Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/1994_RegularMEETING NO. 2 REGULAR ADJOURNED A) CALL TO ORDER B) HEARINGS C) CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA 9L] - 13 JTJNE 20, 1994 7:00 P.M. 1) Amend 1994 Final Statement/Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program 2) Petition to Vacate the 20' Wide Utility Sanitary and Storm Sewer Easement Located Through the Center of the Property Located at the NW Corner of 37th Street NW and West River Parkway NW 3) Petition to Vacate the 20' Wide Utility Sanitary and Storm Sewer Easement Located Along the Easterly Boundary of Lot 6, Block 1, Hartman Square Subdivision 4) Type III, Phase III Conditional Use Permit Request to Replace the Kutzky Park Footbridge Located in the Floodway of Cascade Creek 5) Zone Change Request by Senst Properties 6) Special Zoning District for the Arboretum (SD-1) Final Development Plan Phase to Allow Construction of a Commercial Bank Building 7) Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) to be Known as Bamber Ridge Fourth Subdivision 8) Site Planning Permit Consisting of Conditional Use and Variance Request by Robert Gander 9) General Development Plan (Type III Phase III Process) for the South Pointe Development CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes 2) Licenses and Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities 3) Sound Amplification Permits 4) Approval of Accounts Payable 5) Closing of Local Improvement Projects/Fund 501 6) Banking Signature Authorizations 7) Appointment to International Affairs Committee 8) Request to Set Public Hearing Date for Vacation Petition by Millard and Clarice Vitae 9) Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 4-1994 10) Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 5-1994 11) Advertise for Bids/Replace Bridge Deck on Bridge No. 55501 on 16th Avenue NW Over Cascade Creek D) LETTERS AND PETITIONS Council Agenda Tune 20, 1994 gage two E) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS F G H) 1) City Administrator - Consideration of Special Assessment Abatement Petitions #78-134 2) City Administrator - Resolution Supporting Improvements to T.H. 14/52 Corridor 3) City Administrator - Peoples Natural Gas Pipeline Along 55th St NW 4) City Administrator - Authorization to Bid/Fire Station No..' 5) City Administrator - City/SMMPA Exchange of Lands for Fire Station No. 1 6) Personnel - Music Contract/Rochester Symphony Music Director 7) Planning Dept. - wetland Fee Schedule 8) Public Works - Vacation of a Part of Fourth Avenue NW 9) Public Works - Vacation of a Part of Third Street NW 10) Public Works - Assessment Agreement/Christ Community Church 4400 55th Street NW 11) Planning Dept. - Annexation by Ordinance Petition/Robert and Louise Thompson.of 8.2 Acres of Vacant Land 12) Planning Dept. - Annexation by Ordinance Petition/Western Walls to Annex 18.41 Acres of Vacant Land RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TABLED ITEMSG2o- j. ?Aew3 a -A A.,42k,(✓.... OTHER BUSINESS I / S ea, r Yy 7A P. AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR .. _M DESCRIPTION: .AMEND 1994 FINAL STATEMENT - DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM f MEETING DATE: 6r20 94 ITEM NO. 8` PREPARED D. OLSON The Council on June 6, 1994, approved the scheduling of a hearing to consider appropriating $20,006 of 1994 Community Development Block Grant funds to the Community Youth Mentorship Program. The Council has previously been provided with a presentation and background information as to specifics of this program. It has been determined that the most logical aspect of this program to fund with CDBG funds would be a portion of the staff costs for the Recreation Program. A federally funded Lunch Program is operated in conjunction with the Recreation Program which requires verification of family income levels. This will allow the City to be provided with the necessary documentation that the persons being served by the program are low to moderate income. The amendment of $20,000 will come from the existing 1994 CDBG Contingency Fund. Currently. this fund has a balance of $60,472.45. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the amendment of the 1994 CDBG Program by awarding $20,000 to the Community Youth Mentorship Program. „JUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION k,1FATE "G —�- DAT° AGENDA SECTION. IC REARIVGS ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning Department ITEM NO. g - a. „"11 DESCRIPTION: Petition to Vacate P94-8 to Vacate the 20' aide utility PREPARED BY: sanitary and storm sewer easement located through the center of this property Jane Kansier Planner June 16,1994 ,MI110-RaT ---[11 -f Petitioner: Property Owner: Location of Property: Requested Action: Initiated by the Rochester Common Council on May 2, 1994, Steien-Mrachek Building Partnership 923 37th Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 923 37th Street NW This property is located at the northwest corner of 37th Street NW and West River Parkway NW. Vacate the 20' wide utility sanitary and storm sewer easement located through the center of this property. Reason for Request: The sewer line originally located in this easement was relocated to the West river Road NW right-of-way in 1987. The easement was to have been vacated at that time, but was never processed. The owner is requesting this vacation at this time in order to better utilize his land. Referral Agency Comments: We have received no comments or objections about this petition. There does not appear to be a public need for this easement. The Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request. r Council Action Needed: y 1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating the utility easement as petitioned. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Copy of RCA, Dated May 2, 1994 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: S&W=er AawE2 EA Senn CNT J6' PewAa s.• c.� ALL MLAIT V-- N.37T„ STR..E.ET PLAJQ es To►n Mun Pt1Y I Betts MCGhie Bet, inc. pIMaI 37TK ELT fa,r E� YM S ts I EST R.1 V 6i7 Rp�,n i W n+a.tin. fE ber.r. uri u1a b>.bLb,s REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION %AEE-",G CATE ° _'0' HUtNUA �jtGrION ORIGINATING DEPT: _.)LiC HEARINGS I ''arming Department M DESCRIPTION, petition to vacate J:94-9 t: Vacate the 20' wide utility sanitarc and storm sewer easement located along the easterly- boundary Of Lot June 16,1994 ITEM NO. 8-3 PREPARED BY: Jane Kansier Planner Planning Department Review - Petitioner: Initiated by the Rochester Common Council on May 2, 1994. Property Owner: Clean Ideas, Inc. 3939 West River Parkway NW Rochester, MN 55901 Location of Property: 923 37th Street NW This property is located at the northwest comer of 37th Street NW and West River Parkway NW. Requested Action: Vacate the 20' wide utility sanitary and storm sewer easement located along the easterly boundary of Lot 6, Block 1, Hartman Square Subdivision. Reason for Request: The sewer line originally located in this easement was relocated to the West river Road NW right-of-way in 1987. The easement was to have been vacated at that time, but was never processed. The owner is requesting this vacation at this time in order to better utilize his land. Referral Agency Comments: We have received no comments or objections about this petition, Planning Department Recommendation There does not appear to be a public need for this easement. The Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request. Council Action Needed: 1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating the utility easement as petitioned. Attachments: 1. Location Map .. -'NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Fv ytt i s i-: Jfi isia� 1 r ! i-. I ilii li•-�]i!;�•E.l.ji.:j=�i-.i ii'F !,� . F1 !�jf !zli :l iiJ. t i.i• q xG•• {ti , ii�f• . 11 ii j}: ! {,{ ,,. - Il,: 1_i �•,,i. i dii3',xl:: i ,.i;'. i1" ji di 1••1pp [ rT, c�F!z 1�' !�i-•'�JiTzJ-z" r s I3 r_ ]][["ii t !J i FT! t !,.[±T.iit , R iii I!•I ,! ip A+oI A-A20VC4-13nl?J x3M a Z Z F•S ai•!rJ ii � , ±Si � i!: � Fi£s3 i! ! � ! 1 ti ei*IT•� i �� � :* ___ _• �..�i. �ixi (L £ £ _ •! nil , ! ilissj) , i sa � �� ;� �£�!?((-J*is � �� y� ! ink i i? d�j •lFi�li.£7 £ l ! I a '__�.! a -Z REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION METINGDATE 20;9 AGENDA SECTION. IC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: Planning Department ism DESCRIPTION: v-oe III, Phase III Ccnditicnal Lse Permit Request ;°9,6 _c replace the Kutzkv Park footbridce located in the floodway of Cascade June 16,1994 -111• . • • • • of of • •1 tl-1.717.1 ITEM NO. 8``1- PREPARED BY: Jane Kansier Planner The City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this request for a conditional use permit to allow the replacement of the foot bridge over the Cascade Creek in Kutzky Park on May 25, 1994, Because this portion of the park is located within the Floodway, a conditional use permit is required for any fill associated with the bridge and path replacement. At the meeting, it was noted that this bridge is being replaced as a part of the Flood control project. The design of the bridge has been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Planning Commission found that this proposal meets the requirements for conditional uses listed in Sections 61.146 and 62.824 of the Land Development Manual. The Commission recommends approval of this permit with the following modification: I 1. That erosion and runoff control measures be implemented during the construction phase to prevent erosion and runoff into the surface waters of Cascade Creek. I Motion by DeWitz to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #94-6 with the above modification; second by Schultze. The motion carried 8-0. On May 27, 1994, the Zoning Administrator filed a report with the Council summarizing the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by the Land Development Manual. The City Clerk scheduled this Type III, Phase III, Conditional Use Permit for a public hearing as required by the Land Development Manual. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of this site on Friday, June 10, 1994, and a notice of the hearing was published in the Friday, June 10, 1994, edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin. The Council must review this request according to the criteria listed in Paragraphs 61.146 and 62.824 of the Zoning Ordinance and land development Manual. A copy of these criteria are attached to this report. 2. The Council may either approve, approve with conditions or deny this request. The Council must make findings, based on the above criteria, as a basis for its decision. The Council should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either approving, approving with conditions, or denying this request, and siting the Council's findings. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: n 1 w�. TO City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM. Ten Spaeth, Planner7g�' DATE: May 19, 1994 jOCNttT[!-N!h C• hexo i �IAT[O.ApGUST'S ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION? 507/285-8232 PLANNING HOUSING,HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 wELLSEaTIC 507/285-8345 RE: Type III, Phase III Conditional Use Permit Request # 94-6 to replace the Kutzky Park footbridge located in the floodway of Cascade Creek. Consolidated Planning Department Review Applicant: City of Rochester Park Dept. 403 East Center Street Rochester. MN. 55906 ATTN: Dennis Stotz Requested Action: The City is requesting a conditoinal use permit to replace the existing footbridge in Kutzky Park, which is located within the floodway of Cascade Creek Location of Property: Kutzky Park, which is located north of 2nd Street NW between I Ith Avenue NW and 16th Avenue N-W. Zoning: R-2 (Low Density Residential) District Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Utilities. (see attached) 2. Corps of Engineers (see attached) 3. DNR (see attached) None of the other referral agencies contacted have responded at this time. Analvsis: The City is proposing to replace the existing footbridge in Kutzky Park with a 50' long X 8' wide bridge.The project is being done in conjunction with the Corps flood Control project being undertaken along a portion of Cascade Creek - In this instance the property is located within the floodway of Cascade Creek, and therefore conditional use approval is necessary for any placment of OR associated with the bridge and path replacement adjacent to the stream. Under the provisions of Paragraph 62.851 of the LDM, the placement of fill within the floodway shall not in any way obstruct the flow of floodwaters, Based upon the hydraulic analysis using the 1980 FEMA study elevation data, the proposed bridge would have a negligible backwater effect and be in compliance with Minnesota Rules 6115.0231 (bridge AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER replacement). This hydaulic analysis was also reviewed by the Corps of Engineers to determine impact on flood control project through that reach of stream, and their response was that proposed bridge is more efficient than existing bridge and would not have any design impacts on flood control project. Staff Recommendation: The staff has reviewed the criteria of Paragraph 61.146 of the LDM and the additional criteria found in 62.824 and feel that the proposed footbridge replacement would not pose an imminent danger to life and property, would be compatible with the existing development, and is consistent with flood plain managment in this area. Based upon the hydaulic analysis, the staff would recommend approval of the conditional use permit request subject to the following condition(s): 1. That erosion and runoff control measures be implemented during the construuction phase to prevent erosion and runoff into the surface waters of Cascade Creek Planning Commission's Role Under the Type III, Phase III conditional use process, a "review" is scheduled by the Planning Commission. Following their review. the Commission must file a report to the City Council summarizing their findings and recommending either approval, aproval with conditions, or denial of the application. The City Council must then hold a public hearing on the proposal and make the final decision on the request. Attachments' 1. Location Map 2. Copy of WHKS letter of hydraulic analysis 3. Copy of DNR Referral Letter 4. Copy of Corps of Engineers referral letter 5. Copy of RPU referral letter Reviewedby :................................................. FRANK SCHMITZ 7K.. P.E. PRIES. K KENNETH E SOYER P E_ V ME. & C O. CERALD M. WEI AND. P.E. V. PRES. W-HPENNY L SOIMTTL CDN'M. n A5. FR72 E rHOERNEII P E GERAID W. HOLL NDER. P.E. CAROL G. KASTUR LS, ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS_ LAND SURVEYORS WAITER I. 501Mm. A2o{T. RICK G ENGSrROM. GET. L %VRENCE A ROYER. LS. MICHAEL A ZFl1NSKA5. P.E. 2905 SO. BROADWAY ROCHESTER, SAN 33904-5515 PHONE 50:-288-392 3 February 23, 1994 Mr. Denny Stotz Rochester Park and Recreation Dept. 403 Center Street East Rochester, DLKI 55904 Dear Denny: This letter summarizes our hydraulic analysis of Cascade Creek at the Kutzky Park Pedestrian Bridge location. We used data from the 1980 FEMA study and from our survey to model the existing condition. To model the proposed bridge condi- tion, we used data from the 1980 FEMA study and from the final design of the proposed bridge. In this analysis, we were concerned with what the backwater effects will be at Q50 and what the swellhead will be at Q100. The results of our analyses are as follows: Backwater Analysis of Proposed Bridge Water Surface Elevation at Q50 = 998.90 Backwater Effect at Q50 = 0.07 ft. Backwater Surface Elevation at Q50 = 998.97 Because the backwater effect is less that 0.08 feet, it is considered negligible and the proposed bridge complies with Minnesota Rules Section 6115.0231, Paragraph 6a which reads as follows: "Over Water Courses. Must be designed to cause negligible backwater effects during floods. Must be securely anchored or otherwise capable of with- standing the dynamic forces of flowing water, ice, and debris. Approaches must not be raised above the adjacent floodplain lands." Swellhead_Analvsis Water Surface Elevation at Q100 = 999.50 Backwater Effect from the Proposed Bridge at Q100 = 0.06 ft. Backwater Surface Elevation at the Proposed Bridge Q100 = 999.56 Backwater Effect from the Existing Bridge at Q100 = 0.10 ft. Backwater Surface Elevation at the Existing Bridge Q100 = 999.60 Change in Swellhead at Q100 = 999.56 - 999.60 = -0.04 OTHER OFFICES: P.O. BOX 1467 .MASON CITY, IA 50402.1467 PHONE 515-423-8271 120 BRYANT STREET DUBLQUE. 