[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6082838,"mediaKeyId","2936163-d2dcaebf72b0035521394f459db9ee5f","parentId",2936163,"title","Planning commission reviews draft beekeeping ordinance; staff to refine setback, flyway and removal language","audioSeconds",238,"startMs",3826000,"endMs",4064000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936163-d2dcaebf72b0035521394f459db9ee5f&start=3826&end=4064","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936163-d2dcaebf72b0035521394f459db9ee5f/thumbnail_3826000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6082838/Farmington-City/Dakota-County/Minnesota/Planning-commission-reviews-draft-beekeeping-ordinance-staff-to-refine-setback-flyway-and-removal-language","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082838-5f8f66e24cbe38567ae7e6932e58f672/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206951&Signature=caikfmal3mAMzC3RBDFd-QIR3pRUvc8I750sHZMuREs3NElpfvuzayoar3yx14D47Nol6TRMHSHl7K7-HbdYCMQBxnWGTmtXN8yxGYKtixxQlaRCAo3l5phjMG05Q5sF7S-mNSrIHQqkTQ2TWhtbjn~QBTnOEugOHAorRYyEUnr8ElJ~HkFSp5Y0gaRcu4ivsJPhbT4LcGeK3d3tUVLO9pbNGBvk4bElnqAXHzHdFkuBkroZA~0N3feHRdOLNurR8EuS2~MaLmhgUqVxdMME~e6SB5yYFYY0hGl09mr-P3rTogMQsK44h29J22mVD9Psm-kyprq7JBgsgbE7bDXFsg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Farmington, MN","date","2025-04-09T21:41:53.56Z","article","Farmington planning staff presented a discussion draft of a proposed beekeeping ordinance on April 8. The draft, modeled in part on the City of Eagan’s ordinance and refined following earlier commission input, would require an administrative permit, education or experience proof, setbacks and flyway barriers for hives and inspection and renewal processes.

Highlights of the draft ordinance and issues raised

Staff summarized key draft provisions: an administrative permit to be approved by staff; proof of completion of a beekeeping basics course or three years of beekeeping experience; hives limited to rear yards; a 20-foot setback from lot lines and 30 feet from adjacent decks, patios or outdoor living spaces; a required flyway barrier when a hive is within specified distances from neighbors; inspections on issuance and renewal; continuous colony management to prevent swarming; and permit termination where a violation or public nuisance exists.

Resident beekeeper Nick Gessel (1981 Deerbrook Path) and several commissioners suggested edits and clarifications. Gessel recommended allowing closer siting to the edge of a property where that edge abuts undeveloped land, a pond or agricultural uses so the hive can be moved away from neighboring backyards. He also raised a potential conflict with existing fence rules: a functional flyway barrier must be within roughly six feet of the hive entrance, so a city-required fence at the property line might not serve the intended purpose. Gessel and commissioners discussed alternative barrier designs; Gessel and staff favored language that would permit a three-sided enclosure or other configurations that “force” an upward flight path rather than a long fence running parallel to the lot line.

Removal timing and permit termination

Commissioners also asked staff to revisit a five-day removal period currently in the draft for terminated permits. Members and the beekeeper said five days may be infeasible for owners to relocate bees, and requested a longer, clearer removal window (for example 14–30 days) or language that allows reasonable time to arrange relocation. Staff said the five-day term was suggested by the city attorney and that staff would revisit that timeframe and consult the attorney’s office.

Next steps

Staff will revise the draft to address the commission’s concerns, including: (1) clearer language on flyway-barrier design that allows functional three-sided enclosures close to the hive rather than a long fence; (2) an approach for allowing closer placement where the backyard abuts undeveloped land, pond or agricultural uses with a requirement to come into compliance if the adjacent land is later developed; and (3) a more workable removal period following permit termination. Staff also noted they will check for potential conflicts with existing fence ordinances and will propose ordinance language to avoid unnecessary variance requests.

