 0.525
5 0.75
4 0.4
4 0.2
29.5 4.325
2005 MUSA Request
Environmental Features
@
.
'i!
I
11
i J ~
V"
<>
'"
\)
;
~iB
~'tJ
:II
~
'~ I
I.:I~\ I~
!I \ \
I::;
^ . ~
L
-
.
o ~\\
~~~ I
~~'~':'
0- \\1"" \\
WfO ~~~\
r ""t ~"~i
? ~. I iffFJl I ~
~]~~ 'j ~~~ H ~M ~~ ;~,~ ~t~~
in -: ) If\ w\ ~ ~ ,-, a ~ ~ h 4~ l~ n[y
I~ I :q_,J- I~ \1 '~~ I " flf '\ )\"h il . ~
<- . Vjl (~ ~ D~~ >7H: h '\ ,-'<-r.~
~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1
r--, " .rl:'111 .J a. )) ~;S:i " I /.iiffiEiill '
I ic ~ ~!"---V ~'W ~ 1) ~ J-6 P' . , ' ._~~~' -.I .
I,~ I I \~r-I \. & I~~ ,. 'iL..-I~~~1 :'0
I I' J I "- 0J\.J) :...... -'l., r ./ ~, "1ii1~~~:'.',I,',~mL~!! ) .' l -.r-: ~ll. ~ : i)~ /
I , ::?l i I r ---RP :.L r ~1H ST W ~ ~ ~-'-l I ~ ?1MU m[(
~ ! nr ~","",,;j) . ~d~~ D ,.
~ ~ "" ... on Ilrtl 'f ~ !miilm~i1ffil . ~ /T :
~. ~, ~ LJ fLJ , b 'l~ ~'j.-o" IIII V Ii}
0- ~ ____ \ 1::-- M;;l ~lllliJHjJjjjllIllll! 1(' /'.
1~ @ ~ '\ ~ e Biiabllia~1B ' lYI
I '\ "./-;.7 '--- - x,~ /CJI CJ3 1Il1~1 ' ~ 0
~ (~ ~"- ~~? ~ #~ E ~ I ~ m ;, l-d n
U IIII.~ ~
:J (~N ~k'J ., ~/Lt ,- -~
1 ~ ~ II n i I,~
'-..J'
~
Go :J G
~-L I~\t gjffij
-... ~~ '\ (
~~e. "v
h-n
r
/\/ City Boundary
Z:L. Existing MUSA Boundary
D Properties Requesting MUSA
~ City Parcel Map
.. National Wetland Inventory
FEMA Flood Plains
. . - - _. Annexation Boundary
0.5
I
Scale
o 0.5
1 Miles
,
N
W*E
s
.
......
o '"
c '"
..c~:r
~ e: c:
>, 0
" '"
o~~
Q
.
"
"t:l :s
c '" u
.!: ~ e U'}
~"u OJ g
~c."
U~ct ~ ttI
:( 0::
.
..
~
's
e
" ..
uj
t.g
'> 4.l
.. ..
~~
<( =
rJ) .2
:: ~
~:;
on "
"";;
;::u
12
e-
::l
::;;
~
'0
::;;
..:..
c
'"
if
c
c
u::
..
1;
a
:J::
..c
~
<:>
N
C!
~ ~
~V;
co:
Q
...
c
"
E
u
"t:l
<(
CXi
uJ
-g
-i .~
Q) 'E
~ E
II E
"'8
a
a
E
u
"t:l
<(
1::
..
..0
i2
co
..
..
-;;
ii:
<(
.. -
]~
'I: ..
u~
~
o
e ~
il
'"
0(
;!l
c..
e
o
u
'" '"
e
il
'0
00
~
o
'" "
~ '"
"
'"
'"
vi
N ;!l
c..
e
'" 8
e '"
il
or,
,..:
e
~ ~
u
"
on
N
0(
N '"
a::
~
'" 0
e tX
il
on
"':
- '"
No;.
e
o
'" u
e '"
u
"
..
-0
N J!I
c..
e
e ~
il
~ '"
0::
J!I
c..
'"
a::
""
...
=
..
o
"t:l
'E
o
u
c
o
.~
1::
8-
~
~
9
1:;-
.s
'j(
J:
...;
..
""
....
=
~
'"
tl
2
'@
<.t::
.s
on
c
.~
.~
lJJ
9
1:;-
.s
';(
e
c..
N
~
=
on
...
=
'"
e
<(
e
"
..
u
B
g bO C
'E .~ E
.. C 0..
en .s 0
o..u
t ~ d ~
'2 >. tl::
::s .E:J:-:: 1J
~ ] g ,g
:a .~ 8 g
'> B ~ >.
e u.- 11'\
p.,. "'0 U c::
~ 'E ~ :€
~ 'C 5 ~
:0 U._ ~
.~ t.!a tl
.. -S E 0
... 0 E '"
o ::l
.,,: vi u E
1:;-
's
'~
c..
,.;
~
Q
:::
=
..
..
0..
o
"
>
..
a
>,
..0
"t:l
"
[g
c.
e
c..
'"
..
:3
"t:l
C
"
..J
....
o
c;.
.~
'"
>
-0
on
""
Q
'"
.g
~. ...
CD
~ ~.
,2 S
tl '~
~'"
:t ~
.2~
;a
"t:l g,
:; '"
o c
-;; '2
",a
~e
<( a
'"
"':z
'"
..
>
.u
u
~
>,
'"
E
'"
.;:
'E g
~'&.
gon
w......
~o
~ ~
<( E
b '~
"" E
c
,2
..
"
..
c
c
<(
..
:i5
.~
o
c..
C;.
C 0..
" 0
0-"
u'"
5 ~
-"'E
co :tJ
ax
..J
"t:l
..c is
~ ~
'E "
0-;:
Z ~
~u
0'0
'"
~~
l;-
U
.8~\Ii
a3 ~ .5
>.-
-'..c
e-
~
>.
..
~ 'S ~
o 'f ".