1A 52003-;407 PHONE 319.582-5481 Mr. Denny Stctz February 23, 1994 Page 2 To simplify the swellhead calculations, additional improve-ments (which will increase the hydraulic capacity of the creek) were not considered. These improvements included removal of the existing abutments and widening the banks by approximately 10 feet; removal of the existing limestone bank protection 25 feet upstream and downstream, regrading the stream bed, and placing riprap to help stabilize the channel; finally, grubbing and clearing the brush from the bank 25 feet upstream and downstream. Because the swellhead is less than 0.5 feet, the proposed bridge will comply with Minnesota Rules Section 6115.0231, Paragraph 2b, which reads as follows: "Replacement of existing crossings. If the existing crossing has a swellhead of one-half of one foot or less for the regional flood, the replacement crossing shall comply with the provisions for new crossings in unit (a) In summary, the proposed bridge will have a positive impact on Cascade Creek. It will increase the hydraulic capacity of the creek at that location and will cause negligible back -water effects. This proposed bridge will also meet ADA requirements and allow access to bicycles. The hydraulic calculations were delivered to you February 22, 1994. Please contact Paul Steward or me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, VVHKS a ca FAnneth E. Boyer, P.E. KEB:PES:ses 5061DS.L1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FT. PAUL WrFUCT, COPPS OF OVAEEFS 1q Fi}11 S77EET EAST ST. PAUL WAMCTA MIDI-Ip •�.LUNE 0 �Ilr -p TRMr10- OI Project Management Branch Programs and Project Management Division Mr. Gary Neumann Assistant City Administrator Room 214, City Hall 224 1st Avenue SW Rol -"aster, M10 550012-3i29 Dear Mr. Neumann: I am writing in response to the Park and Recreation Department's letter of March 11, 1994 asking for Corps input on the propcsed'Kutzky Park pedestrian bridge. The St. Paul District's hydraulic engineers performed an analysis of the bridge using the data provided. It was determined that the proposed bridge is more efficient than the existing bridge. The existing bridge causes sic inches of head loss whereas the proposed bridge causes approximately one inch of head loss. Because there is sufficient freeboard in this reach to accommodate the increased stages resulting from the higher head losses the Corps design is not impacted. Please call me at (612) 290-5768, h you should have any questions. Sincerely, 1;�14� Mark D. Gmitro, P.E. Project Manager STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NONE NO. (507) 285-7430 2300 Silver Creek Road, N.B. FILE »C Rochester, MN 55903 :larch 14, 1994 Kenneth E. Boyer WHKS & Co. 2905 South Broadway Rochester, MN 55904-5515 Dear Mr. Boyer: SUBJECT: PERMIT 94-5079, CASCADE CREEK, OLMSTED COUNTY Enclosed is permit 94-5079 authorizing the replacement of a pedestrian bridge in Kutzky Park. Please make sure the enclosed Notice of Permit (orange card) is conspicuously displayed at the project site during construction. Please note the permit provision regarding wetlands not subject to DNR permit jurisdiction. You should contact your local government unit (County, City, or Soil and Water Conservation District) to determine your compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. Your DNR water permit does not authorize you to proceed with your project until you comply with the Act. If you have any questions, please contact Area Hydrologist Bob Bezek at the above address or phone number. Very truly yours i James F. Cooper i Regional Hydrologist Division of Waters JFC:BB enclosures c: Rochester Park & Rec. Dept. Bob Bezek, Area Hydrologist Olmsted County SWCD Olmsted -county ionlnq: Lake City Area Fisheries Rochester Area Wildlife Dean Olson, Conservation Officer Permits Unit - St. Paul COE, St. Paul Regulatory COE, Rochester AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER uo '1uazTldda aqa !q paznzas uaaq zou sa*; TaaTnap gzns nolla oa "treTzrn t 'auamdoTanap PUT pasodozd aga ;o zzrd aza gzTgA gulls IT gons szaaarm gaTn luTlsaP spaapurzs azutuTPzo zT;Tzads qz.;A zo 'uolarzapTsuoz zapun asn Truo;alpuoz ;o adF.a aqa oa olgazTldda STIazT;Tzads spzrpuras gzT,% zo ::Tzaslp $uTuoz $uT,tlzapun aga uTgaTn sasn poa.Tmzad oa luT.Cldda spzrpueas O%P IIa gaTn XIdmoz zou saop asn TruoTaTPuoz pasodozd atU (S •gdrz$azad STgz d(q paPTnozd spzrpuazs qua zaam zou TTTA r:vTd pasTnaz aqa arga gzns 'uaTd azTs I asrgd panozddr ga moz; uald ears II asrgd aqa uT a$urgz TzT. aursgns a IT azaga 'Panozddt uaaq saq utld asrgd I a azaq-L sasrz ul (L 'salzTgan dzua$zama zo; 'azTs aga uo aluTPITnq aqz oa zo 'azTs aqa oa sga»a aarnbapa IuTPTnozd zou Sq spzrzrg i4v;as azT; anpun azrazz TITn auamdolanap pasodozd VUL (9 auaza�pa ;o ,(zTlTgrsn a s u 'sal-zadozd ga q T ,-,m- p PUT anitn aga alacRp suc-s:nozd g)ns zo aTs aqz ;o szasn zo saurdno ;o ,Caa.rs aqa zo; aama» bapwf azt zo szaaz:s OTTgnd auaotrpa uo $uTIlanQza s.s-zo.om oa sPzaztg ar.Pun aaaazz BuTaq$TI zoTzaaxa za; SUCISTnozd sq,I t5 uamdoo=anaa aqa Sq paarazz aq Xrm .aqa pua uolsoza IT tp zo; apinsmalgozd a$tu-rzp ozd oa SITY; uaTd aaTs aqy (17 'auamdojanap aqa ;o samara; TrauamTz.ap moz; saTazadozd 2uTzog4 Tau oz uoTazaaozd aatnbapa op-nozd u aosaop $uTdazspual pug spzrli a;;nq aaTs-uo zo; uo-STnozd aq•I (£ "sal=TlTzE; zTlgnd zt ITsTx zo zaaan 'suTezp maoas PUT FuaaTL'aS 'szaras aqa uo suapznq onpun asodml TTTA zo poogsogq$Tau aga ul zuaadolanap aaanlzd zagao oa lazuamlzaap aq TITn saznzznzzs put slu-:PT pasodozd ;o ayslaq zo 'uoTarzado 'UOTatOOT daTsuaauT agI tZ zo 'Caa"TzTITDT; OTlgnd uodn uapznq aurzT;Tu$Ts t asodmT TTTA 3rs oa spztzaq aztaaz ITTn s,CYn Put saaazas zTTgnd zuazrCPT oauo put aaTs aqz uo uoTzalnzz-z utTzasapad put zr-^.z-Can zo; Put $uTXzad '$uTproTun $u-ptol zalnz-gan zc; suoTsTnozd tI sT ::acdcTanap pasodozd acra oz .oadsaz g'Tn s$u-Qu-OOats ag1 ;o azom zo auo ssaTuo n asn IruoTz-puoz t $u;z.zou.ne a:mzad i auacdo;anap r ano.:dda r s i zoarz-s u- a $uluoz TT q 7TZL-100 zo uorssT�o� �I :sasR Ituo-2TPuo:) zo; spzrputas 9,7I'I9 :.'r-d anrsuacra<dmoz a::a put aautuTp-0 sTgz ;O i saso'�rnd put sanTzza}go aqa ga-v, .uazs-suoa sT aT z9q� P-' 'uoTztzol sal $uTpunozans taza aga pua sasn purl gzT, algTztdmoz aq oz pauBTzau saP sT PUT oa auamTzzaP ;o sq zou IIT aT ztga aznr.:- ;t sT asn ItuoTalpuoz a ;o nalnaz aqI :uoTztzap-suo� zapul ssaszaazrA S71'I4 62.824 Conditional Use Permits - Standards for Approval: When deciding on Conditional Use Permits in any of the flood districts, the following factors, in addition to the standards of paragraph 61.146 shall also be considered: 1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or dovnstrea= to the injury of others. 3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary condition. 4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. 5) She i=portance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the coo= —.city. 6) The need for a waterfront location for the facility. 7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the prcposed use. 8) She compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. 9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area. 10) She safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. 12) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of Article 62.800. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING GATE: 6!20i94 43ENDA SECTION: I 5 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, LIC EEARINGS Planning Department 8- "TEM DESCRIPTION: Zone Change Request 994-2 by Senst Properties June 15,1994 PREPARED BY: Jane Kansier The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 25, 1994, to consider this zone change request for the property located at 6233 Bandel Road NW. This property is the site of the S & S Storage facility. At the hearing, the staff noted that this property was originally zoned I (Industrial) on the County Zoning Map. Upon annexation in May, 1994, the property was automatically zoned R-1. The proposed M-1 district is similar to the I district. The Planning Commission found that the proposed M-1 district is consistent with the Land Use Plan designation and the existing use of the property. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request. Motion by Bellinger to recommend approval of Zone Change Request #94-5; second by DeWitt. The motion carried 8-0. • / ! • • l / •M-MI-MIZOMA On May 27, 1994, the Zoning Administrator filed a report with the Council summarizing the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by the Land Development Manual. The City Clerk scheduled this Type III, Phase II, Site Planning Permit for a public hearing as required by the Land Development Manual. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of this site on Friday, June 10, 1994, and a notice of the hearing was published in the Friday, June 10, 1994, edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin. 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing according to the procedures of Paragraphs 60.650 and 60.651 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Council may approve or deny the proposed zone change. The Council's decision on the zone change must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 of the Land Development Manual, as follows: a) whether the area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error, or b) Whether the area for which rezoning is requested has changed oris changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of the area; or COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Page 2 RCA June 15,1994 c) whether permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood, or d) whether the proposed amendment involves spot zoning. (Spot zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the zone change that can be adopted Staff Report dated May 19, 1994 Minutes of May 25, 1994, CPZC Meeting 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Copy of Legal Description for the zone change is attached 3. Planning Department File 4 Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 20, 1994, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. � / I / r i 1 ! qp HC C 1'lY L..11,11TS f 1 � / 1 ' 4 � it PSMAIW }�A�OOF se s. (oU.) =Z ! 540 I T4 �,1 MA I 5JCO I ascb _ f 4sw uo I 74d h. Woo _ �z< 7300 I I g 604 J2 3 820? �^ S B6cs gZ� 8100 `. . �'• ; "���"' III �S( 7401 Q JfNS I P7RST SLAW 761)7 i 8308 .7 iBSC6 did 0400 di0? 1 t r�Y Lim Iva o c 1 £s ra rfs yC F/asr — sus. g C I 7sc1 _ 7�r. r sa1` 180�8\ T-- 167C TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jane A. Kansier, Planner( DATE: May 19, 1994 RE: Zone Change Request i194-2 by Senst Properties p��1[STE I. y,H Oh.._ hts �J 1 N i' r �� [a.A00051•S ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMI NISTRATIONI 5071285-8232 PLANNING HOUSINGIHRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 wELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 Applicant: Senst Properties 1842 Terracewood Drive NW Rochester, MN 55901 Location: This site is located at 6233 Bandel Road NW. The property is located on the east side of TH 52 North and on the west side of Bandel Road NW, about 1,14 mile south of 65th Street NW. Requested Action: Zone change from the R-I (Mixed Single Family Residential) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district on 3.62 acres of land. Existing and Proposed Use: There is a warehouse and office building located on this site. It is the site of the existing S & S Storage facility. Land Use Plan: This property is located within the Rochester Urban Service Area and is designated for "Industrial" uses. Referral Comments: RPU Power Division: See Attached. No other comments or objections have been received at this time. Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (I letter) 2. Location Map 3. Combined City/County Zoning Map This 3.62 acres of land was annexed to the City in May, 1994. Upon annexation, the property was zoned automatically R-I. Under the County Zoning Ordinance, the property was zoned I (Industrial). The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to the M-1 district at this time in order to allow the existing use to expand. When reviewing a request for a zone change, the Commission must consider the policies listed in Paragraph 60.338 of the Land Development Manual, as follows: AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER a) whether the area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; or b) whether the area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of the area; or c) whether permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; or d) whether the proposed amendment involves spot zoning. (spot zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state.) The Planning staff finds that the proposed M-1 zoning district is consistent with the Land Use Plan designation and the existing use of the property. This zoning district is also consistent with the previous zoning of the property, prior to annexation. The Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this request. .. = OF 7RE CrIY OF '.•CI]Si• PLAMrrG COMMISSICN 2122 CAMPUS CRIVE SE F.•_C.ID.yYs• u4 55904 �cf the regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning C�,ssion held on y, May 25, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. at the Government Center Council/Board , 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. Membtrs Present: Mr. Tom Bellinger, Ms. Dorothy Haley, Mr. Bob DeWitz, Mr. Don Beed,'Ms. Christine Schultze, Ms. Lisa Wiesner, Mr. Dan Berndt, Ms. Nancy Richardson Staff Presennt: Ms. Jane Kansier, Planner, Mr. Jeffrey Ellerbush, Planner, Ms. Rose Decklever AINDUSnMTIVE BUSINESS: Ms. Wiesner, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Kansier noted that Mr. Fogarty has resigned from the Commission. in addition she noted that there is a request from the City Adminiztrator's office to add Quest International TIF Project to the agenda. Mr. Bellinger made a motion to approve the agenda with the changes, se =Ied by Ms. Haley. The motion carried a -a. Ms. Kansier presenters the staff report dated May 19, 1994. She stated that this property is located in the floodway. She stated that the proposed bridge would not back up the water, actually this will be an improv®ent. The bridge is part of the Corp of Engineer Flood Control Project. Ms. Kansier stated that staff would reccamend approval with corditions. Mr. Denny Stotz fray the Park Department was available for questions. No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request, Ms. Wiesner, Chair, closed the public hearing. Mr. DeWitt made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit f94-6 with the following condition: 1. That erosion and runoff control measures be implemented during the lion phase to prevent erosion and runoff into the surface waters of Cascade Creek. Seconded by Ms. Schultze. The motion carried S-0. Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 25, 1.994 Ms. Kansier presented the staff report dated May 19, 1994. She stated that this property has recently been annexed. She stated that this will be designated similar to the land use plan designation. Staff would recommend approval of the request. No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request, Ms. Wier, Chair, closed the public hearing. _•• •a• • �_ �•- 4M. • " a• 1 Ms., ter presented the staff report dated May 19, 1994. She stated that the RochdFter Public Works Department has "recanted" their concern about a bikepath along,18th Avenue since right -of -ray was not dedicated. Ms. Kansier addressed the comliti.ons noting that a drainage report has been submitted and condition 12 can be deleted. Conditions 3-9 should resin conditions of approval and Ms. Kansier explained that these are simple conditions that require only some minor modifications to the plan. Ms. Wiesner asked about Condition 15 regarding easements. Ms. Kansier noted that there may need to be an easement for the storm sewer. 7he City Engineers office will review the need for easements. Mr. Mike Nigh=, MoQiie & Betts, stated that the only concerns that they would have had were condition 1 and 2. He noted that they have no problem with conditions 3-9. Mr. Bill Coleman, 3440 18th Avenue SW, asked about lot 31 and how would it be graded. He stated that he feels that there would be a lot more water running down to his property. Mr. Nigbur shooed Mr. Coleman Vwe the drainage would be redirected and regraded. He noted that only the back of the house would be drained back to the property. He stated that the situation would be significantly redtiuced. Mr. Gary Canny stated that he is adjacent to this proposed development. He was told that there is an easment for drainage in this area. He stated that they have a concern that the drainage has been moved from the original. course. He theught that this drainage area was going to be an open area. Mr. Canny noted that they cannot pi any structures or anything that can impede the water flow in this area. He 1s requesting that there be a "greenbelt" easement that is kept open for drai,page. Mr. Phil Strains, 3735 Kelsey Lam, stated that they, too, are oOncerried about drainage,( but in addition, they have concerns about the bikepath that is being remov%t. t r Mr. Nigbur stated that in 1989 there had been a study that showed a need for a stozm,ater detention area. were are about seven acres that will be kept for two REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION M� 7;NG L+utNUA StGTON. 9LiC HH+31\GS ORIGINATING DEPT. Planning Department M UtbUHIPTION'.Special Zonia2 District for the arboretum (SD -I) Final vEiOpment Plan ?:ease to allow construction of a Commercial Bank Builcian June 15, 1994 City •and _•tCoWON . •uir ..- •r ITEM NO B —( o PREPARED BY: Jane Kansier The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 25, 1994, to consider this final development plan for the proposed bank building located along the west side of TH 52 North, south of 55th Street NW and north of Tongen's Second Subdivision. At the hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and building elevations for this project. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project is consistent with the Arboretum Special District Plan. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions: 1. That a letter of credit or written signed contract with a landscaping firm be provided for the landscaping and bufferyard plantings required under the Land Development Manual bufferyard requirements. 2. The applicant provide a complete set of floor plan drawings including the building elevations. 3. That the applicant provide a site plan drawing that indicates the access easement, and the easement for the parking area locations prior to zoning certificate approval. 4. That any minor modifications to the approved plans be processed under the provisions of Paragraph 61,148 of the Land Development Manual (Staff Authorized Changes to Conditional Uses) provided that the standards of the 8-4 (General Commercial) district will be met. S. Construct sidewalk (8' bituminous is acceptable) across the entire frontage. Raise drive approach to sidewalk grade. 6. Replace grate on catch basin in south drive with a drive -over grate. 7. Owner to install and maintain private stop signs, enter and exit signs at driveways. Motion by DeWitt to recommend approval of the Final Development Plan for Eastwood Bank; second by Richardson. The motion carried 8-0. Zoning Administrator's Action and Report; On May 31, 1994, the Zoning Administrator filed a report with the Council summarizing the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by the Land Development Manual. The City Clerk scheduled this Type III, Phase II, Site Planning Permit for a public hearing as required by the Land Development Manual. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within L ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Page 2 RCA June 15.1994 350 feet of this site on Friday, June 10, 1994, and a notice of the hearing was published in the Friday, June 10, 1994, edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin. Council Action Needed: The Council must adopt a resolution approving, approving with conditions, or denying this Project Development Plan. Attachments: Staff Report dated May 18, 1994 Minutes of May 25, 1994, CPZC Meeting ��IF�I•TI$7Tr ii 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 20, 1994, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. �- ii�i�7����,f9li`:;9;:�� •.:oa� ���I�`,�F�.., E�I SIo ��,�' �(� TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FRONt: Term A. Spaeth, Planner DATE: %lav 18, 1994 �pCM LST[�•Minn s 4. 1" D��TrD.�000ST•�- ROC HESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS OR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING HOUSINGrHRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 wELL$EPTIC 507/285-8345 R.E. Type III, Phase II Special District Final Development Plan by Eastwood Bank to construct a commercial bank building upon properTy located within SD-1 (The Arbretum Special District). Planning Deoartrnent Review: Applicant: Architect/Engineer: Eastwood Bank 1625 Hwv 14 East Rochester. klN. 55904 HGA Suite 102, Springer Building 1610 14th Street NW Rochester, N1N. 55901 Location of Property: The property is located along the west side of the T.H. 52 west frontage road, south of 55th Street NW, south of the Kings Run Drainageway, and north of Tongen's Second Subdivision. Zoning: SD-1 (Arboretum Special District) Referral Comments: None of the referral agencies contacted have responded at this time. Analvsis: The proposed development is subject to the provisions of Ordinance # 2247 which established the Arboretum Special District and provides for procedures for approval of projects within the Special District. In this instance, a Type III, Phase II review procedure is necessary for both the project development plan phase and the final development plan phase of the review. This requires public hearings at both the Commission and the Council. In this case, the proposed development is consistent with the approved Arboretum General Development Plan since the area is identified for commercial uses. The staff has reviewed the proposed commercial use based on the most closely related underlying zoning district standards, which in this case, would be the general district standards for the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2 story 12,000 square foot bank, with a future expansion area of 6000 square feet. The lot consits of 1.64 acres of land AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER The proposed use meets the Land Develoment Nlanual general district standards for floor area ratio. landscaped area. number of off street parking spaces. and drive up stacking requirements. The project development plan phase was approved bN the Council on March 21. 