Ending

Staff said it will incorporate the commission’s feedback and return a revised draft for future consideration; resident beekeeper Nick Gessel offered to assist with demonstrations or a show-and-tell for commissioners at a later meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting - April 8, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Farmington planning staff presented a draft beekeeping ordinance on April 8 that would require administrative permits, education or experience verification, setbacks and flyway barriers; commissioners asked staff to clarify exemptions for undeveloped-adjacent lots, refine flyway requirements, and lengthen the post-termination removal window.","taxTitle","Farmington City, Dakota County, Minnesota","taxId",52316,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6082843,"Planning commission favors Dakota Meadows preliminary plat and PUD with engineering and trail conditions",2070,1818000,3888000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936163-d2dcaebf72b0035521394f459db9ee5f&start=1818&end=3888","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936163-d2dcaebf72b0035521394f459db9ee5f/thumbnail_1818000.jpg","/articles/6082843/Farmington-City/Dakota-County/Minnesota/Planning-commission-favors-Dakota-Meadows-preliminary-plat-and-PUD-with-engineering-and-trail-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082843-d1edf4a793d5ec51c360ce8444f2eec9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206951&Signature=ilZoH616ovOp7Qwo54If9yH0Aw7UpPpZEQ2iUoaWqxkodgs~kG3UG1Sc4efREY2tYmn-Kc-y4QdtvWgZ05q2BQRm9~c~GIiG5Xx-zTAr7UbO~AqT-SueGm1PwmBPjMlj4q~S-SvRYNh5JNbVBWaY903kYSwxQ7-sBvMyQz9t7oZm8tIIoCoM7HLdOesooer3rCrY8VmMcM2ITw2mTiPPzhOSzvwz6Vj2TTVCt9Nbna~3Xae8Q1Tas~AoY1d~IJoYeC9HjBcC1sM6GZOdQe0RpQ1mXrs6GBz3lOLlz8xAgu~tQxAJGQK33j5eB3JtUmSL-760hzjIQF6Q95hS9xUbPw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Farmington Planning Commission on April 8 voted to recommend the Dakota Meadows preliminary plat and associated planned unit development to the City Council, subject to engineering sign-off and coordination with the Parks and Recreation Department on a trail location.

The project, proposed by Distinctive Land Development LLC and presented at the meeting by Tony (planning staff) and John Anderson for the applicant, covers roughly 43.5 acres and proposes 134 single-family lots (the packet lists a net density of about 3.6 dwelling units per acre). Minimum lot size would be 4,261 square feet with average lot size about 5,307 square feet; the developer is proposing minimum lot widths down to 40 feet and building coverage up to 50% on certain lots under the PUD.

Why it matters: The plat creates a new neighborhood west of the Dakota Electric site and south of Ash Street (200th Street West). It includes central stormwater facilities, trail corridors intended to connect to Westview Acres Park and multiple public-street stubs to adjacent properties — design features that affect circulation, park access and wetland mitigation.

Staff and applicant presentation

Tony outlined the plat: 134 single-family lots on about 43.5 acres; stormwater ponds centrally and in northeast and southwest pockets; a wetland along the southern boundary; five outlots for stormwater, remnant parcels and trail corridor; sidewalks on key streets and an 8-foot trail along the northern boundary. John Anderson said Capstone Homes plans the product and described comparable projects where similar lot sizes and building types were built. Anderson said the developer plans three phases (42, 46, 46 lots), anticipates grading to start as early as May and houses to begin late summer or fall if approvals proceed.

Commission questions and trail location

Commissioners asked about house sizes (estimated from about 1,500 to 2,500 square feet) and side-yard spacing; staff said proposed 5-foot interior side setbacks would leave about 10 feet between houses if builders use the full setback. Commissioner Snowback and others asked about a proposed trail along the north property line; the developer proposed an alternative sidewalk-within-the-street approach along an east–west road for portions of the site to avoid placing a public trail directly behind backyards next to Dakota Electric’s property. Park and rec staff recommended keeping the trail as shown in the park master plan but agreed to work with the developer to reach a consensus prior to the initial final plat.

Conditions and vote

The commission’s recommendation was contingent on: (1) satisfaction of all engineering comments and requirements including final grading, stormwater and utilities plans; and (2) agreement between the developer and Parks and Recreation on the north-side trail location prior to initial final plat submittal. The motion for a favorable recommendation with the two contingencies passed on a roll call with Commissioners Berg, Teske and Snowback voting yes; other roll-call votes recorded as present or not specified in the transcript.