]c..~
13 ''0 ~
~~~
c..
l." .~
~'r; ~'
o :t i:
oC~~
o~~
lJJ
.2 ~
~ ';
8~
2 0..
E ~
0; C
"t:l ~
<(~
'"
~ti
. ~
ZlJJ
:>.
..c ..c
e- i~
,,'"
::;;=
.. 0
~-s
co "
o
::;;'"
~
o
u
'" </)
e
u
co
<:>
""
e
o
'" u
e V>
u
co
""
-0
v !l
c.
~
o
'" u
e Vl
g
- '"
a::
..
:s
u
'" tIl
e
u
'"
<:>
""
e
o
u
'" '"
e
u
"
'n
e
o
u
'" V>
e
il
;:;
e
o
'" u
e [/)
u
'"
'n
.,,:
" J!I
c..
'"
a::
i
J!I
c..
J:l
c..
""
...
=
..
.g
.E
o
u
C
.g
"
1::
~
C
co
~
B
l;-
'8
';(
e
c.
...;
""
...
=
e
a
~
~
<.t::
.s
""
.~
'x
uJ
B
l;-
'8
';(
e
c..
N
~
.,;
..
e
<(
e
"
..
u
B
o
.e
.~
c..
,.;
~
.,;
'"
"
"
.E
..
[/)
..
c.
't;
'a
"
::;;
on
C
:;;
';
e
c.
......
o
~
:0
'~
..
...
.,,:
fJ'5
'a E
c: 0.
'" 0
a: u .
.. > ..
-so~
>, <.t::
.0 ._ ~
] g ,g
'~8 ~
~ .q~
"t:l U c:
.~ 1 :€
'C g ~
u ,- "
t.~ ~
-s e 0
o E '"
o ::l
.nuE
~
=
:::
.,;
..
..
c.
o
0;
>
o
>,
..0
"t:l
~
o
c.
e
0..
'"
..
:3
"t:l
c:
'"
..J
......
o
1:;-
..
'5
>
..c
(jj)
on
""
Q
'"
tl
t1 :~
.5 a
~ ~
o -
'y .~
",'"
~ '"
..9 ~
;22::
"t:l 1l,
:; ..
o c
-;; 'j!
B~
-< ~
.
'"
"
>
'0;
l!
iU-
s:
.~
.~ i
() '0
..c 0.
~.,.,
~'o
~ ~
~ .5
o ~
"" E
2005 MUSA DESIGNATION QUESTIONNAIRE
City of Farmington, Minnesota
&J
.
Applicant:
Address:
Phone:
Property Location:
Number of Acres requested for MUSA:
The 2005 MUSA Review Committee will review your answers to the following questions
in determining possible MUSA designation to your property.
1. Do you own the property that you are requesting for MUSA designation? Yes No
2. Are you familiar with the City's 2020 Land Use Plan and does your proposal follow
the City's plan? Yes No
3. Do you have a use determined for the property? Yes No If yes, what is the use?
.
4. Do you have a schematic plan prepared for the property? Yes No
5. Do you have a Developer/Builder prepared to develop the property? Yes No
If yes, who are they?
6. When are you planning to develop the property?
7. Are you willing to extend infrastructure (sewer, water, storm sewer, roadways, etc.)
to your property? Yes No
8. If you received MUSA designation for your property, when would you start the
platting process for the proposed project?
9. If you received MUSA designation for your property and were unable to develop the
property within the prescribed five-year time frame, would you be willing to give up
your MUSA designation until the next round of MUSA designation was available?
Yes No Please expand.
.
Signature of Applicant
Date
@Y
Council Minutes (Regular)
February 20, 2001
Page 2
e) Received Information MN Department of Health - Testing Results - Engineering
t) Approved bills
APIF t MOTION CARRIED.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
.
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Wetland Health Evaluation Program - Dakota County
Ms. Diane Rouse, a representative of Dakota County's Wetland Health Evaluation
Program presented to Council the results oflast year's study. In 1999 and 2000
there were nine program volunteers from Farmington. She presented the City
with the National Association of Counties Achievement A ward for participating
in the Wetland Health Evaluation Program.
b)
.
*{;)
.
2000 Fiscal Review - Finance
A preliminary review of 2000 General Fund Revenues and Expenditures was
presented to Council. Revenues for 2000 exceeded budget by $171,144, primarily
due to building permit activity in the last two months of the year which exceeded
all expectations. Expenditures for 2000 were under budget by $68,675 or 1.6%.
The preliminary review indicated an increase to the General Fund Balance of
$338,283 as compared to a budget increase of$98,464. This increase will bring
the Fund Balance to 31 % of Operating Expenditures for the coming year.
Councilmember Strachan commented he has been on the Council for five years,
and to be at 31 % is a credit to a lot of people. The workforce works lean and
smart to get the work done. He thanked staff and all employees for their good
work.
f
,.'
2005 MUSA Allocation Process Update - Community Development
The 2005 MUSA Review Committee is proposed to act as a canvassing board
performing within a legislative process to recommend to the Planning
Commission and ultimately the City Council the designation of MUSA acres to
properties petitioned by the owner. MUSA is areas ofland where City sewer is
available. The voting portion of the Committee would be comprised of the
Mayor, Planning Commission Chair, Parks and Recreation Chair, ISD #192
School Board member along with the City's Community Development Director.
This Committee will recommend whether to grant 2005 MUSA designation to
requesting properties. The voting committee will be evaluating 12 properties
within the City limits and potentially 4 other properties currently being considered
for annexation to determine the feasibility of designating MUSA to these
properties. The Committee is limited to allocating 610 acres. City staff is
recommending relative weights be assigned to each criteria and preparing a
calculation spreadsheet for the voting members of the committee. The final score
that will determine if a property will receive MUSA will be a composite of the
fixed weight percentage multiplied by a points variable. The variable points
Council Minutes (Regular)
February 20, 2001
Page 3
@
.
.
r
.
assigned to each property would be in the range of 1 to 5; thereby creating a
composite score that takes into account the committee's perception of the
property's importance for MUSA designation and multiplied by the assigned
weight for each criteria. The criteria and rationale for weighting the criteria was
discussed.