1994 with the following conditions: 1. That a grading plan indicating soil erosion and runoff control measures to be taken during construction be submitted for review, and approval with the final development plan documents. 2. That a utility plan indicating locations and sizes of on site utilities be provided with final development plan documents. 3. A lighting plan be submitted for review and approval with the final development plan documents. The plan should indicate locations, cutoff angles, and luminaires of lighting structures. 4. A signage plan should be submitted for review and approval with the final development plan documents. 5. A buffervard meeting the Bufferyard "F" standards of Table 63.265 of the Land Development Manual should be indicated on the final development plans on the property, where it abuts residentially zoned properties along the south side of the property. (160 feet west, along the south property line ). 6. Approval for access openings and drainage into the existing ditch would need to have MnDOT approval. Staff Recommendation: The proposed final development plan meets the conditions of approval of the approved project development plan phase and therefore the staff would recommend approval subject to the following condition(s): 1. That a letter of credit be provided for the landscaping and bufferyard plantings required under the Land Development Manual buffervard requirements. 2. The applicant provide a complete set of floor plan drawings including building elevations. 3. That the applicant provide a site plan drawing that indicates the access easement, and the easement for the parking area locations.prior to zoning certificate approval. 4. That anv minor modifications to the approved plans be processed under the provisions of Paragraph 61.148 of the Land Development Manual (Staff Authorized Changes to Conditional Uses) provided that the standards of the B-4 (General Commercial) district will be met. Attachments: 1. Reduced Copy of Site Plans ;iJ AH ROCHESTER May 24, 1994 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 F �p(HESTE➢. �,�T.` fS� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE 1602 4th Street S E. Rochester, MN 55904 4718 (507)281-6008 FAX #(507)281 6216 FROM: Department of Public Works RE: SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE ARBORETUM (SD-1) FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL BANK BUILDING Public Works comments concerning this matter are as follows: 1. Construct walk across entire frontage, 8' bituminous O.K. Raise drive approach to sidewalk grade. 2. Owner to install and maintain stop sign, enter and exit signs, etc. at driveways. 3. Replace grate on catch basin in south drive with a drive -over grate. 4. Catch basin 3 does not appear to collect much water. 5. No grading permit required. 6. Sanitary sewer plan was reviewed separately and comments were forwarded to Yaggy Colby. i-dge 4 City QIarms g and Zzning CY iion Minutes Hearing Date: May 25, 1994 5. Sidewalks mist be provided along both sides of all the streets as required by city poli-w- 6. A street nerve sign deposit of $100 per sign must be provided by the deveIoper. 7. Price to construction of stresses, accessibility for fire veba -7er. shall be present and maintained, and water supplies shall be prat and available for fire fighting. Seceded by Ms. Haley. The mourn carried 8-0. Mr. Ellerbusch presented the staff report dated May 18, 1994. He stated that this project is Eastwood Bank and will be located south of WalMart. He stated that there is a frontage road on the east side of the site. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that there are additional comments from Rochester Public Works. Mr. Ellerbusch addressers the canditiorLs of the staff report. Two additional conditions should be added as a result of Public Works convents. Mr. Berndt asked if a letter of credit is a new condition? Mr. Ellerbusch stated that basically it is either plantings are installed before construction, or ask for the letter of credit for the work, it is a standard requirement of building permits under the Land Development Manual. Mr. Bellinger asked about the lighting. Mr. Ellerbusch stated he cannot read on the site plan what is planned, but the point is that they maintain light standards of the zcrurxg ordinance and that it meets the performance standards. We will review the luminaires at the property lines. Ms. Chris Haley, HGA, stated that there will be shielding for the lights that will reflect the luminaires back to the bank and in addition, the lights will be on timers that will shut them off. The bank will have raised letters that will be backlit letters on the facade of the hAlding. Mr. Yen M*Atler, Facilities Manager, Eastwood Hank, stated that they wi11 install stop signs and stated that they will supply the letter of credit. They plan to comply with the requisemes:ts. Ms. Schultze asked why plans of the building were riot submitted. Mr. Ellerbusch noted that they should be part of the review since this is a special zoning district. The nYvmn;acim discussed whether to table this item so that they could review the plans. Mr. Thatler stated that he could be bring the elevations of the building plans back later in the meeting. AMS PTQ00 Kdoad 19 asogj mosauu& ut asn Tamseas a ST STgq 000s a0u7zTra0 bunoZ aqq Q squa0mzrnboa M sap Ou axe araQ yegy BMW TpmsngsaTT3 141 'PeqeTnbaa Aaiy sae noq Pue seaxe aeq OP?sgno butneq s, 4 ,3 amm ynoge False azjTntPs 'sK -popeou s? ywgn Xmq PPe ysn( n0A uagq 'gusoaad AQT; uvQLR axCm A4 Psm you sc uOTTITPPe aq; 3? 'QuOmMa nbax buTxaed Mg 'u0suedx9 sTM a03 TIMM sa0eds TZ T'MuOSTAPe us We 04 Qu ao aat iM sT uOTysanb AOTTod eq; 'saoeds uanas aqq aoeidax PTnow Amn mrcr[uTm a sq a 4y •rC 0309 ccuc i aqq aseaa = qma= nod °yegy sayers geq; bu WOu sr WOW 'saoeds uanas OOOT 04 buTOB axe Aagy 'POm3uDO A% aoumxrrPm Pio eR4 29pufl WIN tm sueTd og buTFUDCOe sa0eds buyzed Zg1 axe aTaq} .iT14uasead •ysanbax WTV oy olgUORdde are Z pus t yeq; Pgeis gps'n4XOTT3 *-AN '0090TTilde sem year, Pus 320dad WTVOH aA yrnge paxse aausa?M ISH •PaAaan uaaq you seq s?q4 �iyTe — Paz?TOa sa0eds buVaed DO£ Alsquarpm dde A PTn00 aaiL 'arc arr; aqq aapun rig?OW00 s.bu?PT?ng aqq uo Poseq s? IF W4 SUMM tpSTq-1,aTT3 INK •sa0eds buTxaed ao; MOW a0ueU.a?P.m Mau ayy MOM saoeds .4zem roq Pie AST99 AN 'saoeds [rams aq pTnam bu laed ;o yuansouTdaz mcm<[uTm yegy PeyeIS aTT3 'a6t 'Passaappe axam su0?Ix ;3es O?3?Oads ail •UOTWONa d sT azagq os 'ansst yeq; aam;ua ue0 a0TT0d W4 yeq} Pa:Vm tPWXPBTT3 a 4 asn srga kT Payeaeaab s? 3eq; as Ou of MOT= maTgoad a st WOW 91 •uoryeaado ;o sanOq 40"FAsaa oy QsJun aq PTn IT enM ''m'd 00:01 ye buTsoTO 90 uOTlTP m0 aces WA A1220 you OP AXTD Al u? saTAING MAN) Pue 'isumo Ajaadcad aq; MA PessnOSTP uaag seq aayyem FTQ =0 Pa3RIS as 41 uOTyTpr.mo fu?paebal Iglaeds Anal tco4 QcPueLi a s? 0290 yeA PaW01 qcsnqaBTT3 *-AIN 'Ogn mu aR3 03 490T bu aq We yegy sands uanas aq; aOeTdaa og aneq PTnom AaLD 'mrm?u?m axeq aqy ye year TaG; aM Sem cluoo AM 'eOUeu?P O PTO M aaPun yriq '&mp:vd aqy TM Futmao3tmowu axe dares pzlnasrun*qsanba srg4 ;0 PaosTduT WAS! buQaed uanas aq TT?M axaql •beT 488m Oml Ot= pt0&" iCTaye PMm. buTaeaq a PsT�lOs ;3e� � ' ysan�d asn i mm-cI F� IT Wi E sr sTg4 &W Keys OR '061 '6T Aw Pe;eP laodea jgtgs eqq Paqu"dsand WqqaWTT3 'ki •sueTd buxVI nq u0 mmmao;u-T aqq WSW bu?ag 01 Q191 WS P OW= Pue uo panom 074aam agi, uotssTMMOD az,7 0; xaeq u0?yguzo3u? aqy buraq uea squeOTTdde all yeq; os enuTyu00 ma;? s?qy aas 04 WTT PTA i yruq Panes PaeS 'at • &rtaeaq OTTgnd e ye T?OHO etT4 A4 PemaZnaa ac{ TT?m 5L 4E%Z4 PeNu TT3 "AW ir667 'SZ AvW -'alima &rFzeq i saataz,x uoTss:-mmm bu?*soZ We bu uuwTd AraTo S abed Fags 7 City Planning and Zoning CX2=; =Sion Minutes HAM ing Date: May 25, 1994 1. That the specific information regarding cutoff angles and luminaires of the proposed lighting be slmmitted for review to verify compliance with Lai requirements prior to zoning approval. 2. That these be no sound amplification devises placed in the outdoor seating area. Televisions and low background misic is allowed. 3. That the applicant meet all roequ=ements of the Health Department as outlined in their referral C=Me.tS dated May 18, 1994. // Seconded by Mr. Berndt. The motion carried 8-0. WA returned with the Arboretum plans. Tile C=mi_ssicn continued this hearing at this time. The C rvnicSionHrs reviewed the plans that HGA returned with. Mr. Thetler of Eastwood showed to the rry iion the plans that he brought into the meeting. He noted that these would be no boulevards signs. He also stowed to the Commission the layout of the building on the first and second levels. No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request, Ms. Wiesner, Chair, closed the public hearing. Mr. DeWitz made a motion to recommend approval of ne Arboretum Special District with the following conditias: 1. Tbat a letter of credit or written signed contract with a landscaping firm be provided for the landscaping and bufferyard plantuxgs required under the Iand Development )normal bufferyard requirements. 2. The applicant provide a set of flow plan drawings includ_i*g the building elevations. 3. That the applicant provule a site plan drawing that .indicates the access easement, and the easement for the parking area lomtions prior to zoning ce tificate approval. 4. That any minor mndifiratirnrs to the approved plans be processed Under the provisions rns of Paragraph 61.148 of the Tani Devel cpnorit Menual (Staff Authorized Cvnges to Onditic nal Uses) prrn*ided that the staff of the g-4 (real Via) district will be met. S. Construct sidmalk (81 bituminous is acceptable) across the entire frontage. Raise drive approach to sidmial4 grade. 6. Replace crate on catch basin in south drive with a drive-oyer grate. 7. Owner to install and maintain primate stop signs, enter and eaut signs at drivoaays. .�._ aw. w REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEE NG DATE - AGENDA SECTION ="3L?C KEARZtiGS ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Planning Department 8 - 1 DESCRIPTION: Land Subdivision Permit "9 -11 (Preliminary Plat) to be PREPARED BY: ::own 3ER RIDGE 0URTH Sl:9DIVISLJti I Jane Kansier June 15,1994 F -.l! •Gra I • III I NW-MENT• • !I -!•. •/ The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 25, 1994, to consider this preliminary plat for the property located on the east side of 18th Avenue SW, north and south of 36th Street SW and west of 13th Avenue SW At the hearing, the staff noted that the first two conditions listed in the staff report had been met. A drainage and grading plan was approved by the Rochester Public Works Department in November, 1993, and the City Engineer determined that there is not a need for a bikeway along 18th Avenue at this time. Mr. Mike Nigbur of McGhie and Betts, representing the applicant, noted that they have no objections to the remaining conditions. There were also some residents of the surrounding neighborhood present to voice their concern about the drainage of the area. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual and to the approved general development plan. The Commission recommends approval of this plat with the following modifications: 1. Controlled access must be shown along the County Road right-of-way. 2. The two new cul-de-sacs should be given names unique to the existing street naming system. These two streets should also be designated as 'lanes". 3. Any necessary easements for improvements located outside of the boundaries of this plat must be provided. 4. The parkland dedication requirements must be met by a cash dedication, in lieu of land. 5. Sidewalks must be provided along both sides of all the streets as required by City policy. �I 6. A street name sign deposit of $100 per sign must be provided by the developer. 7. Prior to construction of structures, accessibility for fire vehicles shall be present and maintained, and water supplies shall be present and available for fire fighting. t9 Motion by Berndt to recommend approval of Land Subdivision Permit #94-11 with the above modifications; second by Haley. The motion carried ". Zoning Administrator's Action and Repoli: On May 26, 1994, the Zoning Administrator filed a report with the Council summarizing the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by the Land Development Manual. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: M Page 2 RCA June 15.1994 The City ClerK scheauled this Type III, Phase II Site Planning Permit for a public hearing as required by the Land Development Manual. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of this site on Friday, June 10, 1994. and a notice of the hearing was published in the Friday, June 10. 1994, edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing according to the procedures of Paragraphs 60.650 and 60.651 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact as a basis for the decision. 2. The Council must approve this Land Subdivision Permit unless one or more of the following findings of Paragraph 61.226 is made: 1) The proposed land subdivision does not conform with all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have not been granted to permit the nonconformance. 2) That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are not adequate to serve the development or provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. 3) That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater drainage control does not meet the established standards of the City of Rochester. 4) That the vehicular and pedestrian system fails to take into account the Thoroughfare Plan, or has design elements which could result in unsafe conditions, or is in conflict with the street layout policies listed in Paragraph 64.120. 5) That the lot and block layout creates significant problems for vehicular, service or emergency access, for providing utility service connections, or are of such size and shape as to result in lots with inadequate buildable areas. 6) That the proposed land subdivision has not taken into account the current Capital Improvements Program and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. 7) That the applicant has not provided assurances to show that a proposed subdivision which includes lands within floodplain areas regulated under Section 62.800 of this ordinance will be developed in such a manner so as to be consistent with the intent of those regulations. 8) That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, fails to address the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 63.426. 9) that right-of-way and easements of adequate size and dimension are not provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. 10) The proposed subdivision fails to provide the appropriate land determined by the Council necessary to satisfy the requirements of the parkland dedication requirements. Page --- RCA June 15,1994 A motion to approve this land subdivision permit should include a statement that the proposal was tested against the applicable criteria and standards of the Rochester Land Development Manual and it is found that, with selected conditions, the permit must be approved according to Paragraph 61.226. A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the ten findings for denial in Paragraph 61226 can be made. If the Council wishes to proceed with the land subdivision permit as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an order, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law, for Council approval. Staff Report dated May 19, 1994 Minutes of May 25, 1994, CPZC Meeting i M. 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 20, 1994, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. 5. McGhie and Betts, Inc. 1�LRilo1� OF 3PA&z RDw 1 ■ I �L IDI F$ AT S SUB IVISIOt — w Wft4" Cf SE /SIIR MCI r x� 02 3t ■ V) W Q Juno ;� 5Wl 1 R Ir r ie II1 • rWIL I 1,1 1 .. 7, • 71+• .t ! ,t s r ,.�.nsl ;,• 1 r ,, !I�p.i ;Full s Jill6 i`m �s i'I! _ ;IjE ;,! � +,.t.fl'ilirF�kJi'ii� ,.rai,��i•ar•=! >- � .'I �.:+ .. i•11 f j ! i� �1 Ij',h,l�i;hi ii +j j171.iylE. $i; F, ;Nt i ;�ij;iiii411•�� =; I 11h 1�i11•j1 �: , ii1 i• € a a tat a7 , r- i+ aj••,; i•11 ��L a•it 1 ir• 1-l1,,l a1 la 1Ir 'f1 •a7 + J € ;a ;y �y11,F�jiil iii•1hi aa!*011-11-111.: a, d k ;l 11 t 1 • .ra•a71 ai•Ii •;i1a1••,� �lri�lil}� Icy 2.- 17o O N •ryi P v ! •/w '�2yL eN gnu IG n• '? 1e;� _ '•� N yy 0' P � ft. 1 nS 3Av M181 �;tea ' n 5 -ar II111111 i III11111 IIIII II II11 allll�l�ll�l�l� nnnn g 1 s LLU u ULLW y ��� 1 iunul• Iyilll Ll x' r s k a y, �pCNL Sr[l•M�44 Q+ pi L t -- G- 'p��rlp.SULU51'�� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION( 507/285-8232 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING ^ _ l HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 FROM: Jane A. Kansier, Planner( / BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 l/J1 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: May 19, 1994 RE: Land Subdivision Permit p 94-11 (Preliminary Plat) to be known as Bamber Ridge Fourth Subdivision Applicant: Willow Development 1705 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Surveyor/Engineer McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN. 55904 Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works Department, Park and Recreation Department, Olmsted County Public Works Department, RPU Power Division, Fire Department: See Attached Report Attachments: 1. LDM Excerpts 2 Referral Comments (5 letters) 3. Location Map 4, Copy of Preliminary Plat 5. Copy of General Development Plan Location: This property is located on the east side of 18th Avenue SW, north and south of 36th Street SW and west of 13th Avenue SW. Zoning: R-1 (Mixed Low Density Residential) Proposed Development: This preliminary plat consists of 25.97 acres to be subdivided into 84 lots for single family dwellings. The plat is actually divided into two sections, one south of 36th Street SW and the other north of 36th Street. The area on the south silyde of 36th Street contains 29 lots. The northerly portion of the plat includes the remaining 55 lots. All of the lots meet the minimum lot area and frontage requirements. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Streets: This plat dedicates right-of-way for five new streets, one located south of 36th Street SA the remaining four located in the northerly portion of the site. The first street is an extension of Ironwood Court SW from its easterly connection with 36th Street. 1.045' to the westerly connection. This street provides access to all 29 lots located south of 36th Street. It is designed with a 56' wide right-of-way and a 32' wide road surface. The second new street is located directly north of 36th Street SW. It is an extension of the existing right-of-way for Ironwood Lane SW. 175' to the north where it ends in a cul-de-sac. This street is designed with a 28' wide surface on 50' of right-of-way. The thud new street is also located on the north side of 36th Street SW. and is also an extension of existing right-of-way. Birchwood Lane is extended from its existing connection with 36th Street northerly for 780' where it ends in a cul-de-sac. It provides access to 22 lots and is designed with a 32' surface on a 56' wide right-of-way. The two remaining streets are both new cul-de-sacs located on the west side of Birchwood Lane. Neither of these new streets has been named at this time. The first of these cul-de-sacs is located on the west side of Birchwood Lane and extends westerly for 520 feet. The second cul-de- sac is located on the northeast side of the other new street and is 185' long. Both of these streets have a 28' wide surface on a 50' wide right- of-way. All of the proposed streets meet the minimum design standards listed in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Development Manual. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required on both sides of all of the streets in accordance with current City policy. Drainage: The southern portion of this plat generally drains to the south. A storm sewer and catch basins located in Ironwood Court collect and direct the runoff to the detention pond located to the south of this site, in Bamber Ridge Third Subdivision. The northern portion of the plat generally drains to the east. A system of catch basins and storm sewers in Birchwood Land and the other two cul-de-sacs direct runoff to the detention structure located to the east of this site in Bamber Ridge Subdivision. A drainage report was prepared for this entire development as a part of the general development plan in 1989. This report generally defined the drainage patterns and the location of the detention ponds. This plat conforms to that plan and to the drainage pattern established by the existing development. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. There are no such soils located on this site. Public Utilities: Sewer and water service to this site will be provided b%y the extension of the mains located in the adjacent streets. Electric service will be provided by Peoples Cooperative Power, since this site is located outside of the RPU Service Area. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors at a rate of 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit, in addition to the required off-street parking. This additional parking may be provided either off-street or on -street. This development requires 101 spillover parking spaces. The right-of-way and road widths in this plat appear adequate to meet this requirement. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland identified within this plat, although there is a neighborhood park located directly to the east of this site. The Park and Recreation Department has noted that the parkland dedication requirements will be satisfied by a cash dedication in lieu of land. General Development Plan: A general development plan for this area, originally known as Willow Hills West, was approoved by the Council in 1989, and amended in 1992. This plan generally conforms to the approved general development plan. The onlydifference is the deletion of the detention pond located on the south side of Ironwood Court. This pond has been relocated to the south in Bamber Ridge Third Subdivision. Slqff]ieyiew and Recommendation: This plat is the last of the Willow Hills West, now known as Bamber Ridge, area. It includes the remaining undeveloped portion of the original 80 acre site. The preliminary plat generally conforms to the approved general development plan. One of the comments made by the Rochester Public Works Department is that 18th Avenue SW should be bermed with basic construction for a bikeway. It should be noted that the approved general development plan never identified a bikeway along I Sth Avenue, nor was this a condition of approval of Bamber Ridge Subdivision, the first area to dedicate right-of-way adjacent to 36th Street SW. If the bike path is a requirement, it will also be necessary to dedicate an additional 10' of right-of-way along the County road to accommodate this bike path. If the Commission determines that the bike path is necessary, the developer must revise the plat to accommodate the bike path and the additional right-of-way. Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the criteria which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. In addition, Section 61.226 lists the findings which must be made for the denial of a land subdivision permit. These sections are attached for your review. The Planning Staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Paragraph 61.225 and 61.226 and recommends that the following modifications or conditions be imposed on this preliminary plat in order to ensure that the above -mentioned criteria are met: 1. A drainage report and grading plan for this specific area, prepared according to the provisions of Sections 61.561, 64.150 and 64.320 of the LDM must be submitted for approval prior to the final plat. 2. The developer must work with the City and County Engineer to determine if a bike path is necessary• along 18th Avenue and, if so, dedicate the right-of-way necessary to accommodate this path. 3. Controlled access must be shown along the County Road right-of-way. 4. The two new cul-de-sacs should be given names unique to the existing street naming system. These two streets should also be designated as "lanes". S. Any necessary easementsfor improvements located outside of the boundaries of this plat must be provided 6. The parkland dedication requirements must be met by a cash dedication, in lieu of land 7. Sidewalks must be provided along both sides of all of the streets as required by City policy. B. A street name sign deposit of S100 per sign must be provided by the developer. 9. Prior to construction of structures, accessibilityfor fire vehicles shall be present and maintained, and water supplies shall be present and available for fire fighting. LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Matters Under Consideration: The review of land subdivision is necessary to ensure that the following matters are reviewed and considered before the creation of new lots, parcels or tracts occurs: 1) That the proposed land subdivision will not adversely affect adjacent properties; 2) That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient matter on adjacent undeveloped lands; 3) That the basic public utilities can be provided to the lots or tracts within the land subdivision and the design of the utilities will not impede or impair the ability of the city to provide utilities to the area now or in the future; 4) That the proposed streets provide a safe mean■ of passage and assurance& are provided that they will be improved to standards; 5) That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable except for lots designated a■ unbuildable; 6) That the proposed land subdivision is in keeping with the policies of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and the purposes of this ordinance. 7) That any land located within Zone A a■ shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is not determined to be unsuitable for its intended use by reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, or any other floodplain related feature harmful to health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision. 61.226 Findings For Land Subdivision: The zoning administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) The proposed land subdivision does not conform with all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have not been granted to permit the nonconformance. 2) That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are not adequate to serve the development or provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. 61.227 3) That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater drainage not meet the established standards control does of the City of Rochester. 4) That the vehicular and pedestrian system fails to take into account the Thoroughfare plan, or has design elements which could result in unsafe conditions, or is in conflict with the street layout policies listed in paragraph 64.120. 5) That the lot and block layout creates significant problems for vehicular, service or emergency access, for providing utility service connections, or are of such size and shape as lots with inadequate buildable areas. to result in 6) That the proposed land subdivision has not taken into account the current Capital Improvements Program and the elements in the design of the subdivision. listed therein 7) That the applicant has not provided assurances to a that ow Proposed subdivision which includes lands within f■hshothatlain areas regulated under Section 62.80o of this ordinance will be developed in such a manner so as to be consistent with the intent of those regulations. 8) That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, fails to address the need requirements for spillover parking consistent of paragraph 63.426. with the 9) That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are not provided for the purpose of and drainage facilities constructing the street, utility, needed to serve the development. 10) The proposed subdivision fails to provide the appropriate land determined by the Council necessary to satisfy the requirements of the parkland dedication requirements. Conditions on approvals: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the such modifications or conditions are necessa g body hall the criteria of extent that Paragraph 61.225. ry to insure compliance with - 2 - ROCHESTER May 17, 1994 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FROM: Department of Public Works JR.Pa,:NE ST ER. yfY�r. S� J � i DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 1602 4th Street S E Rochester, MN 55904 4718 (507)261 6008 FAX *(507) 281 6216 RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT #94-11 TO BE KNOWN AS BAMBER RIDGE 4TH SUBDIVISION AS PER YOUR REQUEST FOR OUR REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE MATTER, WE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: 1. Assessments Previously Unassessed Improvements: J8868 Willow Hiah Level water Tower 25.97 acres x $1,022.18 per acre = $26,553.81 Interest @ 7.5% from 2/22/89 to 5/11/94 1923 days x year/365 days x 7.5% x $26,553.81 = $10,492.39 Total Estimated Assessments for J8868 = $37,046.20 *Interest at $5.46 per day after 5/11/94 Sewer Service Availability Fee 25.97 acres x $1,100/per acre = $28,567.00 Total Estimated Assessments and Fees = $65,613.20 Street Name Sians $100.00 per intersection. 2. It is the opinion of Street Maintenance that some of the cul- de-sacs should be looped around to allow ingress and egress around a subdivision. Maintenance of cul-de-sac for snow plowing takes 2-3 times longer to serve. 3. 18th Avenue should be bermed with basic construction for bikeway. 4. Developer should provide easements, if necessary, for utilities located beyond plat. 5. Cul-de-sac design conforms to approved general development plan. �6 Eqaar Opprtvattyl'vrnahq'%110a F. *ye' To: Rose Johanns Consolidated Pla ing From: Denny Stotz Rochester Park and Recreation RE: Preliminary Plat #94-11 Bamber Ridge 4 Acerage.............................. Number of Dwelling Units .............. Dwelling Unit Density ................. Density Factor ....................... Dedication Requirement ................ Fair Market Value of Land ............. 403 EAST CENTER STREET ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904-4612 (507)281-6160 FAX # (507) 281-6165 May 13, 1994 25.97 acres 84 units 3.23 units/acre .10 2.60 acres $7,500/acre The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication requirement for the plat be satisfied by: Cash in lieu of land Applicant: Willow Development 3705 Enterprise Drive SW PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/285-8231 May 16, 1994 Rose Johanns Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Rose: The Public Works Department has reviewed Preliminary Plat #94-11 to be known as Bamber Ridge 4th Subdivision , and has the following comments: Access control shall be shown along Co. Rd. 147 (18th Ave. S.W.) on the final plat. Sincerely, Michael T. Sheehan County Engineer MTS/bw a: tp Imtmc. (rm\msmisNl 6 AN EOUAI OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste 4000 E. River Rd., N.E. Rochester, MN 55906-28" 507/280-154C FAX; 507/280-1542 507/280-1581 May 12, 1994 TO: Rose Johanns, Planning Division Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat #94-11 to be known as Bamber Ridge 4th Subdivision, consisting of 25.97 acres to be subdivided into 84 lots for single family residential dwellings. The property is located on the east side of 18th Avenue SW, north and south of 36th Street NW. This property is the remaining portion of the Bamber Ridge Development. RPU's Power Division has no objections to the above, as it is outside our 1974 service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the future. 1 Roger ks c: R. Pawelski W. Lorber A. Amundson T. Adkins, City Attorney -� J. Chase, Attorney! FIRE DEPARTXZNT DATE: May 13, 1994 TO: Rome Johanna, Planning Division FROM: Lyle E. Felach, Deputy Fire Chief SU&TECT: Preliminary Plat 094-11, Bamber Ridge 4th Subdivision 18 Avenue & 36 Street SW The above noted preliminary plat plan submittal is acceptable as drawn. Sufficient hydrants providing adequate water supply for fire protection and all weather surface roadways for fire department access shall be in place prior to construction of structures. ' MAY i 6 c,_ Page 2 City Planning and 2rning cmr=i=pion Minutes Hearing Date: May 25, 1994 Ms. Ranier presented the staff report dated May 19, 1994. She stated that this property has recently been annexed. She stated that this will be designated similar to the land use plan designation. Staff.woald rer,ccnalnd approval of the request - No one else wished to speak.-infavor of or in opposition to the request, Ms. Wiesner, Chair, closgd-the public hearing. Mr. Belli,ge• wn' a motion to recommend apQewal of Zone Change 194-5, secon ed-ty Mr. DeWitz. The motion carried 8-0. PrelLminry Plat #94-11 to be known as Bamber Ridge Fourth subdivision, consisting of 25.97 aces to be subdivided into 84 lots for single family residential dwellins. The property is located on the east side of 18th Avenues SW, north and south of 36th Street NW. This property is the remainincr portion of the Bamber Ridge Development. Ms. Ranier presented the staff report dated May 19, 1994. She stated that the Rochester Public Works Department has "recanted" their concern about a bikepath along 18th Avenue since right-of-way was not dedicated. Ms. Kansier addressed the condition noting that a drainage report has been submitted and condition 12 can be deleted. Condition 3-9 should resin conditions of approval and Ms. Kansier explained that these are simple condition that require only some minor modifications to the plan. Ms. Wiesner asked about Condition f5 regarding easements. Ms. Ranier noted that them may need to be an easement for the storm sewer. The City Engineers office will review the need for easements. Mr. Mike Nigbr, Mo2nie & Betts, stated that the only concerns that they would have had were conditions 1 and 2. He rated that they have no problem with condition 3-9. Mr. Bill Coln, 3440 18th Avenue SW, asked about Lot 31 and how would it be graded. He stated that he feels that there would be a lot more water running down to his property. Mr. Nigb r showed Mr. Coleman where the drainage would be redirected and regraded. He rated that only the back of the house would be drained back to the property. He stated that the situation would be significantly reduced. Mr. Gary Canny stated that he is adjacent to this proposed development. He was told that these is an easement for drainage in this area. He stated that they have a concern that the drainage has been moved from the original cause. He thought that this drainage area was going to be an open area. Mr. Canny noted that they cannot place any structures or anything that can impede the water flow in this area. He is requesting that there be a "greenbelt" easement that is kept open for drainage. Mr. Phil Strains, 3735 Kelsey rnr,e, stated that they, too, are concerned about drainage, but in addition, they have concerns about the bikepath that is being removed. Mr. Nigbxr stated that in 1989 there had been a study that stowed a need for a stormwater detention area. There are about seven acmes that will be kept for two Page 3 City Planning and Zcning Ccm iwicn Minutes Hearing Date: May 25, 1994 retention structures for the area. He noted that none of the lots enosoach into the drainage area. He stated that there is not a drainage easement, but there may be other easements that the City may have for the maintenance of the detention ponds. The grading plan was done in November and included the homes that have already been constructed. Mr. Nigbur stated that the bikepath issue was dropped, since in both phases of development the bikepath was not requested, we do not feel that can be imposed on us now. Ms. Schultze asked about the cul-de-sacs being inefficient. Ms. Kansier stated that this was approved in 1989 and it is difficult to take out at this time. Mr. Strains asked again to have a "green zone" to be used as a waterway. He does not want to have any structures in this. Ms. Kansier stated that this plan is all consistent with the general development plan. She stated that the outlots are retention areas. She does rat feel that the City would want to maintain a "green area" since it is expensive to do that. Ms. wiesner noted that each lot has to get a permit for their property at the time of construction and the grading plan is reviewed and at that time it would be noted that they could not encroach into the drainage area. Ms. Kansier noted that there is no drainage easement for this plat. Mr.. giro asked if they could have assurance frrm the r mmi ion to have a drainage easement. Ms. Kansier stated that the City E gin9 is office reviewed this and they do not feel that there is a need for a drainage easement. Mr. Fllerbusch stated that the City B%lineer's office has approved the plan prior to this nnmj =ion's review. Miis issue has to be taken up with the City fhginee s office. Mr. Dewitz asked if sidewalks would be on 18th Averme. Mr. Nigbur stated no. mere is not adequate room to provide that. Mr. Berndt made a motion to approve the land Subdivision Permit 194-11 with the following conditions: 1. controlled _.cems. be -•. . the County •.:.right-of—,AW. rAming system. 