Ending

Staff will forward the recommendation and contingencies to City Council. The developer indicated readiness to work through engineering and trail-location details and said preliminary grading could begin this spring if approvals and technical requirements are satisfied.","The commission voted to recommend approval of the Dakota Meadows preliminary plat and planned unit development contingent on satisfying engineering requirements and working with parks on a trail alignment; developer Distinctive Land Development and builder Capstone Homes described a 134-lot project with central stormwater ponding.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6082848,"Farmington planning commission recommends an unfavorable recommendation to council on Meadowview Preserve lot-coverage increase",1811,89000,1900000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936163-d2dcaebf72b0035521394f459db9ee5f&start=89&end=1900","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936163-d2dcaebf72b0035521394f459db9ee5f/thumbnail_89000.jpg","/articles/6082848/Farmington-City/Dakota-County/Minnesota/Farmington-planning-commission-recommends-an-unfavorable-recommendation-to-council-on-Meadowview-Preserve-lot-coverage-increase","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082848-29c18f2a8f6f582d816d298de6842ee9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206951&Signature=h7GbHmCAJ6f64xeFgu9H5nlvEOe4P9pS9vkOIrnYHuBgBrPs2x28U2jJQnQ7imSCI3lnYbmry4T-dDDHrydSuN2lzIbq446q-qld2ptF9iO1svFF8oaHhprt4lA66PQWtRQ11Tc-4GITNZR7KKvlEpUmaYlOcsY3ISZCkydIBZ2MCF-F49N9JqNJm1qanapAefS5oTrKefmiU2GmG-qwprLdztQfUUzM0xS101hg0NfiQyQRBNghRy~mryxh5Z4TW~HM2~ncrvDzZSr~Wfh69SQIecvPh71htlzaN-T0C58p0XlGeLkBdjgaDnDGH40XBbhqcLGquGNOt06vwNUXJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Farmington Planning Commission on April 8 voted to recommend an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council on a request to amend the Meadowview Preserve planned unit development agreement to increase maximum building coverage from 30% to 40%.

The request, brought by applicant Summerday Development and presented by planning staff member Jared, sought the change because one builder in the development is offering villa-style, single-level homes whose larger footprints can exceed the existing 30% building-coverage cap. Jared said an example permit in the development would reach “just shy of 40%,” and that a typical lot in the subdivision in question is about 8,000 square feet with a building footprint of about 3,240 square feet under the proposed threshold.

Why it matters: Commissioners, staff and residents debated whether raising the permitted building coverage midstream would undercut earlier commitments to existing neighbors, change the character of the edge lots adjacent to Troy Hill and affect stormwater performance. The commission’s recommendation does not itself change the PUD; it forwards the request and the commission’s advice to the City Council for final action.

Staff presentation and applicant response

Jared explained the practical issue: the original PUD was approved without final builders identified, and villa-style homes later proposed by one builder (represented at the meeting by John Anderson) have deeper footprints that can push building coverage toward 40%. Jared said staff had received one email from a homeowner on Evanston Drive and included it in the packet. John Anderson, representing Bridal Anderson, said the larger single-level homes are a commonly accepted product in other Farmington developments and the surrounding region and that without an increase some lots would not accommodate the villas.

Commission and resident concerns

Commissioners repeatedly raised two themes: process and impacts. Commissioner Teske said the commission had set standards “for a reason” and that a 40% cap “very much limits what you can do in that backyard,” noting potential restrictions on pools or other improvements. Commissioner Snowback raised watershed and green-space concerns and asked whether other nearby subdivisions had similar coverage allowances; staff and John Anderson pointed to prior approvals in Farmington (including developments cited by staff with coverage above 40%), and staff clarified that the PUD request refers to building coverage, not total impervious surface (driveways, patios and pools are not counted toward the building-coverage percentage under the city’s definition).

A Troy Hill resident, Scott Keller, told the commission he felt the change amounted to a “bait and switch” and said some existing houses are already close together; he provided photos to staff. Other commissioners echoed concern that an earlier public-hearing process and commitments to existing neighbors made a mid-project change problematic.

Engineering and stormwater

Planning staff and engineering staff reported that the city engineer reviews preliminary plats and stormwater reports and that stormwater calculations used to size ponds commonly assume a pad coverage of about 40%. Staff stated they had not seen watershed performance issues tied to higher building coverage in prior developments.

Vote and next steps

The motion on April 8 was for an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council on the PUD amendment. The roll call recorded Snowback — yes; Berg — yes; Teske — yes; Roddy — no, producing a tally of 3 yes, 1 no in favor of recommending that the council not approve the amendment. The commission’s recommendation will be placed on a future City Council agenda for final decision.