Additions to the list include property owners that have recently petitioned for
MUSA designation:
Dave Finnegan (East of Akin Road and south of Autumn Glen)
Molly Murphy (North of the Farmington Middle School Campus)
Babe Murphy (within City limits, north of Molly Murphy Property)
Dakota County Highway Shop (South of CSAH 50)
Michael Devney (East of the Prairie Waterway along CR72)
After presentation and acceptance of the 2005 MUSA Review Committee
methodology by the City Council, Planning Commission and Parks and
Recreation Commission, a meeting of the committee to designate MUSA will be
held April 30 - May 4,2001.
MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg accepting the Executive Summary,
methodology and schedule for the 2005 MUSA Review Committee. Any
recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Parks and
Recreation Commission. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
d)
Housing Affordability Legislation - 2001 Legislative Initiatives - Community
Development
The Builders Association of Minnesota and the Minnesota Association of Realtors
have recently introduced a legislative agenda dealing primarily with City fees that
they cite as barriers to the development of affordable housing in the state. The
legislative agenda contains the following suggestions:
A requirement that Enterprise Funds or Special Revenue Accounts be
established for all development and building fees with no general fund
crossover.
A requirement for detailed reporting to the state regarding fee revenue that
was both collected and expended.
A mandatory lO-day turn around on building permit applications.
Special assessment appeals waivers for developments would be prohibited.
- A Plan Check fee would not be allowed for subsequent plan reviews unless
there are substantial modifications to the plan for the original application.
Staffwill continue to monitor the legislative issues that have been introduced and
keep the Council apprised of any pending bills that may come before the
legislature.
.
.
.
lOb
@
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor and City Council
City Administrator~
FROM: David 1. Olson
Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Proposed MUSA Expansion - Zoning Ordinance Update
DATE: October 2, 2000
INTRODUCTION
The Planning Commission and City Council held a joint workshop on the issue of
postponing MUSA designation on Wednesday, August 30, 2000. The Planning
Commission considered it again at their September 12,2000 meeting.
DISCUSSION
Recently there has been considerable discussion on a number of issues associated with the
proposed 2005 MUSA expansion as well as the need to update the City's Zoning
Ordinance to make it consistent with the recently approved Comprehensive Plan. The
memo dated August 30, 2000 to the City Council and Planning Commission outlined the
issues to be considered.
The following five action items were discussed:
1) Determine the level of support for the recommended technical requirements
associated with MUSA Expansion Criteria.
2) Determine the level of support relative to the requirements that properties must be
annexed prior to MUSA designation.
3) Determine the level of support of a shift of MUSA acres from the Low Density
Residential designation to the Medium Density designation.
4) Detennine the level of support for a 2005 MUSA Designation Postponement Period
of 10 months (or 12 months as suggested at the meeting) to allow for the City
Zoning and Subdivision ordinances to be_ updated to be consistent with the approved
2020 Comprehensive Plan.
5) Determine the level of support relative to the proposed exceptions to the 2005
MUSA Designation Postponement Period as identified.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. R88-00
t1fJ
2005 MUSA EXPANSION POSTPONEMENT
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Farmington, Minnesota was held in Council Chambers of said City on the 2nd day of October,
2000 at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan
Verch
Member Soderberg introduced and Member Strachan seconded the following:
WHEREAS, the City of Farmington prepared a Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of
Farmington in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and,
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council approved the City of Fannington's Comprehensive Plan
on March 22, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan on May 15, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended criteria for the consideration of future
MUSA designation of available undesignated MUSA acres; and,
WHEREAS, the designation of MUSA and extension of public infrastructure and services to
developable properties is significantly affected by the proposed use of the subject properties;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is required to amend it's Zoning Ordinance regulating the
. use and development of land within the City to be consistent with the recently adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the CitY Council hereby elects to postpone the
designation of additional MUSA except for non-profit and government facilities including
schools, churches, industrial park expansion, and previously approved Planned Unit
Developments for a period not to exceed twelve months from the date of this resolution.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
2nd day of October, 2000. ~Q..::t:::::
Mayor
Attested to theS-I'-J day of October, 2000
SEAL
.
69
Proposed MUSA Expansion Criteria
City have developed the following proposed criteria that may be used in determining
where MUSA expansions should occur:
1. Proximity of property to transportation corridors (i.e. 19Sth Street between Akin Road
and TH 3, 20Sth Street between CSAH 31 and TH 3, etc.) to promote construction of
transportation corridors as identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
2. Proximity to existing infrastructure and whether it is economically feasible to connect to
existing and/or planned infrastructure, identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
3. Property within the IndustriaVBusiness Park or other industriaVcommercial areas to
promote tax base and employment opportunities as identified in the City's 2020
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Proximity to the central area of City (east of Pilot Knob Road and west of Trunk
Highway 3) to promote the connection of the northern and southern portions of the City.
.
5.
Property that provides location for necessary public facilities - public, quasi-public and
other institutional uses.
6. Feasibility of providing municipal services (police, fire, public works, or parks) to the
proposed property.
7. Variety of land uses proposed by developer (i.e. Low, LowlMedium, Medium and High
Density Residential, Business, Industrial, etc.) that supports the City's 2020
Comprehensive Plan.
8. MUSA expansion areas should generally follow section lines, natural drainage ways and
sanitary sewer districts.
9. Property cannot be considered for MUSA designation until an annexation petition has
been filed and approved by the Council and filed with the State Planning Agency.
10. Other criteria that may be determined by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
.
.
Council Minutes (Regular)
October 2, 2000
Page 6
@
Council agreed to revisit the issue at a later time if amendments are needed.
r.
,.
I
I
tb)
Consider MUSA Postponement Policy and Criteria
There has been considerable discussion on a number of issues associated with the
proposed 2005 MUSA expansion as well as the need to update the City's Zoning
Ordinance to make it consistent with the recently approved Comprehensive Plan.
The following action items were discussed by the City Council and Planning
Commission:
1. Determine the level of support for the recommended technical
requirements associated with MUSA Expansion Criteria.