7hese two streets sboild Al be designated as "lanes". 3. Any rAmmmsary emsemmts for imprayuments located outside of the boundaries of this be provided. 4. 7hp parkland dedication requirements zLzst be jet by a cash dedication, in lim of City Planning and Zcru-ng Cnc=1 ssicn Minutes Hearing Date: Sidewalks5. be provided • urh of all the streets as required by city policy- 6. Prior7. to oxZtr`UCtI0n•1Gtr=bmes,accessibility •1fire vehicles♦- present and =�intained, and water supplies d-ol I be present and avaiLable for fire •• Secorzied byMs. Haley.Themotioncarried Mr. EISlzrbusrh presented the staff report dated May 18, 1994. He stated that this pra�ect is Eastwood Bank and will be located south of WalMart. He stated that therigu s a frontage road on the east side of the site. Mr. Merbusc , stated that there are additional num'nt= from Rochester Public Forks. Mr. Ellerbusch addressed the ccnditions of the staff report. 216o additional conditions should be added as a result of Public Works coamnnts. Mr. Berndt asked if a letter of credit is a new condition? Mr. Ellerbasch stated that basically it is either plantings are installed before lion, or ask for the letter of credit for the work, it is a standard requirement of building permits under the Lard Development Manual. Mr. Bellinger asked about the lighting. Mr. Ellerbusch stated he cannot read on the site plan what is planned, but the point is that they maintain light standards of the zoning ordinance and that it meets the performance standards. We will review the luminaires at the property lines. Ms. Chris Haley, HGA, stated that there will be shielding for the lights that will reflect the luminaires back to the bank and in addition, the lights will be on timers that will shut them off. The bank will have raised letters that will be backlit letters on the facade of the building. Mr. Yen 7hatler, Facilities Manager, Eastwood Bank, stated that they will ;,stall stop signs and stated that they will supply the letter of credit. They plan to ccoply with the requirements. Ms. Schultze asked why plans of the building were not sulmitted. Mr. Ellerbusch noted that they old be part of the review since this is a special zcrdM district. The Cami ion discusser; whether to table this item so that they could review the ply. Mr. Mettler stated that he could be bring the elevations of the building plans back later in the meeting. REQUEST FORCOUNCIL ACTION MEETIN�3 DATE; 5.120/94 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARIINTOS I Planning Department 6 _ 8 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Site Planning Permit consisting of Conditional Use #94.20 and Variance PREPARED BY; #94.17 by Robert Gander Jane Kansier, June 17,1994 City Planning Zoning and Commission Recommgndation• The City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this site planning permit for the property located at 824 4th Street SE (the former East Side Inn property) at their meeting on may 25, 1994. The site planning permit process combines a request for a conditional use permit and a variance. The conditional use permit is to allow a change from one nonconforming use (a tavem) to another nonconforming use (a plumbing shop) in the R-3 (Medium Density Residential) District The variance request is to the provisions of Sect!on 65.340 of the Land Development Manual which requires a nonconforming use to be terminated if it has been discontinued for more than a period of 365 days. The Planning Commission found that this proposed change in use and variance should be approved since it appears that any use would require a variance of some sort, They also found that the proposed change in use will not pose as much of a detriment to the area as the original nonconforming use. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed plumbing shop business be operated in the manner described by the applicant In his letter of application. 2. That the applicant work with the City Traffic Engineer to establish a loading zone along the front of the building between the existing curb opening and 9th Avenue SE Intersection, 3. No Overnight on -street parking of vehicles associated with the business Is to take place at this location, 4. That the existing projecting business sign be removed and replaced with a wall sign of no greater square footage than the existing projecting sign. Any new signage should be limited to the name of the business only. IKIr Motion by DaWitz to recommend approval of Site Planning Permit #94-20 with the above conditions; second by Richardson, The motion carried 8-0. The findings made by the Planning Commission in support of this recommendation are listed In the attached minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. Zoning Administrator's Action and Reuorl On May 27, 1994, the Zoning Administrator flied a report with the Council summarizing the Gndings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as required by the Land Development Manual. COUNCIL ACTION: Motlon by: second by: to Page 2 RCA June 17,1S94 The City Clerk scheduled this Type Ill, Phase III, Site Planning Permit for a public hearing as requ red by the Land Development Ivlanua� Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of this site on Friday, June 10, 1994, and a rotice of the hearing was published in the Fricay, Jura 10, 1994, edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing according to the procedures of Paragraphs 60.650 and 60.651 of the Zoning Ordinance, The Site Planning Permit combines an application for a variance and a conditionat use permit. Although considered simultaneously, each portion of the application is subject to the same criteria and findings as if it were an individual application. In this case, the Council may approve, approve with conditions or deny the variance, and may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the conditional use permit. The Council must make findings of fact as a basis for the decision. 2. The Council's dec'sien on the variance must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed In Paragraph 60,417 of the Land Development Manual. These criteria are attached to this recent for your information. 3, The Council must consider the criteria listed in Paragraph 55 330 of the Lard Development Manual when reviewing a request to change one nonconforming use to another nonconfQml use. These criteria are listed as follows: 1) The character and history of the use and of development in the surrounding area. 2) The comparable degree of noise, vibration, dust, odor, fumes, glare or smoke detectable at the property line. 3) The comparative number and kinds of vehicular trips to the site. 4) The comparative amount and nature of outside storage, loading and parking. 5) The comparative visual appearance. 6) The comparative hours of operation 7) The comparative effect on existing vegetation. 8) The comparative effects on water drainage. 9) Other factors which tend to reduce conflicts of incompatibility with the character or neecs of the ores. 4. If the Council wishes to proceed with the variance and conditional use as requested, it should Instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution that can be adopted. Page 3 RCA June 17,1994 1 f , l Ir ' I Staff Report dated May 19. 1994 Minutes of May 25, 1994, CPZC Meeting 1. CityAdministratcr 2, City Attorney: Copy of Legal Description for the property is attached 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 20, 1994, in the Council Chambers at City Hail. /eq yrk sr sp- .:i TO, City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Tern- A. Spaeth. Planner DATE: May 19, 1994 .tGLN LST[I • %,h i V a P. G�•1)10.,,0G115S•S ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING HOUSINGrHRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELLISEPnc 507/2B5-8345 RE: Site Planning Permit consisting of conditional use # 94-20 and variance request # 94-17 to establish a change from a non -conforming use to another non -conforming use on the former East Side Inn property. Planning Department Review. Applicant: Robert Gander , 1004 Canterbury Lane NW Rochester. NC55901 Requested Action: To establish a plumbing shop as a non -conforming use to replace the formerly existing East Side Inn tavern non- conforming use which has been terminated for a period of more than 365 days. Location of Property: 824 4th Street SE Zoning: R-3 (Medium Density Residential) district Analvsis: The applicant is proposing to operate a plumbing shop wherin the existing building would be used as an office and storage area for the business. The property was formerly operated as a tavem (East Side Inn) and was considered a non -conforming use. Under the provisions of Paragraph 65.330 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, a non -conforming use of land or structure may be changed to another non- conforming use of the same nature or less intensive nature if no structural alterations are involved and if it is found that the relation of the structure and proposed use to neighboring property will not be greater than if the original non -conforming use continued. The following factors shall be weighed in making the determination on the permit: 1) The character and history of the use and of development in the surrounding area. 2) The comparable degree of noise, vibration, dust, odor, fumes, glare or smoke detectable at the property line. 3) The comparative number and kinds of vehicular trips to the sits 4) The comparative amount and nature of outside storage, loading and paridng. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 5) The comparative visual appearance, 6) The comparative hours of operation. The comparative effect on existing vegetation. 8) The comparative effect on water drainage. 9) Other factors which tend to reduce conflicts of incompatiblity with the character or needs of the area. The proposed use would not appear to alter the character of development in the surrounding area The applicant has indicated that there will be little noise from the building during normal business operations, and that the hours of operation would be normal daytime hours of operation. with the exception of emergencies. The applicant has also indicated that the visual appearance of the building will not change, except for removal and painting over of old signs. There is not proposed to be any outside storage upon the property, and there is presently no off street parking associated with the propem, and loading will take place upon the street. The proposed use should not have any change on existing vegetation or drainage on the propem. Based upon the nature of the proposed use vs. the former use. it would appear that the number of vehicular trips to the site would be less for the proposed use than for the previous use as a tavern. In this instance a variance is also necessary to the provisions of Paragraph 65.340 of the Land Development Manual which states that a non -conforming use of land or structure shall be terminated if it has been discontinued for a period of 365 days or more. In this case the previous use as a tavern was last operated at the end of March. 1993, and so therefore a variance would be necessary to permit the former tavern use as an existing non -conforming use. which could then be changed under the provisions mentioned above. Without a variance, only uses which presently conform to the R-3 zoning district standards would be permitted on the site. In considering variance requests• the findings for variances listed in Paragraph 60.417 of the Land Development Manual shall be considered to support the decision. (See attached provisions). In this case, the staff would suggest the following findings: Extraordinan Conditions: An extraordinary condition that may apply to this property is that because of the nonconformity of the lot, any use on the property (even conforming uses) will likely need variances to lot size, lot width, or setback requirements. Reasonable Use: A variance may be necessary to provide a reasonable economic use of the property due to the lot size of the property. As stated above, even almost any conforming use woud most certainly require variance approval of some type to allow a conforming use on the property. Absence of Detriment: A variance would not appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area. However, it may not be in keeping with the intent of the ordinance by allowing the perpetuation of non -conforming uses upon the property. Minimum Variance: The minimum variance necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property would be to extend the 365 day termination of non -conforming uses so that the property as it presently exists could be treated as an existing non -conforming use, whic in rum may be changed to another non -conforming use under the provisions of Paragraph 65.330 of the LDM. Planning Commission's Role The Planning Commission's role in this matter is to make a recommendation to the Council to approve. approve with conditions, or deny the request. in this case, since the change in use procedure is a Type III Phase III procedure. the site planning permit process will designate the Council as the designated review body to hold a public hearing and make the decision regarding this matter. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Department would recommend that the proposed change in use and variance be approved since it would appear that any use, whether conforming to the ordinance provisions or not. would require variance approval of some type. In this instance. the staff feels that the proposed use as a plumbing shop would not be out of character with the neighborhood, and would not pose as much of a detriment to the neighborhood than the previoous use on the property. The staff recommends the findings mentioned above for approval of the proposal. The staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. That the proposed plumbing shop business be operated in the manner described b7 the applicant in his letter of application. 2. That the applicant work with the City Traffic Engineer to establish a loading zone along the front of the building between the existing curb opening and 9th Avenue SE intersection. 3. No overnight on street parking of vehicles associated with the business is to take place at this location. 4. That the existing projecting business sign be removed and replaced with a wall sign of no greater square footage than the existing projecting sign. Any new signage should be limited to the name of the business oniv. Attachments: 1.Location Map 2. Copy of Application 3. Copy of Applicant's Site Plan 4. Copy of Provisions of 65.330 & 65.340 of LDM 5. Copy of Provisions of 60, 417 of LDM Reviewed by `BOB' � _ GANDER PLUMBING AND HEATING DAY P.O. Box 7161_ Rochester. Minnesota 33903 CIO (507) 282-7540 4-30-94 To Whom it may concern, I recently put an offer in to purchase the East side in building on 4th ST. SE to use as a warehouse to store and and work my service business out of. A change of use was brought aboutbecause of the elapsed time involved that the building was not used. The building was previously used as a bar and food establishment. The uses of the building and hours being used will be as follows: 1) to be used to pick up materials and job invoices from approximately 4 employees including myself. 2) We will meet about 7:30 A. M . and disperse about 8:15 A.M. and will return thoughout the day for more orders and materials if necessary 3) Infrequently we will have to enter building at hours through out the evening for emergency calls to get materials. We will be entering on the 4th ST entrance through the garage door or front door which is well lit. This should not disturb any neighbors. 4)The appearance of building will not change except for removal of old signs and painting over of old signs. 5)The area around building is mainly sidewalk and a little bit of a boulevard which will be maintained in summer and kept clear of snow in the winter. 6)There will be little noisefrom the building except for minimum sawing and pounding during construction of shelves and some demolition of basement walls. Which will be done during regular working hours. 7) Some deliveries will be made for materials to be stored on the 4th ST. Entrance which will not effect any neighbors. 8) No outside storage will be used because of the size of lot It is my understanding that this use of the building will a benefit to the area over its present use.The house next to the East Side Inn will be restored and rented out as a two bedroom Home. Attached is a drawing of building and property which shows entrances adn proposeduse of building Thankyo� Bob Gander Bob Gander PLG. S Htg. Inc. SERVICE YOU CAN COUNT ON 4) The addition of new principal buildings or accessory structures on the same parcel of land occupied or under the same ownership on the effective date that the use became nonconforming. The new structures added must be for such purpose that if not associated with the nonconforming use they would be permitted by the zoning district on the property. The applicant must show that the Intensity of use will not substantially increase over the current level of activity with the addition of the new structures. 65.330 CHANGE IN USE: Any nonconforming use of land or structure may be changed to another nonconforming use of the same nature or less intensive nature if no structural alterations are involved and if it is found that the relation of the structure and proposed use to surrounding property is such that adverse effects on occupants and neighboring property will not be greater than if the original nonconforming use continued. Approval for such a change shall be processed through the Type III review procedure, with a Phase III hearing process utilized and the factors that shall be weighed in making the determination on the permit shall include: 1) The character and history of the use and of development in the surrounding area. 2) The comparable degree of noise, vibration, dust, odor, fumes, glare or smoke detectable at the property line. 3) The comparative numbers and kinds of vehicular trips to the site. 4) The comparative amount and nature of outside storage, loading, and parking. 5) The comparative visual appearance. 6) The comparative hours of operation. 7) The comparative effect on existing vegetation. g) The comparative effect on water drainage. 9) Other factors which tenjr,to reduce conflicts of incompatibility with the character or needs of the area. 65.340 TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMING USES: A nonconforming use of land or structure shall be terminated if it has been discontinued for any reason (except where governmental action impeded access to the premises) for a period of 365 calendar days or more. A nonconforming use may be resumed or reestablished without limitation as long as the period of discontinuance has not exceeded 365 calendar days. Nonconforming commercial, industrial, or institutional uses located in a nonresidential district which have been discontinued for a period of 365 days or more may be resumed or reestablished or changed to another nonconforming use irregardless of the length of discontinuance upon approval through the Type III review procedure, utilizing a Phase I hearing process, with the Council as the designated hearing body, and subject to the findings contained in 65.330. - 309 - December 19, 199! 