Ending

City staff noted the item will be scheduled to City Council; residents and the applicant may present again at that hearing. The planning commission’s packet contains the resident email and the staff examples of existing permits cited during the discussion.","The Planning Commission on April 8 recommended an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council on a request to amend the Meadowview Preserve PUD to raise maximum building coverage from 30% to 40%, after resident concerns about process, drainage and neighborhood impacts and a split vote.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6082833,"Developer revises Harris property concept plan; commission praises added connectivity and asks for environmental and rail-edge details",166,4990000,5156000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936163-d2dcaebf72b0035521394f459db9ee5f&start=4990&end=5156","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936163-d2dcaebf72b0035521394f459db9ee5f/thumbnail_4990000.jpg","/articles/6082833/Farmington-City/Dakota-County/Minnesota/Developer-revises-Harris-property-concept-plan-commission-praises-added-connectivity-and-asks-for-environmental-and-rail-edge-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082833-2b46c290895cc3c71a3fe3c6470cb216/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206951&Signature=o~Z3oaSAsocz2wqER64VKucf4a36uZKEMSusmtmtdFEMMHacvHsylXujbPBpiiEEYY1ZFmjnm3y6l3k6bm70GfaN4a00pV-BKS37-478MxCT~8pSuIjp5Qf4VPiTJ48qAaElwg1ZaguPradhhkQ9OlgW2xd4F8hAfauVHkeZYU2sSLlEt6adMNkF4sCYVmg1GRHqWMs9WPyU8lT1IJh6PNldMn78O5XCrBGO6OcfIDoN6cx-Dv-LCYIlwFZ3nt9M5cGNIBLAwELh5BMvuysU~-7bSExTOxIxQuYgW~W4y1R9xJ1M3p-mo2izaB3nJvK4q4eb~btpdPv3w~k-unMEAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lennar on April 8 returned to the Farmington Planning Commission with a revised concept plan for the Harris property — about 153 acres annexed in 2022 as part of the Empire Township incorporation — showing a proposed residential layout, parkland and trail corridors. The developer described a plan with roughly 297 single-family lots, a proposed 11.8-acre park, multiple street extensions and trail connections; staff and the commission focused comments on road connectivity, wetlands, the County Greenway alignment and railroad-edge mitigation.

What was presented

Staff summarized the property constraints: about 20 acres of wetland, a roughly 3-acre flood plain tied to a North Creek tributary, two natural-gas pipelines bisecting the site, and the Union Pacific rail line to the east. The revised concept shows a mix of lot widths (55–75 feet), a minimum lot depth of 120 feet, proposed setbacks and five shoreline lots with more restrictive impervious-surface limits (maximum 25% impervious surface rather than building coverage alone). The plan also shows an 11.8-acre park in the northwest corner and a required trail corridor for the Dakota County Greenway; the city is coordinating with Dakota County on the preferred Greenway alignment.

Commission feedback

Commissioners broadly praised the revisions to internal connectivity and the removal of a long, straight north–south “raceway” street the commission had criticized at the previous meeting. Commissioner Teske called the revised ring-road approach a “huge improvement” that creates smaller neighborhood hubs. Commissioners asked for details on wetland mitigation where new connections cross wetlands, on where the three road stubs to the west would connect into Diamond Path, and on strategies to address noise and buffering for lots adjacent to the Union Pacific rail line. The developer replied that the layout pushed homes at least 100 feet west of the rail alignment, and said sound-dampening glass and other mitigation measures are options to study at preliminary plat stage.

Process and timeline

Staff reminded the commission that the concept plan is an early step; the project requires a comprehensive-plan amendment (from agricultural to low-medium density residential), rezoning, inclusion in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), and an environmental review (an EAW). Those steps will extend the schedule: staff noted the Met Council will typically not review a comprehensive-plan amendment while an environmental review is underway, so the overall schedule could take months. The commission asked the developer to continue refining wetland, trail and railroad-edge mitigation details as the project moves toward preliminary plat submittals.

Ending

The commission thanked the developer for revising the layout, requested continued coordination with county and city staff on Greenway alignment and wetlands mitigation, and said additional details on rail-edge buffering and multiple road-stub feasibility should be addressed during engineering and preliminary-plat review.","Lennar presented a revised concept for the Harris property on April 8 showing 297 single-family lots across two annexed parcels; commissioners praised added street connectivity and asked for wetland mitigation, trail alignment coordination with Dakota County and plans to mitigate railroad-edge impacts for future residents.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission reviews draft beekeeping ordinance; staff to refine setback, flyway and removal language

Planning commission favors Dakota Meadows preliminary plat and PUD with engineering and trail conditions

Farmington planning commission recommends an unfavorable recommendation to council on Meadowview Preserve lot-coverage increase

Developer revises Harris property concept plan; commission praises added connectivity and asks for environmental and rail-edge details