2. Determine the level of support relative to the requirements that properties
must be annexed prior to MUSA designation.
3. Determine the level of support of a shift of MUS A acres from the Low
Density Residential designation to the Medium Density designation.
4. Determine the level of support for a 2005 MUSA Designation
Postponement Period of 10 months or 12 months to allow for the City
Zoning and Subdivision ordinances to be updated to be consistent with the
approved 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
5. Determine the level of support relative to the proposed exceptions to the
2005 MUSA Designation Postponement Period as identified.
.
The Planning Commission recommended the following regarding the above
items:
1. Adoption of the proposed MUSA Expansion Criteria with two minor
modifications.
2. Support of the policy requiring that properties be annexed to the City prior
to receiving consideration of MUSA designation.
3. The completion of an evaluation of all property owner MUSA requests
based on the approved criteria before determining their support for a shift
of MUSA acres from Low Density to Medium Density Residential
designation.
4. A postponement of up to 12 months for the designation of 2005 MUSA
acres totaling 610 acres with the following exceptions. This is to allow for
the update of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
5. Exceptions to the 12 month MUSA postponement period to include non-
profit and other governmental uses including school sites, Industrial Park
expansion, and completion of previously approved Planned Unit
Developments.
.
Councilmember Cordes clarified that houses will still be built, but no new areas
will be developed unless already designated. MOTION by Soderberg, second by
Strachan adopting RESOLUTION R88-00 adopting the above listed
recommendations in regards to additional MUSA designation postponement and
criteria. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
.
.
.
@
Council Approves 12-Month Study of MUSA Designation and
Zoning and Subdivision Code Update
On October 2, 2000, the City Council approved the postponement of the designation of the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUS A) that allows the expansion of sewer into new areas of
the City. The City recently received approval from the Metropolitan Council to allocate 610
residential, commercial or industrial acres to receive MUSA.
However, the City Council has determined that the expansion of MUSA by 610 acres should be
delayed for 12 months to allow a full study of the growth patterns in the City and where the
growth will occur. This will allow the citizenry, City officials and City staff to work together to
determine the future growth patterns of the City. Open meetings will be scheduled for all those
interested in preparing Farmington for the future.
Additionally, the City of Farmington is required by the Metropolitan Council to update the City's
Zoning and Subdivision Codes to be in compliance with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. In some
cases, the rezoning of property needs to occur to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and some
of the properties seeking MUSA designation needs to be evaluated and rezoned to be brought into
compliance with the approved Comprehensive Plan.
The delay of MUSA designation will allow the City to determine where best to allocate 610 acres
of additional MUSA and also allow the Zoning and Subdivision Code Update to become
compliant with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Projects that are currently underway (Middle
Creek, Vermillion Grove, Tamarack Ridge and Autumn Glen) will continue construction of
housing, however, no plats will be issued outside of the MUSA until the 12-month study is
completed. The delay of MUSA designation will not effect schools, non-profit or governmental
sites, Industrial Park expansion or Planned Unit Developments that have been recently approved.
This is an important opportunity for the citizens of the City to work closely with City officials
and staff to determine the future growth in the community. Notices of meetings will be published
in the Farmington Independent and on the City's website at www.ci.farmington.mn.us or call the
City at 651-463-1820.
.
Council Workshop Project Updates &/ .
July 28, 2003 'f/{./,
Page 5
shuffle some equipment. The Fire Department has been discussing new rescue
equipment. They would have to decide on a place for the rescue truck ifthey stay with
one truck.
Councilmember Fitch asked if the satellite would have to grow beyond this point. Fire
Chief Kuchera replied no, having a satellite station to the north would cut the response
time by 1/3. Councilmember Soderberg would like staff to look at the campus site rather
than develop a task force. If the site does not work, then form a task force. Staff will
draw up a plan with a footprint of the building and work with Engineering on the soils.
{'.MUSA Review Committee
It has been discussed to reconvene the MUSA Review Committee to determine the next
allocations for MUSA. Options are:
1. Go to the Planning Commission to discuss composition of the committee, talk
about criteria used last time, and discuss the timetable and the process.
Recommendations would be brought to the Council for final decision.
2. Not go to the Planning Commission, but go directly to Council and have staff
make the recommendations and have Council make the final decision.
.
3.
Not go to the Council and just reconvene the committee. Have the committee
decide for itself if it wants to change the criteria, work out a timetable and the
process.
The advantage of using the Planning Commission is that they are very dedicated
members with a lot of experience. They would be involved in implementing any
decisions made by the Council with regard to MUSA extensions. There are 212 acres of
MUSA left until 2005, then there is another allocation that goes until 2010. That would
be another issue, whether to limit the committee's work to the 212 acres, or extend their
scope to include the additional acreage available until 2010. The Met Council is not as
intent on having the MUSA contiguous to other sections. Whether to look at the 212
acres or look at a larger amount of acreage over a longer span of time would need to be
addressed at the beginning.
Interim Administrator Siebenaler stated the 2005 timeline is starting now. In order to
have lots available starting in 2005 the process needs to begin now and do the allocations.
By the time 2005 gets here, there may not be any lots left. Mayor Ristow replied the city
will have lots. He has talked to builders and they are just building models and they are
hard to sell. The boom is not what we had and there is no rush. Residents say there is
too much growth already to accommodate what we have. Weare looking at a Fire
Station and a City Hall. You have to provide the services.
.
Mayor Ristow then stated he received a call from a resident regarding the water
restrictions. The water restriction is ridiculous it is a totally crazy thing for a city to be
doing. The city has a service we cannot provide. They do not cut the gas or electricity.