60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the approval authority shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines: 1) The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if 1t finds that: a) there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lards within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; and b) the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; and c) the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and d) the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who has control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. 2) The Board may grant a variance to the literal provisions of this ordinance if it finds that; a) there has been substantial and detrimental reliance in good faith by an applicant who has received a permit or certificate issued in error by the administrative official charged with enforcement of this ordinance, and b) the mistaken issuance of the certificate or permit is not the result of an action on the part of the applicant, the property owner, or any other person or party who has had control of the property, to provide misleading or incorrect information, or to knowingly withhold information necessary for the administrative official to accurately review the permit or certificate request. 43 - December 19, 1991 4-- Page 10 City Planning and Zm"In3 0== scion M=tes Hearing Date: May 25, 1994 • •1•• �•r� • •1 • • • _ •' • J•rr •• • �J •1 • •' �f •• Ms. Kansier presented the staff report dated May 20, 1994. She noted that staff would recommend approval of this request. Mr. Berndt made a motion to rend approval, seconded by Mr. Bellinger. niece was further diem,ion. Mr. Willard Larson stated that he owns the property adjacent, the south half of Lot 13. He stated that he has no objection of the vacation as proposed. He has concerns that there are provisions for an easement. He stated that this has no access for public services ,fo�r� �sewer and water. Vhe house that sits here has a }� well and a septic system. us was approved several years ago as R-4 property and that this could have an additional home on it. He feels that it is necessary to have an easement — a standard 10 foot easement to provide for sewer and water, otherwise this piece of property would be landlocked-. He does not feel that this is appropriate that a house in the.2600 block of Rochester does not have sewer and water. Mr. Polt, 1824 Cascade Street, stated that he wanted to clarify a few things. The property is zoned R-3. The use of an easement would restrict him to build what he plans. The City sewer and water �� rtma*+* was out and there is only a one foot stub from Cascade Street to provide sewer and water. He does not feel that this would be the area for an easement. Mr. Larson stated that he felt that this request is the logical place to put an easement, Mr. Beed stated that he feels that there should be some sort of reference of how sewer and water will be provided to the site. Mr. Berndt noted that this is a recxmmendaticn, and not approval. Mr. Berndt added to his motion that the City Public Services should review this item for the need for an easement for sewer and water. The addition to the motion was accepted by Mr. Bellinger, The motion carried 8-0. Ms. Kansier presented the staff report dated May 19, 1994. Staff felt that there could be findings made to support this use. Mr. DeWitt made a motion to approve site Planning Permit with the following: pace 11 City Planning and Zoning Com^i==ion Minutes Hearing Date: May 25, 1994 Extraordinary Conditions: An extraordinary condition that may apply to this property is that because of the nonconformity of the lot, any use on the pzvpertr (even conforming uses) will likely need variances to lot size, lot width, or setback requirement. Reasonable Use: A variance may be necessary to provide a reasonable epic use of the property due to the lot size of the property. As stated above, even almost any conforming use would most certainly require variance approval of some type to allow a conforming use an the property. Absence of Detriment: A variance would not appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area. However, it may not be in keeping with the intent of the ordinance by allowing the perpetuation of non -conforming uses upon this property. Mirdrmt Variance: The mirLJ'=M variance necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property would be to extend the 365 day termination of non -conforming uses so that the proper as it presently exists could be treated as an existing non-ccmfor-mirg use, which in tL= may be dsanged to another mn-coforming use under the provisions of Paragraph 65.330 of the Ian. Conditions: 1. That the proposed plumbing shop business be operated in the mwvier described by the applicant in his letter of application. 2. That the applicant work with the City Traffic Frqireer to establish a loadirx zone along the front of the building between the existing curb opening and 9th Avenue SE intersection. 3. No overnight on -street parking of vehicles associated with the business is to take place at this location. 4. That the existing projecting business sign be removed and replaced with a wall sign of no greater square footage than the existing projecting sign. Any new signage should be limited to the name of the business only. Seconded by Ms. Richardson. The motion carried 8-0. Mr. Dave Olson, Assistant to the City Administrator, was available far questions. •_ ..- « - • - The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (DATE 5/20;9L AGENDA SECTION: LIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT Planning Department TEM DESCRIPTION: Genera_ Development Plan ja94-115 (Ty e III Phase III -rccess) for the South Pointe Development JVne 16, 1994 Wks -TA . . __es I•� r :_.. ITEM NO. e- q PREPARED BY: Sane Kansier On Wednesday, May 25, 1994, the Planning and Zoning cmnission reviewed the South Pointe General Development Plan. Consideration of the plan had originally been scedta ed for the Oommission,is previous meeting on May 11, 1994, but their review was delayed for two weeks to give the applicant time to prepare optional plans which would attempt to address the two major issues — the neighborhood park location and road access to TH 63. The staff report to the Commission evaluated the original plan submittal since the applicant had not yet provided any revised plans. Cn May 24, 1994, the applicant did provide three new optional plans which were presented to the Commission for review on May 25, 1994. All of the optional plans had the same new location for the neighborhood park. The Park and Recreation Department found the revised location acceptable if a couple of walkway accesses were provided to the park in addition to the one ass shown that accommodates a driveway into the park. Two of the three options still showed a public street access opening onto TH 63 at the same location as on the original plan. The Commission understood that the owner had existing access rights to TH 63 at the roadway access location and that it would be highly unlikely the owner world voluntarily agree to close this access without requesting compensation. The Commission also was aware of the pending highway corridor study of TH 63 from TH 52 to 1-90 that will begin in the near future. The Commission felt that the results of the corridor study should be known before a commitment is made on this general development plan. The applicant has an immediate desire to proceed with the first phase of the development which is at the southwesterly side of the project site. The first phase is the same in all of the versions of the plans that have been submitted. The Cmmission felt that the platting of the first phase could be allowed to proceed prior to official adoption of the general development plan for the entire property and that the City could table action on the general development plan until the highway corridor study is completed. The emission decided that all of the specific recommended additions or modifications to the development plan could be addressed when it is considered by the Council in the future and those ccnditions applicable to the first phase could be required by the City through the platting per• I •� :� _�• •a. �= c�.�i sic a- w •• COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: M Page 2 RCA June 16, 1994 that the City await the ocupleti n of the higiaay acsxidcr study, but that the City permit the owner to proceed with a plat of the first phase prior to the adoption of the ggx-al development plan.Motion carried uxunimously, Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council decides to follow the re=mmendaticn of the City Planning and Zoning Cami_ssion it should, after receiving testimorry at this public hearing, pass a motion accepting only the first phase of the general development plan to permit the applicant to proceed with a plat of the first phase. A motion to table action on the remainder of the general development plan until after the conclusion of the TH 63 Corridor Study should be made. 2. If the Council decides it wants to take final action on any of the versions of the General Development Plan for South Pointe following the close of the public hearing, the Council by motion of a majority of the members rVa present may approve, approve with conditions or deny the general development plan. Zhe criteria for approval of a general development plan are final in �} Section 61.215 of the Rod�ester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development �Y Manual. The criteria are listed in the staff report on this application. i7 Attachr*nts 1. Staff report dated Jute 16, 1994 '"M 1. City Clerk: Copy of Application is attached 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: Zhis item will be considered Mime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 20, 1994, in the Council Ciambers at City Hall. 5. M=iie and Betts, Inc. Q iZ16 1 N AL VE12Z5 toll �- - .i i � � i ^�� r r• r �, T - � � ram, e / am �I �6 i ti_ -,l G t�l �' I K Ev 6 ED f ARC, -- --- �o (`TEDIUM DENSITY KESIDENTIAL OF, 1 ! 4 Z /-4 � 3 � r� r -j L/�v �cur;� �exNTrt ��Tl�ti IQ' No MMuM DEN51TY R IDEhJPNL 02 AND No dcE-<L TD TN b3 I _i 1 cTl II Y 1 V I � N � _ H _ ^ I I I COMMERf-JAL 6© St ............ < E„ 4c. y-� �.s, 's- �`• :or. Protection Area TBounEcry - C _ 1c, .. c.4•z• tcti•--. 'tr-Ma,�� ��+C. Lam• S'fc. a..•� ���` `c•`�<Er FUTURE LAND USE MAP + 71 LOW DEMSITT USIDLyiiu \ ,. • • MEDIIY. DEASITT USICAMiIAL , _ MIM>t aMUTT usIDCMTIAI •I G ® eAfEMCI& ® IM A7MCAL MEDICAL FACIUTIES 10 FtaLIC FACILITIES -- DIEM SPACE l FLOW raw 3 TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Jeffrey Ellerbusch, Planner DATE: June 15, 1994 RE: General Development Plan #94-115 Known as South Pointe GENERAL INFORMATION: All Pointe Development Randy Reynolds 3552 West River Parkway Rochester, MN 55901 McGhie and Betts 1648 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55901 'UCMISTI■.,, �' O7 v Z r � ID.eUGUST'S' ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS OR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADM I N I STRA TI O N I 507/ 285-8232 PLANNING HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 wELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 Approval of a general development plan as required prior to land subdivision according to Sections 61110-�61.217 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manu3l. Definition of a General Development Plan: A document which, through the use of site plans and/or wimen materials, serves as a guide to the future lot, street and drainage patterns established for a site in the platting process. It is the intent of the general development plan requirement to insure that a landowner investigates the broad effects development of property will have not only on the site itself, but on adjacent properties and the public infrastructure system also. REVIEW PROCESS: General Development Plans are considered for approval through a Type III Phase III review process. The Planing and Zoning Commission must review the proposed development plan and file a report to the City Council in which a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, with conditions or denial is made. The Council shall hold a public hearing and upon a majority vote of the members present make a decision on the plan. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT: Section 61,125 1 The proposed land uses are generay in accord with the adopted Land Use Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling ary d;fferences have been addressed. 2. The proposed street pattern is appropriate to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. 3. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current Capital Improvement Program and the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan, 4. Utilities are now available to serve the area, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the eventual extension of utilities to serve the area. 5. The drainage, erosion, and construction problems in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters is needed to solve unusual problems that have been identified. 6. The lot, block and street layout is consistent with the subdivision design principles contained in Article 64.100. PROJECT INFORMATION: Location The property in question is located along the west side of TH 63 South, south of 60th Street SW also known as CR 148 and east of 11 th Avenue SW. The southerly boundary of the property is a vacant tract of woodland. 67� The total land area in the South Pointe Plan is 132 acres of which 24.60 is already platted as five single family lots in the plat of South Pointe. The net developable area is 107.4 acres. Zoninc This property is presently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential). The southerly one quarter mile of the property is within the boundaries of the Rochester Airport overlay zoning map. The southerly portion of the property is in Airport Zone "D" which requires a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre (21,780 sf) for a single family residence. All Pointe Development and its successors and assigns have granted an avigational easement to the City of Rochester which prevents legal actions against the City as a result of aircraft flights, noise, vibration, and interference. The easement does not addrsess development restrictions nor any requirement to remove existing structures should airport approaches expand in the future. The idea for such an easement was raised during earlier City Council hearings where it was proposed to rezone this residentially zoned property to a non-residential zoning district. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: This property is designated in its entirety for "low density residential' use on the Future Land Use Plan. The submitted general development plans show a possible commmercial area on the east side of the property around the access onto TH 63 of 5.6, acres and 6.4 acres of medium density residential on 14 lots which lie along TH 63 An amendment to designate this property commercial or medium density residential has not been filed. THOROUGHFARE PLAN: The Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan designates TH 63 adjacent to this property as a "freeway" although its present design with at grade intersections is an "expressway" design 60th Street SW (CR 148) at the north side of the site and 11 th Avenue SW on the west side are both designated "collector" streets on the Thoroughfare Plan. This proposed development plan relies on an existing direct at grade acccess to TH 63 at a median opening. The Thoroughfare Plan designation of TH 63 as a freeway plans for no at grade openings onto the highway. A detailed transportation corridor study of TH 63 from TH 52 to 1-90 began this week. The study will take approximately six months. It will in more detail evaluate access opening and interchange locations for the short term and long term along the TH 63 corridor. WETLANDIFLOODPLAIN: There are no hydric (wetland) soils located on this property according to the SCS soil survey or identified wetlands from the National Wetland Inventory. The site has no area identified as floodplain on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps or as alluvaial or water deposited sails which are an indicator of flood events. DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSAL: Attached to this report is a copy of a descriptive narrative of the proposal and a general development plan map. In summary the plan proposes a street system with one access to 11th Avenue, 60th Street and TH 63. The major local street in the plan which connects 11th Avenue to 60th Street has a 60' right of way as well as the road from TH 63, All other streets have local or limited local designs with 56' and 50' rights of way. The plan shows 162 new single family lots, 2 commercial lots and 14 medium density lots. The single family lots in the portion of the property in Airport Zone " Y are a half acre or more in area. A future neighborhood park is shown in the northeast corner of the development. STAFF REVIEW: This plan was originally scheduled for review by the City Planning and Zoning Commission on May 11, 1994, but due to the major concerns raised at the routine development review meeting, the matter was continued for two weeks to give the applicant an opportunity to reevaluate the project and come up with new alternatives. The applicant provided three alternative or optional development plan layouts (A, A-1 and A-2) at the Planning Commission meeting on May 25, 1994. The optional plans all showed a new location for the neighborhood park. Option A-1 showed how the property would be subdivided if there was no commercial or medium density land use but still having direct access to TH 63. Option A-2 went one step further and indicates the street layout if direct access to TH 63 was removed. The original development plan is unacceptable and should not be approved as submitted. The proposed plan does not make provisions for the planned improvements to TH 63 presently classfied as "freeway" on the Thoroughfare Plan. The plan shows a direct at grade road access to TH 63 which would be closed in the future according to the freeway designation on the Thoroughfare Plan. Therefore, this proposal does not meet criteria 2 and 3 of Section 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Secondly, the plan does not adequately address the need for a neighbornoca park Tne appropriate location of the park, which will predominately serve this neighborhood, is at a more central location and not at the farthest corner of the development. Lastly, the proposed land uses of "commercial" and "medium density residential" on this plan are not in accord with the adopted Future Land Use Plan. An official plan amendment should be filed and approved before such designations are shown on a general development plan. Because this plan does not conform to the Future Land Use Plan it does not meet criteria #1 of Section 61.215 The Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual provides alternatives to allow the mixture of nonresidential and residential land uses such as mixed use development conditional uses and performance residential development. Of the three optional plans (A. A-1 and A-2) the Park and Rec Department finds the location of the neighborhood park acceptable with the condition that a second pedestrian access be provided to the west side of the park from the planned road system (See 6/9/94 memo from Denny Stotz. Only optional plan A-2 conforms to the adopted Thoroughfare and Land Use Plans and the criteria for approval of a general development plan according to Sections 61,125 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. commendati The applicant stated to the Planning and Zoning Commission that their preferred plan was the original submittal. The developers immediate desire is to begin platting the first phase on the west side of the project off 11th Avenue SW. The layout of this first phase of approximately 33 single family home lots is the same in all versions of the general development plan. The Planning and Zoning Commisskon felt that the outcome of the TH 63 Transportation Corridor Study should be known and the Future Land Use Map amended before a final decision on this general development plan is made. Since the development's first phase is not affected by either decision it would be appropriate to allow the first phase to begin the platting process now before the general development plan is officially adopted. The planning staff agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission that the first phase plat be allowed to proceed upon the condition that the general development plan is officially adopted before a second plat is allowed to proceed. The Commission noted that any specific conditions recommended by the staff that were applicable to the first phase development could be made conditions on the preliminary plat. For the record, the following is a list of specific conditions or modifications that should be applied to future actions on the the South Pointe General Development Plan: 1. Resubmittal of a drainage report for this GDP. Drainage design must be provided for in any subdivision grading plans. 