We are charging the residents for this service and not giving it to them, we are giving
tickets instead. It is not fun to listen to someone who has a $25 ticket and needs to water
their lawn. If we cannot provide the services, why continue to grow? Councilmember
Council Workshop Project Updates
July 28, 2003
Page 6
Fogarty stated she does not get those calls and hears the opposite. Her neighbors are .
water conservationists and glad people cannot water every day. Mayor Ristow stated if i
you put in a $5000 lawn and have to let it burn up, you would not be very happy. Ifwe
are not going to provide the service, why have it? Councilmember Fogarty stated they
are not paying for water they are not using. Mayor Ristow asked what kind of country
are you in? You are in a free country. Are you going to dictate what they can use? They
do not say you cannot use gas or electricity. Councilmember Fogarty stated we have an
entire water tower dedicated to watering lawns in the summer and shut it down in the
winter. Mayor Ristow stated so why can't they use it? They have pumps that keep the
power up. He stated he is just saying what people tell him, he could care less. Residents
want to use the water when they see fit. They are paying for it. It is a service the city
provides. We have to say no, because we have a Water Board that issues a ticket. Let's
make it an ordinance so we are all responsible for it, instead of three people residents
cannot come back to like they do with the Council. If we pass an ordinance, the tickets
could be challenged in court. This way, residents have no way to challenge the tickets.
Fire Chief Kuchera stated residents have to understand that in the summer, there is a real
concern with water tower levels today. There can be mechanical problems, we cannot
plan for. Ifwe did not have those restrictions on today, there would be real problems.
Mayor Ristow replied increasing by another 2000 homes is not going to help if we are not
prepared. Finance Director Roland stated the Water Board asked Council to pass an
ordinance for water restrictions and the Council chose not to pass the ordinance. That is
when the Water Board adopted the administrative policy. Mayor Ristow replied we said .
it was fine the way it was to leave it odd-even days. The Water Board overrode Council.
If we have to be accountable for it, we should take the heat. He is not going to take the
heat for someone else when he has no say over it for something as ridiculous as a $25
fine. Do they need the money that bad? Let them challenge it in court, because 90% of
them would be thrown out because it is ridiculous. They are paying for the service.
Councilmember Fogarty stated she did not know if she would build another water tower
for people to water their lawn all day. Mayor Ristow stated how can we add more houses
when we cannot service what we have. Councilmember Fitch felt the odd-even
restriction is great. People are having a problem with hours. Not everyone works 8:00
a.m. - 4:30 p.m. A lot of people work nights. They sleep in the morning and cannot
water their lawn in the afternoon.
Community Development Director Carroll stated the fact that we are starting the MUSA
process does not mean anyone has made any decisions on how much growth if any, to
accommodate. If Council does not want to allocate any of it, staff is fine with that.
Mayor Ristow stated last time we did this everyone that owned land wanted it developed.
Finance Director Roland replied at that time we encouraged them to do so as part of the
dual track program. The purpose was to develop the MUSA Review Committee and
making those people aware of what they had to do to be in place for MUSA. Mayor
Ristow asked what has changed as far as transportation since then. The next two pieces
of land were Murphy and Finnegan that was suggested to be developed. We need to have .
208th Street done and a north-south connection. Mayor Ristow stated he is not opposed
to reconvening the committee, but people hear it and everyone will want to get their land
in. He wanted to have more transportation routes before more land is allocated.
Community Development Director Carroll stated some people that apply get turned
down. The Planning Commission can make a recommendation to Council as to the
.
.
.
@
Council Workshop Project Updates
July 28, 2003
Page 6
Fogarty stated she does not get those calls and hears the opposite. Her neighbors are
water conservationists and glad people cannot water every day. Mayor Ristow stated if
you put in a $5000 lawn and have to let it bum up, you would not be very happy. Ifwe
are not going to provide the service, why have it? Councilmember Fogarty stated they
are not paying for water they are not using. Mayor Ristow asked what kind of country
are you in? You are in a free country. Are you going to dictate what they can use? They
do not say you cannot use gas or electricity. Councihnember Fogarty stated we have an
entire water tower dedicated to watering lawns in the summer and shut it down in the
winter. Mayor Ristow stated so why can't they use it? They have pumps that keep the
power up. He stated he is just saying what people tell him, he could care less. Residents
want to use the water when they see fit. They are paying for it. It is a service the city
provides. We have to say no, because we have a Water Board that issues a ticket. Let's
make it an ordinance so we are all responsible for it, instead ofthree people residents
cannot come back to like they do with the Council. If we pass an ordinance, the tickets
could be challenged in court. This way, residents have no way to challenge the tickets.
Fire Chief Kuchera stated residents have to understand that in the summer, there is a real
concern with water tower levels today. There can be mechanical problems, we cannot
plan for. If we did not have those restrictions on today, there would be real problems.
Mayor Ristow replied increasing by another 2000 homes is not going to help if we are not
prepared. Finance Director Roland stated the Water Board asked Council to pass an
ordinance for water restrictions and the Council chose not to pass the ordinance. That is
when the Water Board adopted the administrative policy. Mayor Ristow replied we said
it was fine the way it was to leave it odd-even days. The Water Board overrode Council.
If we have to be accountable for it, we should take the heat. He is not going to take the
heat for someone else when he has no say over it for something as ridiculous as a $25
fine. Do they need the money that bad? Let them challenge it in court, because 90% of
them would be thrown out because it is ridiculous. They are paying for the service.
Councilmember Fogarty stated she did not know if she would build another water tower
for people to water their lawn all day. Mayor Ristow stated how can we add more houses
whenwe cannot service what we have. Councilmember Fitch felt the odd-even
restriction is great. People are having a problem with hours. Not everyone works 8:00
a.m. - 4:30 p.m. A lot of people work nights. They sleep in the morning and cannot
water their lawn in the afternoon.
Community Development Director Carroll stated the fact that we are starting the MUSA
process does not mean anyone has made any decisions on how much growth if any, to
accommodate. If Council does not want to allocate any of it, staff is fine with that.
Mayor Ristow stated last time we did this everyone that owned land wanted it developed.
Finance Director Roland replied at that time we encouraged them to do so as part of the
dual track program. The purpose was to develop the MUSA Review Committee and
making those people aware of what they had to do to be in place for MUSA. Mayor
Ristow asked what has changed as far as transportation since then. The next two pieces
of land were Murphy and Finnegan that was suggested to be developed. We need to have
20gth Street done and a north-south connection. Mayor Ristow stated he is not opposed
to reconvening the committee, but people hear it and everyone will want to get their land
in. He wanted to have more transportation routes before more land is allocated.
Community Development Director Carroll stated some people that apply get turned
down. The Planning Commission can make a recommendation to Council as to the
(
.
Council Workshop Project Updates
July 28, 2003
Page 7
process. If Council wants to place restrictions on who can apply, that can be discussed.
Staffwants to do this because every week people come in and ask about areas on the map
that do not have houses, asking what is going to happen. Staff tells them Council needs
to give direction as to how they want to phase future MUSA extensions. That is the
reason for getting the committee together again. If Council only wants to allocate 50
acres in the next five years, that's fine. Then staffknows what to tell people.
@
Mayor Ristow stated there are a lot of other factors that need to be considered.
Transportation issues have always been the number one concern. We do not have the
routes to keep traffic moving. If they develop Murphy and Finnegan land without
additional routes, Akin Road will be suicide by putting more traffic on that road. Staff
agreed 20Sth Street and 195th Street are critical routes.
Council agreed to have staff get a recommendation from the Planning Commission and
bring it to Council. Council will see the recommendation in October or November.
Councilmember Fitch felt the Council and Planning Commission do not talk enough and
would like a joint meeting. He would like this meeting to be held in the middle to the end
of the process.
(Fire Chief Kuchera left the meeting at 8: 15 p.m.)
Spruce Street Extension
.
There will be a Community Meeting on July 31 for the community to ask questions, look
at maps and hear a presentation. The comments received from the meeting will be used
to finalize the draft of the Master Plan which will come to the Council August IS. The
Planning Commission will review it at their August 12 meeting and make a
recommendation to Council. There have been meetings with representatives ofthe
Knutsen's and New Century. Discussions are being held on how to coordinate the
AUAR and Master Plan process. They are also interested in what types of uses are
allowed. Staff will make recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding
permitted and conditional uses at the August, September, and October meetings. Right
now there is a list of permitted uses in the Spruce Street district. Some of the things the
developer wants to do are already listed as permitted, some are not. The Planning
Commission and Council have to add them to the list. Once they are added to the list, it
needs to be decided if they will be permitted or conditional uses. The developer wants
them all to be permitted. Staff feels there are a couple uses that should be conditional to
regulate traffic, etc. The goal is not to prohibit any businesses, just to make them
permitted or conditional. If they are determined to be conditional uses it would be to
allow some extra oversight. Council agreed with the direction staff is taking.
.
Councilmember Fitch noted the Spruce Street corridor also goes to the east. He asked if
there was any discussion regarding opening the area east ofHwy 3. Interim
Administrator Siebenaler stated there was discussion of opening Spruce Street when East
Farmington was developed. Walnut Street would have to be closed because of highway
access issues. There was considerable resistance from residents along Spruce Street. The
original study for East Farmington opened it all the way through to allow a gateway to
the downtown area. It would take considerable will from the Council to open that up.
Councilmember Fitch stated we are closing Main Street. That leaves Elm Street for a
corridor. Ifwe are trying to build a thriving downtown, we cannot limit the ways to get
Council Workshop Project Updates
July 28, 2003
Page 8
to downtown. Unless we look at a longer range plan we do not have a downtown. It will (.
be too inconvenient to get downtown. Once that is done, you will kill the downtown.
Some ofthe properties from 3rd Street west are not conducive to a corridor. How do you
take care of some of those things while building a downtown that people want to come
to? Interim Administrator Siebenaler asked if Council wants staff to explore that
possibility with MnDOT. Mayor Ristow replied at a previous meeting with MnDOT,
they would allow it, but the city would have to close Elm Street because of the location of
the stop lights. That is why Elm Street was extended. The trucks are used to Elm Street,
if we send them down Spruce Street, through a residential area, that will not go over well.
Community Development Director Carroll stated the Hoisington people and most of the
transportation people have liked the idea of having that longer east-west connection
running through the community. They envision Spruce Street running all the way west to
the border to alleviate some ofthe traffic on Hwy 50. Going to the east would be the
same. People have discussed property to the east of East Farmington being annexed into
the city. It would make sense for that new residential neighborhood to be able to connect
along Spruce Street with the rest ofthe community. The Hwy 3 Access Management
Study devoted some attention to intersections and what the spacing should be. There
may be some information already regarding opening Spruce Street and what the spacing
should be. Mayor Ristow suggested if it was toned down and made more like a parkway
and restrict the trucks it might be better.
Councilmember Fogarty has received inquiries as to whether there will be covenants in
the Spruce Street Corridor area, such as strict aesthetics. Community Development .
Director Carroll replied there are some that exist now even though there are no buildings. '
The question is whether to keep them as is or modify them. As part of the process they
will be reviewed. The Planning Commission and HRA would like to see high quality
development. In some cases you have to have standards that are set high and require
people to comply with them.
Ash Street Proiect
The township has not given the results of their review to the city yet. Their lawyer is
reviewing the agreement first and then they want to have another meeting to make sure it
is correct. The agreement should be available July 30, and will be in Council's agenda
packets. Castle Rock is concerned the city will do a land grab for their commercial area.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fogarty to adjourn at 8:31 p.m. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
r~ ?-}/?~
Cynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
.
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
\/....ffV
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT:
Potential Zoning Code Text Amendments to the
Spruce Street Commercial Zoning District
DATE:
August 12, 2003
INTRODUCTION
During the preparation of the Spruce Street Area Master Plan, it has become apparent
to City staff and the Developer for the Knutsen Property that revisions should be
proposed to the existing permitted and conditional uses in the Spruce Street
Commercial District. The proposed revisions add a number of commercial uses that
are currently excluded from the Spruce Street district, and City staff would like the
Planning Commission to comment on the proposed changes.