2. Right of way of 60' from the existing centerline of 11th Avenue and 60th Street be shown on the plan. An 8' bikepath should be shown along 11th Avenue and 60th Street SW. 3. A plan for future improvements of 11 th Avenue and 60th Street should be worked out with the developer and the City and County. These roads are presently gravel and are not in the CIP for improvement. The developer must agree to pay a per lot impact fee for surfacing gravel roads adjacent to any subsequent plats as required by the Rochester Public Works Department. 4. Access control along the exterior roads should be shown 5. The phasing plan should be expanded to address all the phases. 11C OF TI; May 5, 1994 Minnesota Department of Transportation Ddtic�, 6 2900.48M St. N.W. Box 51-7 Rocnesier, Minnesota 559C3-617 Rochester -Olmsted Consolidated Planning Dept. Planning Division 11^? (',mn'5 Drive SE r� Rochester. MN 55904-4744 ATTN: Rose Johanns RE: Type III. Phase III. General Development Plan for the South Pointe Development, consisting of 132 South Highway 63, south of 60th Street SW (CR 148) SW. Dear Ms. Johanns: 507/285-7353 the area to be known as acres located west of and east of 11th Avenue Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Since this proposal lies adjacent to and affects Trunk Highway (T.H.) 63, Mn/DOT is very concerned with this matter. The existing plan identifies three access points for the proposed development with one of these on T.H. 63. Mn/DOT strongly objects to this plan. Mn/DOT feels that the T.H. 63 ingress/egress traffic that this subdivision would create would compromise the safety along this portion of the highway. With access available via 60`" Street SW and 11-" Avenue SW, it appears that adequate traffic patterns could be developed with minor adjustments to the internal subdivision road system. ROCOG is undertaking a corridor study for T.H. 63 that will include the section of highway adjacent to the proposed South Pointe development. This study will include access recommendations. As such, Mn/DOT would prefer that any T.H. 63 access actions be deferred until the report is complete. During any future development of the property, precautions should be taken to prevent any erosion of soils onto the highway right-of-way caused by construction activities. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, �Z)"L G Z,"' Dale A. Grove District Design Engineer An Equal Ooaom y Emasoyw NaNNEsot� Minnesota Department of Transportation O�stnr. 6 2900-46th St. N.W. of �Pl Box 6177 Rochester, Minnesota 55903-6177 507/285-7353 June 8, 1994 Rochester -Olmsted Consolidated Planning Dept, Planning Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 ATTN: Rose Decklever. Planning RE: Type III, Phase III, General Development Plan for the area to be known as the South Pointe Development, consisting of 132 acres located west of South Highway 63, south of 60th Street SW (CR 148) and east of llth Avenue SW. Dear Ms. Decklever: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the revisions for this proposal. Since this property lies adjacent to and affects Trunk Highway (T.H.) 63, Mn/DOT is very concerned with this matter. As you know, the existing plan identified three access points for the proposed development with one of these on T.H. 63. Mn/DOT strongly objected to this plan stating that T.H. 63 ingress/egress traffic to this subdivision would compromise the safety along this portion of the highway. With access available via 60' Street SW and 11" Avenue SW. it appeared that adequate traffic patterns could be developed with minor adjustments to the internal subdivision road system, Revisions "A" and "A-1" perpetuate the undesirable condition Mn/DOT is seeking to avoid with this development. As such. Mn/DOT does not support these alternates. Option "A-2", however, would be acceptable to Mn/DOT as it does not include an access to T.H. 63. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Si (cerely. Dale A. Grove District Design Engineer An EOUW 0p00i%#VtY Employe/ ROCRESIER PARR AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: Mav 3, _.ze TO: Rcse FROM: SIIH TCT: Scutn => 'r.era_ Development Plan Review The Park and Rec_eatic. Department re dedication requirements metQuests that bulk of d. he the GDP indicates thattotal dedication for the �developm development via dedication of will belie 6.0 acres. 132.0 total acres - . 6 com,-,ercial acres - 25.^ Scut: Pointe plat acres 101.4 acres suh�ect to dedication 163 single family 5 South Pointe plat 42 Multi family 200 estimated dwelling units Estimated density 1.97 units/acre Dedication Factor 6's Estimated Dedication 101.4 acres X 6k = 6.08 acres The Park and Recreation Department requests that a 6.0 acre park be located within the development. The park should be located towards the middle of the development. One half (%) of the park (3.0 acres) should have a slope of 4t or less and be unwcoded. Our preference for locating the park would be the easterly portion of what appears to have been building sites in the center of the develcoment. The area contains a collection of large oaks and conifers that could be preserved if the area were designated a park site. The area immediately northeasterly of the trees is slightly sloped and could be developed into playfields. This location for -a park would serve as a buffer between the R-1 and Commercial zones. This park site could be included in Phase I of development. ROCHESTER PART{ AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 9, 1994 I O TO: Rose Jo hanns FROM: Denny Stotz SUBJECT: South Pointe General Development Plan Review The Park and Recreation Department requests that bulk of the dedication requirements be met via dedication of land. The GDP indicates that total dedication for the development will be ± 6.0 acres --depending on how much commercial and/or medium density is finally platted. The Park and Recreation Department requests that a 6.0 acre park be located within the development. The park location indicated in options A, A-1 and A-2 are acceptable. The location indicated in the original is not acceptable. Our only comments are that the park should have a second access on the west side and that the land to be dedicated for park purposes be deeded to the City within one year of approval of the first plat. ROCHESTER �/l�Llinrzr/Jr�IZ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 1602 4tn Street S E. Rochester, MN 55904-4718 (507)281-6008 FAX #(507)281.6216 June 8, 1994 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FROM: Department of Public Works RE: TYPE III, PHASE III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SOUTH POINTE DEVELOPMENT (REVISED) The City Public Works staff met with the Developer on May 20, 1994 and agreed to the following conditions: 1. Alternate general development plans will be prepared, which will be based on unavailability of T.H.63 access. City staff will be meeting with Mn/DOT to discuss access restriction. 2. It's possible that Phase I could proceed prior to the completion of Mn/DOT's T.H.63 Corridor Study. 3. Drainage will be as provided for in subdivision grading plan. 4. Special assessment issues have been resolved. Assessments will be covered by Assessment Agreements and/or City -Owner Contracts. Street name signs will be covered by Assessment Agreements and/or City -Owner Contracts. 5. Developer has agreed to pay a per lot impact fee for surfacing gravel roads adjacent to plat. Fees will be covered and paid per provisions in City -Owner Contract. 2. 'F 1(1..w..d./19...r Ad.. sude.a PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/285-8231 June 10, 1994 Rose Decklever Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Rose: The Public works Department has reviewed South Pointe Dev. West of So. Hwy. 63 and has the following comments: 1. 60' of right of way will be required along both St. (CR 148) with an 8 foot bituminous path. 2. Controlled access shall be shown along CR 148. Sincerely, Michael T. Sheehan County Engineer MTS/mr clptmrme.Gmlm�iscfl AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks 6 Agriculture Solid Waste 4000 E. River Rd., N E Rochester, MN 55906-2813 507/280-1540 FAX: 507/280-1542 507/280-1505 June 7, 1994 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, NIN 55904-7996 ATTN: Rose Decklever REFERENCE: Type III, Phase III, General Development Plan for the area to be known as the South Pointe Development, consisting of 132 acres located west of TH 63, south of 60 St SW (CR 148) and east of 11 Avenue SW. The general development plan contains 162 lots for single family dwellings, 6.4 acres for multi -family development and 5.6 acres for commercial development. Dear Ms. Decklever: The Water Division has reviewed the referenced general development plan/a and our comments follow: 1. The property is subject to the assessments for the Airport High Level water storage facility. 2. Water service is available to the property by the extension of a water main from the Airport High Level site. 3. The street alignments in any of the options will meet our needs. Utility easements will need to be dedicated to allow for looping the water mains and to minimize oversize costs. June 7, 1994 Page 2 4. We propose to serve the area east of TH 63 by extending a 12" water main to the east limits of this development and cross the highway by placing the water main in an existing underpass. If Option A-2 is adopt- ed, this requires the dedication of utility easements in this location. The crossing will parallel the sanitary sewer crossing. 5. We will work with the developers engineers as to our needs for utility easements, water main sizing, valves and fire hydrant locations. If there are questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, Harold E. Wobschall Maintenance Superintendent Water Division SOUM POINTE NARRATryE Site Location - This development is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Highway 63 and 60th Street S.W. This project has Highway 63 as the eastern boundary, 60th Street S.W. as the northern property line. 111h Avenue S.W. as the west project line and undeveloped property to the south. Site Characteris6es- The South Pointe Development consists of approximately 132 acres, approximately 25 acres have alreadv been platted as South Pointe Subdivision. This area is partially wooded with slopes ranging from 1265 in the southwest portion of the site to 1190 lying in the northwest part of the project. rainaa - Naturally on the property, there exists two main drainage ways. The larger of the two starts in the southeast corner of this site and flows northwesterly to 60th Street S.W. where it flows under the road via culverts. The smaller drainage way flows from the center of the property westerly to IIth Avenue S.W. where it also flows under the road via a culvert. Proposed drainage will include the use of norm sewer, detention structures and natural drainage ways. The proposed facilities will be sized to accommodate the City of Rochester standards. It should be noted that part of the facilities have been built during the South Pointe Subdivision comuuvction. 1 Utilities: C rently, sanitary sewers within is project there exist an irplace sanitary sewer line. This line traverses this site in a ner-_hwesterly direction stating in the southeast corner and exiting through South Pointe Subdivision in L: a nort`;west corner. This inplace sanitary sewer line will be extended to serve all of the lots within this proposed development. Wate.;,,ain- As this site exists today, there is no public water supply available. However, there is a project being considered which would extend watermain to this project. Commencing at the new elevated water storage tank (located in L.C. Indusa-W Park) watermain would be extended down I Ith Avenue and through the airport industrial Park Subdivision to reach the South Pointe project. Wino, The South Pointe development area currently has multiple zoning districts which covers this site. The unde:lyirg zcairg is R-1 low density residential. Along with the low density zoning there are also two airport overlay zones on this prope try. Airport overlay zone "B" requires that single family lots have a density of one unit per 5.0 acres. Airport overlay "B" has already been developed as South Pointe Subdivision. The second airport overlay zone is zone "D", which requires a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres. The lots within this development will meet the regulations as outlined in the zoning ordinances. Proposed Development - For this project, road access to the site will be from three locations; llth Avenue S.W> on the west, 60th Street S.W. on the north and Highway 63 on the east. Streets within the project will consist of major local roads, and limited local roads. The major local roads (60' right-of-way) traverse the site to link the three access points to the development The local and limited local streets will take across from the major local streets to serve the interior of the development This development will consist of two commercial lots (2), fourteen medium density residential lots (14) 2 and one hundred and sixty-d ree single family residential lam (163). As part of this project, then exists five single family lots planed as South Pointe Subdivision. Tuning of the development of this project is contingent upon the extension of the watermain to this site. Phasing of this project has not been determined except for Phase I. This phase has been outlined in anticipation of the City project to extend public watermain to this site. The remaining phases will be developed as lots are sold and as long as the economy is able to support additional lots. 3 ZONING MAP No-1 j s.1-10 USE nL57R m R — 1 ••R+ C= OF ROCREST t �— MINNTSOTA xoxtgc Duzucm JQ:�CfQ WSTifC7 MDII-®L.Q D6S11tcT5 N - Y�Y� iY0 V•�W m - i. ��t .r - W. VAN Yr�W IC - M.rrY n! - n...r M r..t.•�..• fWOd►'tQ DLtSficZ nano Dwmc" R-s.�.•f� rwWW T.-. ItntVi LAYr.� Y� . tY-t - YW.1 t•.4.V�.1 �� �� � T V✓tCs i.It11L 1RlIlT I�DIWi! lz NJ MENIORANDUNI To: Jt f E11erbusch From: `lath Fiery Re: Pr eliminar-- transportation comments for the proposed South Point general development plan. Date: Mav 2. 1994 As you requested. Transporation has renewed the General Development Site Plan for the proposed South Pointe development which is located immediately south of 60th St. SE along US highway 63. We have the following preliminary comments. Backeround As we understand the site plan, the overall site is 96 acres. The developer of South Pointe is proposing to build 162 single family units (84 acres). 