DISCUSSION
The property owners, Bob and Stan Knutsen, and their development team have
approached the City requesting that revisions be made to the permitted and
conditional uses in the Spruce Street Commercial District to allow typical commercial
uses that have currently been excluded from the district. They would like these
discussions to begin at this point because they are preparing conceptual plans based
on the uses allowed within this district. City staff will eventually have to prepare
text amendments to the Zoning Code to both add and delete uses in zoning categories
and prepare new zoning districts to comply with the Master Plan currently being
prepared. Therefore, City staff would like to assist the development team in
preparing their conceptual plan by proposing revisions to the Spruce Street
Commercial District at this time rather than waiting for the overall text amendment
changes that will deal with the Opportunity Grant Study Area as a whole.
The attached summary of permitted and conditional uses within the Spruce Street
Commercial District illustrates uses that are "unchanged" or are currently allowed in
the district. The uses that are proposed fall under the "added" category in the
attached summary. The attached table also identifies current uses and proposed
additions to the permitted and conditional uses.
.
.
.
A number of commercial uses have been added to both the permitted and conditional
use categories. Uses such as Personal and Professional Services, Personal Health and
Beauty, Commercial Services, and Clinics have been added to the permitted category.
Uses such as Public Buildings and Minor and Major Auto Repair have been included in
the conditional use category.
Dwellings are currently under review by City staff. Staff has previously indicated
support for residential units within the Spruce Street Commercial District as
apartments or condos located above commercial uses (retail stores, offices, etc).
However, the Developer has expressed an interest in patio homes, town homes, senior
housing, and apartments as potential residential uses in the district. Staff would like
to discuss these options with the Planning Commission and have the Commission
indicate which types of housing, if any, they would prefer in the district.
Table 2 is attached showing conditional uses in surrounding communities' commercial
districts. This analysis was completed to determine if Farmington's proposals were
appropriate. Further discussion concerning these uses will be held at the Planning
Commission.
ACTION REQUESTED
Review the proposed revisions to the permitted and conditional uses in the Spruce
Street Commercial District and direct staff to prepare a text amendment for the
September 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
tt:~
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
Preliminary Recommended Modifications to the
Spruce Street Commercial Zoning District
.
EXHIBIT A
Permitted Uses
Child Daycare Center, Commercial (unchanged)
Commercial Recreation, Indoor (commercial recreation should be separated
into two (2) categories: indoor and outdoor)
COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USES: The provision of entertainment, games
of skill or lessons to the general public for a fee, including, but not limited
to, dance and karate studios, golf driving range, archery, and miniature
golf.
Health Clubs (unchanged)
Restaurants, class 1, traditional (unchanged)
Restaurants, class 3, with liquor service (unchanged)
. Retail sales and services (unchanged)
Personal and professional services (added)
PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: Nonretail services involving
predominantly the handling of information or the performance of
administrative services which may include services provided both on site
and off site on a walk in or appointment basis, such as counseling or
indirect or nonpersonal service such as real estate, travel agencies,
financial agencies, insurance offices and professional services which
include, but are not limited to: legal, psychology, and accounting services.
Personal health and beauty (added)
PERSONAL HEALTH AND BEAUTY SERVICES: The selling of services that
involve personal health and beauty care and treatment to clients on a walk
in or appointment basis. These services include, but are not limited to:
barbershops, beauty salons, nail salons, weight loss services, and tanning
salons
Commercial services (added)
.
COMMERCIAL SERVICES: Retail establishments that primarily render
services rather than goods. Such services may include, but not limited to,
copy shops, printing services, package and postal service, photo processing,
janitorial services and similar services.
.
.
.
Clinic (added)
CLINIC: Any establishment where human patients are examined and treated
by doctors or dentists but not hospitalized overnight. A facility providing
dental, medical, psychiatric, or surgical service for sick or injured persons
exclusively on an outpatient basis, including emergency treatment,
diagnostic services, training, administration, and services.
Conditional Uses
Convenience store, with gas (unchanged)
Grocery stores (unchanged)
Hotels and motels (unchanged)
Public utility buildings (unchanged)
Restaurants, class 2, fast food (unchanged)
Theaters (unchanged)
Public buildings (added)
(no definition)
Minor auto repair (added)
AUTO REPAIR, MINOR: The replacement of any part or repair of any part
which does not require removal of the engine head or pan, engine
transmission or differential; incidental body or fender work, minor painting
and upholstering service.
Major auto repair (to be added; under review)
AUTO REPAIR, MAJOR: General repair, rebuilding or reconditioning of
engines, motor vehicles or trailers, including bodywork, framework,
welding and major painting services.
Commercial recreation, outdoor (added)
COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USES: The provision of entertainment, games
of skill or lessons to the general public for a fee, including, but not limited
to, dance and karate studios, golf driving range, archery, and miniature
golf.
Dwellings - to be added (under review)
.
.
.
......
II)
~
t-<
";j
::
'Q .S
~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~x~
= ::
~ Q
aU
a~
= ~
uti
~.~~~ ~~~~~~~~
~
~
~
u
~
~
rJ'j
ioo-l
~
~
<
ioo-l
U
~
~
~
~
o
u
~
~
~
~
rJ'j
~
u
~
~
rJ'j
~
=
~
Z
ioo-l
rJ'j
~
rJ'j
~
~
<
z
o
ioo-l
~
ioo-l
~
Z
o
u
~
z
<
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
01
"CI
Q
U
.$
fI:lo
=z
~
....";j
00 ::
.... .g
=~
~ ::
'"' Q
au
u
~~~~
~~~~~~
o 0
'" '"
o 0
'1:l'1:l
~~~~
.~ .-;::
]]
..... .....
OIl OIl
l':: l'::
;.a;.a
l':: s:::
<I) <I)
s s
s s
o 0
<.) u
<I) <I)
.... ....
.~ .~
it: it:
.5.5
'" '"
..... .....
=:l =:l
.0.0
r.Jf 00'"
11) 11)
.;:: .;::
o 0
OIl OIl
11) 11)
..... .....
<:<j <:<j
u u
.... ....
o 0
o 0
'E'E
88
'1:l'1:l
s::: s:::
<:<j <:<j
.... ....
o 0
o 0
'1:l'1:l
s::: s:::
--
o 0
..... .....
.S .S
s::: s:::
.9 .~
..... .....
to to
e e
u <.)
11) 11)
p::p::
tU"';;
'<:) '<:) it: it:
bb.5.5
~~~~
00.0.0
UU~~
11) iU .ga .~
.... ..... :> :>
~ ~ e e
frfrbb
",,,,'1:l'1:l
..Q..Q S S
1::1::>-.>-.
4.)CIJ......~
l::l::1::1::
13 13 ~ ~
001313
s::: s::: 11) 11)
tI'J en 00 tI'J
11) 11) =:l =:l
.g .g .~ .~
11)11)';:';:
'1:l'1:l........
o 0 0 0
uUs:::s:::
0.0.9.9
Gu'a's
11)11)t;::t;::
t:t:oo
_ N f"") '<t'
"CI
01
ti
e~~~~~~~
..
~
~
.::c
; ~ ~
~ ~~~
~ o~-~ ~ =
o ~ :0 -; a g S .9
:o~ =~~~ ~ ~ ~
~=~ < 00 ~ ~ i~
~oo~ ~~~:>~~ ~ ~ ~~
..a~ ~~ ~='~CJ-~ ~ ~..'e5
~ = .... == .. ': ~ 'a .... -e = ~'"
'g ; ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~.... ~ 0 =.9 :5 ~ ~ as
:~~~ ~ ..~~~O ~=~..~ ~=~~
;.;c;.... ~~=~~CJ.ai;_~_.....~ - ...-
~ ~~ ~::2u ~ =~.::c ~ CJ ~'~oo~'e ~ ~'g
S~ =.9.. ~-e ~ ~~.~'5,g ase.o~"'.. u =;J
N"'~S~~~=~~-e = ="CI= _~~
'C .a ~ ~ ~ t :c Ia .; ~~ ~ e .... < 00 -; U = '0- ~ ;:
~oo':fe~.o ~...z=~<~ CJ=.:= ~=
~Rs~as~~_~.r.~~=.. =~0~=-e8~
- -.o~ ...._-=~ ~o-~=>,'==~
~S~~d .oo=~s-~.o=CJCJ=~~~"
~-.._~ =-..~==-s~~_=~~
Z~~~~<~~=~~oou=~~~u~~~
-
""
'-'
~
'a
a
GO
~
~
~
'"
;:J
:3 M.. ~
CJ..o _.. CJ
as 0 0 ~ 0 'S:
~i~ ~g ~o ~. '8
0...0 :a~ -= _ ....
U== ~:::~~~ ~ -
i:8:8 ~~.~.~~'" i ~~
-== ":Mi:;~,...~ =ri
=~~ ~",~~=CJ ~ ...
a.#__ r.tJ~rJ'JQ~.S: J. ~=a~
U~~ .s.s-e"~as .s",~-.s
~~~ uu=~=oo oo~O-CJ
.. ~ ~ ~="CI~_ ~o"~.c.,;
= -; "i ~ ~ = rIJ = - cu CJ..... .~.....
~ '0 '0 .E! = = s = == '0 = 00 -e == =
= .. .. U = = = - -.. '~='" ~ ~ i5 =
~~~~aa~~~~ .. ._~a
-e ~ ~- ~ ~.... 0 0 ~.~ ~ ~~ - =
==ee-;~~.5"'~e==~~.o~
~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 1j as as 0 := 0 ,";:: ~ = 1j
UUu~~~....~~UUU'-I~~""
.. ..
-; -;
~ ~ ~
.5 ~ ~
"CI 0 0
=.........
= = = ~.
i:~<< =-
~CJ~&..=
~:s ~.g~
~~~~~
~ ~N~~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~~~
.
.
.
N
11)
~
E-<
rJ'1
~
~
~
~
Z
~
~
~
o
u
~
z
~
~
Z
~
o
~
~
rJ'1
Z
~
rJ'1
~
rJ'1
~
~
-<
Z
o
~
~
~
~
Z
o
U
~
o
z
o
rJ'1
~
-<
~
~
o
u
~ <
..Q < fI} fI} fI} fI} fI} Q Q fI} Ii'}
"tl Z Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l Z Z Q,l Q,l ""'-
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z
Q
~
"Q
~
Q,l
t ~
= .... fI} Ii'} ~ fI} Ii'} Ii'} fI} ~
rLl > Q,l Q,l 0 Q,l Q,l 0 Q Q,l Q,l
fI} ~ ~ ~ Z Z ~ ~ Z Z ~ ~ Z
Q,l =
.... ~
.....
....
U
Q,l QC)
- lo.
~ < ~ < Q,l Ii'}
Q fI} Q Ii'} fI} fI} Q >..:::
Ii'} Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l
E ""'- z z z ""'- Q =
Z ~ ~ ~ ~ z z ~=
= Q,l
~ ~
=
Q
~ fI} fI} Ii'} fI} Ii'} fI} Ii'} fI} v.> v.> v.>
= Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l Q,l
'5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
lo.
=
r-.
lo.
Q
Q
"Q "Q
.....
= v.> Q
0 ~ ~
== .; .....
~ Ii'}
Q 'i ~
.... .S
..... M
Q,l = ~ "tl lo. lo.
v.> Q,l Ii'} - v.> .... .~
~ lo. lo. - 'S v.> !
Cj Q Q,l = ~
~ ..... ..... ~
rLl v.> 0 - Q,l Q,l
Q,l Cj .S ~ ~
Q,l lo. ~ E .;;
- Q "Q Q Q
= Cj ..... ..... -
.... = "tl - .... ..... .....
Cj rLl .... = = = = v.>
Q,l = .....
lo. .... t ~ = Ii'} == < < ~
Q,l = = lo. lo. =
e Q,l Q,l v.> Cj = Q,l Cj lo. lo. ....
..... -
> Cj - .... = = .... Q .g, -
e Q,l - ..... - Q,l
= 0 ..... ..Q Ii'} Q,l ..Q = = ~
Q Q ~ Q = Q,l -= = ....
u u == g.. ~ E-- g.. ~ ~ ~