14 medium residential lots (5.6 acres), and develop two parcels for commercial use (6.3 acres). The site plan identifies three points of access, one each at 60th St, I Ith Ave. and US Highwa} 63. Ana_lvsis/Comments US 63 is a primary transportation corridor and ftmctions as a regional transportation facility. US 63 South has experienced a steady growth in traffic volumes over the past 20 year period. According to MnDOT traffic count data, traffic has approximately doubled, during the period from 1970 to 1990, from about 9,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day along this section of the highway. As more development and travel external to the corridor continues to grow, traffic volumes will continue to rise creating more demand for the use of the roadway. An External traffic study ROCOG conducted in 1990 revealed that US 63 carried a substantial amount of traffic to/from counties outside Olmsted and even significant number from counties in northern Iowa Therefore, presming the existing capacity of the roadway to efficiently carry head volumes of traffic will become more important in the future. Long Range Plan In terms of the long range transportation plan, the Ctmently Held Valid Regional Thoroughfare Plan identifies US 63, somh of Highway 52, as a freeway facility. While definitions of freeways vs. other facility types can be debaters the key characteristic is that it is to be maintained as a free -flow facility. In maintaining the free -flow fraction of the facility, access to the roadway will evolve so as eventually cmrerit at -grade access points would be consolidated into a system of grade -separated access points, or interchanges. As more development occur, and more traffic is generated that enters and exits the roadway, the operating characteristics of at -grade intersections change substantially. At some point, access locations mast be combined into grade -separated access. At -grade access points, at short spacing, are among several factors that could contribute to degrading the free -flow nature of the roadway, and potentially "rate safety problems. Ai -grade accesses that ate too close together may ante problems with regard to proper design of acceleration and deceleration lanes, and their -overlapping". This design interferes with the wearying movements of merging traffic and does not encourage safe vehicle movements. Additionally, many unequally and/or inconsistently spaced access points creates umexpected situations for traffic on the mainlinc, thereby seating hazards with traffic entering the roadway. Typically. the minimum spacing of access for freeway or free -flow facilities is approximately one mile. This allows for safe ingress and egressffi to and from the facility for the vehicular traffic. The access points are usually oriented toward the hierarchs of the street system where major streets such as arterials or colic. —ors would -feed' the access points to the free -flow facility As described in the Development Manual (64,1'-) connection of surest follow in folloin a hierarchs. Local sweets should connect to collectors, collectors to arterials, etc. Local street to freeway system functioaal transition is not desirable from either a safety or functional standpoint. There may be concern expressed as to whether 60th St. is the best access point. and that maybe the access divided should line-up with the access on the cast side of 63. On highways. split at -grade access may function more safer than - ll crossings. This type of design alleviates turning movements at each intersection and rtnimizes vehicular conflict. As an established County Road. 60th St. is designated a collector, and is located such that it provides good spacing from CSAH 16 to the south and 48th St. to the north With one mile spacing, conceptually, with a frontage road system no property would be more than V. mile from the nearest access point along the roadway. In general providing a new at -grade access, as shown an the site plan to US 63 South, is inconsistent with the intent of preserving US 63 South as a free -flow facility. Resolving at -grade access point along US 63 South at this point in the planning process, is preferable to having to correct access problems in the future after the access is constructed. As you are well aware, MnDOT and ROCOG are currently attempting to resolve traffic conflict problems associated with the at - grade crossings along US 63 at 36th St. (near Fleet Farm) anti at 40th St. In lieu of the direct at -grade access to US 63. the developer may wish to explore the possibility of a frontage road type design along US 63, similar to the design along the east side of this section of US 63. This option would aid in providing optimal access for traffic along US 63 destined for commercial areas within the proposed site. At the same time, this would alleviate additional turning movement conflicts introduced at the access point shown on the site plan. A preferred alternative to providing at -grade access to US 63 would be to have two point of access to the site, possibly as shown with access to 60th St. and 1 lth Ave. This would provide access from local streets to collectors and take advantage of the existing at -grade access to highway 63 at 60th St. Level ofServiee With the information provided on the General Site Plan it is difficult to ascertain the potential impact this development will have on the Level -of -Service of the intersections at US 63 south, To complete an esdmated LOS analysis we would need traffic con= and cunning movement counts at each access point on US 63, and more detail about the type of commercial uses that are being considered for the site and the density of the Medium Dcosity Residential. The table below summarizes preliminary trip generation analysis of the residential portion of the proposed development Estimates of trip rates were derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (iTE) Trip Generation MaauaL 5th edition 24 hour period I Ali Peak Hour PM Peak Hots Single Family 1610 122 167 Multi-Famlty' 341 31 1 37 Total 1951 133 1 204 • This rate assumed 4 dwelling units per structure. Typically, tberc is not a significant variation in the average trip rate of residential land ruses. According to the average trip rates from the ITE mamtal, the residential portion of the proposed development will generate approximately 1950 trip cads per day. Additionally, this land use will generate 153 and 204 trip ends during the A.41 and P:6i peak hours, respectively, This rcprw= approximately 2 Yi to 31h cars per minute average during the peak hour, however, this may vary up or downward More detailed information is required to more accurately estimate the trips generated from the proposed commercial portion of the site. Trip rates can vary widely with differing types of commercial uses Depending on the nse, trips ends for a single commercial site could be greater than the remaining residential portion of the site. For example, a 2,000 Sq. Ft_ Convenience store would generate approximately 140-170 trips dining the PM peak hour. Potenticl.4djoeenr Development On the site plan, the parcel immediately to the south is noted as umplatted and zoned R-1. Recognizing the proposed South Pointc development adjacent to this property is zoned R-1, it might be wise to consider reconfiguring the internal local meet system to provide a "scrub -out" to the property to the south. This would provide more opportunities for a better local sweet system to oormeR both properties. Page 8 City Plarru-nq and Zoning nnm,=ion Minutes Hearing Date: May 25, 1994 Ms. Rhnssier presex7ted the staff report dated May 20, 1994. She noted that in DeCe^ti"-' of 1991, a general development plan was approved. She stated that is the last of a prase of the general development plan. this property can be served by public services. +. Mr. Nigbur, McGhie-andBetts, represented the `4h Ply is be m annexed applicants and stated that this help out with the development of a high level water Mr. Stanley H=T`..er, cascade Township, stated that a piece of property t'nis size means a lot to us for tax revenues. He would like to.request that the township receive the town--4. share of the taxes for the last three years. Ms. Kansier stated that can be rued to the Ca =il and that would have to be approved by the Municipal Board. Mr. Beed asked what is the past experienoe for this type of rat. Ms. Kansier noted that when then request is CYazncil initiated, typically the taxes are given back to the townn ip. This has not always been the case with private initiations. f Mr. Ellerbusch noted that there is legislation that will came into effect that will charge same,es for annexations. Mr. DeWitz NEM40 a motion to recommend approval with three years takes given back to the taaship, secrrided by Ms. Ru%ardson. The =:)rim carried 8-0. TMQ III Phase 111, General Development Plan for the area to be )mown as the South Pointe Development consisting of 132 acres located west of South Hiotarav 63 south of 60th Street SW fCR 1481 and east of 11th Avenue SW Thegel develoanent Plan contains 162 lots for sinzle family dwellims 6 4 acres for Maltifa^`ly cevenoorrert and 5.6 acres for =mercial developxnerrt. Mr. Elerbusch presented the staff report dated May 20, 1994. He stated that cpticcsal plans were submitted on May 24, 1994, and he has not had a lot of time to review these plans. There are three plans and each plan is different. In addition, this is not a public hearing, this is the Plarrning commi ions review. Mr. Ellerbusch stated why the original plans were unacceptable. These is to be a traffic study of the Tin 63 co ridar. A study is being done for Highway 63 and has been "bogged" down because of funding. These is access to this property because it is an old farm area. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the developers have provided score alternatives. The real concern is that they would like to get started an this project this year. Phase I is single family homes. There is no modification in any of the plans to Phase I. We feel that the needed neighborhood park was not well planned. The area shoran in the new optional versiaLs is a seomxiary choice from Park and Rec. , but they would like additicral walkways into the park from the west and north cpe„ing. This property is all shown for low density use, thus there would need to be a land use plan amendment for the commercial and medium density areas. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that staff has a problem with the dosed ter,-;ai area on this site. He does not feel that this should be adopted =less the lard use Pays?Td a aq PTno 3utr4 -4Ta; TPSTgmTTS ' XI ' ueid wlaurbTaAw Teaarab 4 aas UM air UeLM '348Tdm0 ST eL VqS M4 amr4 tPm '3e PLm qxaacbTa&w Teaarab e 70qzTm agexad000 14TZ aP; 4aq4 Xse um uorsgr=co al 'Tt imtse IPL E •41 .ZQa uo?,4eTtebd wn az?neq 3roA?r+ T?e4az aLzraruanuoo =dots aaareo AaT3 4rg4 Pagv3s =q5?x •ku • 8=4 srqz -4e parazaz :au sr A.: dX d aT; scuTs a i 9M4 '4e T Wx dde m; e[peaz fat sr T ueTd 3wr4 Pazw4s AsjeH ' Sid 'aTgMTRA kmh aq TTTJI, ane[T AST.4 qvq4 qusod ssa=e sq4 3eLT4 Pa4r4s =q5?H 'ki •Paamgaad aq PTnom 4vtin pue smr4& aagpo aLr4 vr-qv pa>rw sau,a?M 'Sid P Tosaa &F"aq £9 R��?H o} anssr s�E aA �r i3?M II asftid rCTgTssoci Pue I asegd OP PTA aM •Xaed T'eTagsnPLq I 4�>� Tires sa4en ma Pue a}rs Llo SZ aaraas w4 -4egz Pa+v4s MV;6?x •--w •fu?SO4 a!L 3 ;o Issa atC4 ;o eapr zv44aq a anew PTA am `Pa_35 umq sau asaid 4sat; aLT; am* •sX=M oTlgnd T.T4TA qm PaXmom aq PTA TT+ed&Ktq aq4 pue w ssT AvA ;o gtfira aq4 4Ln4 Pa}e4s all -Raze as m; parueTd azaM Raze abuxmzp Pie uor4ua}ep ayq axa;r, Pads =%;S?x 'jW •� Pa&T= sr? £9 wq;B?H c3 anssT ssaooe aT4 Tr3cm sueTd eno_u aazLT4 TTe ;o TWa==t o aXFT PTA L7g4 14T4 Pa%aZs aH • £9 AaMt;B?H oa ssaxre aneq oa aX?T PTtcm AaiI, -bx=zu Pue ueTd esn PueT a m; peau a aq PTA 8aai3 PDLo{ ars 42x4 Pa4r4s aH 'P944?mqm sett 4743 ueTd -szr; aq4 sT uuld a4raone; xraM •bursa;;rP aars aneq Lag3 4W4 pe-se2s Is:pag Pue aTt=W '=,#?H gX.r l 'Aq 'e T�uaprsax �rsuaP unrpm m TEroaam= aAv4 qcm oq xa;aad PTT�om ;;r4s s s Te?4uaPrs8z A4TsLmP mtrpau[ m Terozam= m; pauueTd ao paroz Our sT )4zadoad srt� •suor:�cb segTaane; s,;;e4s axe Z_Y Pue T-Y geLT3 Pe rp s gm7q. M '.Yi 3`94 SaX?T tD?SS?M=J aim vmTd 3 + ;o vP? awns qSTT PTA ;3 aLT; uoT-4ppe uI •paMTour aq 071 a&W PTmm suo74rPx= sXxoM o?TQnd ICIrJ M4 =744 Pe UT ' •x•o axe swr,4rpuoo a&T; T'e=BT_m i&m • S=T'.4rpLm ;;E'as aTa Pest T.PSnia m ' jw 'MS ar¢ranY ti3TT W4 ;o vwgmva'";^' a=w%; aTz ao; ae; Wa mbTanap :pT aad a Led o4 pease seq aadcranap aL;l slua®nazdtir a M m; Aud q[ aatbTanaP ;o 9cV4 sTLTa saop Pzq S[ uoTgsanb ma •eaaa ELn tzT q.TT� geg3 Plecu ay,4 Pa49Td=o aq oq aneq qvq:� s4uaaaAomt r axe aaaq4 qv iS Pare^_s aH uoT_4m auLre u'X n A4?O W4 Aq Pa4rMF4= serf emranY 44TT W,4 Pazeqs tPs'ngrm •aH *Alm I esegd m; Tide aq PTA axaq; avtr4 Taa; Wq 'aoP?ZJ £9 ARMP5TH 8t4 m; auo'P b=aq A4� ay} ;o esnweq ve •geTd aq4 am;aq awp aq PTn7-?s ueid gLram:bTanaa TEaara`J aq4 :ZrgZ Les se7u ate •paaoo_Td un I asftki 4M4 aTgTssod st gI • sL e d pasrnaz asag4 s aatT3o wiz; 64raemuo anraoaa o4 V)?T PTA ;7ers -47gz Pa3�.s tpsrlqnm -zw *E6-Te W4 ;o AOT; PLM asn aTgvuOsraz sap- Pr £9 .Lmrr TH o3 ssa= ou seq 'Td s?TII �[?T ;;� ;o TTe auo qqq sT Z-V ueTd •:ssr; pa&_rmp sT LDTg7.ZeTsap "67 'SZ Xw :agep bu ZEW sa»nsrSt uo'ss?� lb,---Xoz Put a=aeTd 6 abed Page 10 City Planning and Zcnirng Cam; avicn MirL tes Hearing Date: May 25, 1994 • «•. � •�� • r• _ a - Y ter.• r• - • u •� ••- _• •• q r• ••_ - •�gap •- _••• •. r• - J . ••uL Ms. Kansier presented the staff repot dated May 20, 1994. She noted that staff would recommend approval of this request. Mr. Willard Larson stated that he awns the property adjacent, the south half of lot 13. He stated that he has no objection of the vacation as proposed. He has concerns that there are provisions for an easement. He stated that this has no access for public services for seamy and water. The house that sits here has a uv-,U and a septic R-4 property and that t is could�havvee additi on. Mlis was approved it. al feels else thars ago at it is necessary to have an easement — a standard 10 foot easement to provide for sewer and water, otherwise this piece of property would be landlocka3. He does not feel that this is appropriate that a house in the 2600 block of Rochester does not have sewer and water. Mr. Polt, 1824 Cascade Street, stated that he wanted to clarify a few things. The property is zoned R-3. The use of an easement would restrict him to build what he plans. Mie City sewer and water department was art and there is only a one foot stub from cue Street to provide sewer and water. He dopy not feel that this would be the area for an easement. Mr. Larson stated that be felt that this request is the logical place to put an easement. Mr. Beed stated that he feels that there should be some sort of reference of how sewer and water will be provided to the site. Mr. Berndt noted that this is a recommendation, and riot Mr. Berndt added to his motion that the City Public Services should review this item for the need for an easement for sewer and water. The addition to the motion was accepted by Mr. Bellinger. ZZne motion carried 8-0. M. Kanssier presented the staff rejXZ dated May 19, 1994. Staff felt that there could be findings made to support this use. Mr. DeWitz made a motion to approve Site Plalvring Permit with the following: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MEETING DATE: 6120i94 ITEM NO. C-1-11 PREPARED BY: G. NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council. The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs: C-1. Approval of Minutes C-2. Licenses and Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities C-3. Sound Amplification Permits C-4. Approval of Accounts Payable C-5. Closing of Local Improvement Projects/Fund 501 C-6. Banking Signature Authorizations C-7. Appointment to International Affairs Committee C-8. Request to Set Public Hearing Date for Vacation Petition by Millard and Clarice Vitse C-9. Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 4-1994 C-10. Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 5-1994 C-I1. Advertise for Bids/Replace Bridge Deck on Bridge No. 55501 on 16th Avenue NW over Cascade Creek E !i w-e C "' COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. COUNCIL ACTION: Modoo by: s000na I_[��a7ct REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONSENT AGENWORGANIZATION BUSINESS I CITY CLERK LICENSES AND BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES MEETING DATE: 6/20r94 ITEM NO. C - c�2, DONNA J SCHOTT The following licenses and bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals. the required insurances. bonds. fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. Rochester Juvenile Hockey Association For C.J.'S Midtown Lounge 2 S. Eidwy. Rochester. Mn. 55904 Rochester Area Council for the Arts 214 1st Ave. SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Auto Trim Design & Signs 1807 7th St NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Rochester Service Company 1027 7th st NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second to: LICENSES Alves BONDS PAGE JUNE 20. 1994 Rochester Jaxcees Kiddie Parade Central Park to Soldiers Field 7/41,94 Rochester. Mn. 55902 Wasioja Group of Sierra Club 100 Mile Bicycle Ride Start & Finish Olmsted County Fairgrounds 7/10/94 Rochester. Mn. 55904 A motion to approve or disaprove the above licenses and bonds and miscellaneous activities REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE6/20/94 : AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS I CITY CLERK I C-2 LICENSES AND BONDS & MISI TIES PREPARED BY: nnuul l crunT The following licenses is being submitted as an addendum for the Council's approval pending all fees, insurance, etc. GAMBLING - TEMPRORARY PERMIT Senior Citizens Services, Inc. 121 N. Bdwy. Raffle for Hole -In -One Fundraiser at 6/22/94 thru 6/26/94 Olmsted County Fairgrounds Rochester, Mn. 55904 3 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 06-20-94 DATE. AGENDA SECTION. ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations City Clerk C _ 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Sound Amplification Permits Judy Scherr Rochester Area Economic Development, Incorporated (RAEDI) will be hosting the annual summer conference of the Mid -America Economic Development Council on June 26 through 28, 1994. The opening picnic on June 26th will feature a jazz band from 6:30 to 9:30 P.M. Therefore, RAEDI is requesting a Sound Amplification Permit and waiver of the time requirement. The American Cancer Society is holding a fund-raising event at Mayo High School on July 8 and 9, 1994 featuring an all-night gathering at the Mayo High Stadium. A Sound Amplification Permit and waiver of time is needed due to the PA system. A program of songs and prayers will be held from 10:00 P.M. to approximately 11:00 P.M. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the requested sound amplification permits and time waivers for the Rochester Area Economic Development, Incorporated and the American Cancer Society. WILINCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by, 7.1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/20/94 erENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Finance C--L4 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Approval of Accounts Payable Dale Martinson Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $3,290,828.76. Less: Any exceptions COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I FINANCE MEETING DATE: 1 ITEM NO. C,-5 _M DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: CLOSING OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - FUND 501 1 Bruce Atkinson Attached is a prepared resolution closing completed projects and authorizing transfer of the unexpended balances. The project funds were created and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The amount of funds to be transferred is: Miscellaneous $ 92,442.16 2 442.1 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Respectfully request a motion adopting the prepared resolution dosing completed improvement projects and transferring unexpended balances pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, Subd. 4. . ,)UNCIL ACTION: Mouon by s.O«b by. to: R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the following local improvement project funds were created and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and balances remaining therein are: Project Unexpended Number Project Description Balance Abatement Projects 8076 S/S W/M Blk 3 E Hwy 63 G Hill $ (293.30) 8729 Water Tower - High Level SW (15,504.38) 8853 S/S W/M 21-23 St SW IN 1-5 Av (130,745.75) 8866 SN/S S/C 1 Av SW<110's> 400's 18 S SW (2,124.63) 8890 S/S W/M G Hill, Niels, Coopr Hill (126,596.83) 8895 B/C Apple Ridge Sub (5,682.93) 8201 Water Avail/Connect Charges 145,469.30 8202 Water Avail/Connect Charges 135.478.52 .00 Misc. 8055 NE Franklin Sn/S $ (155.98) 8200 Bond issue Expense (1.78) 6341 6255-1-70 S/SWM E River Road (70.14) 8569 Hi Level Water Tower SW (105.99) 8739 Willow Crk Swr Dist Reimb trf to J8202 25,045.63 9125 S/S W/M Frt Rd Cc Rd 8 Bhly Ht (158.84) 9131 Alley Recon 2-3 St SW 24,814.69 9168 St Recon 4th St 1-3 Ave SE (1,214.62) 9185 B/C Fox Valley Dr -Salem Rd-W/N Sec-L/1 (3,248.72) 9193 Sn/S W/M 23 Ave SW 2-4 St, Hillcrest (41.30) 9204 St Improv 20 St SW (931.36) 9216 S/W C/G on Frontage Rds of 37th St NW (1,044.91) 9219 Stscp 2 St SW; Bdwy - 1 Av SW 16,591.14 9235 S/W #2-92 26A NW 19S-Carla Ln (2.80) 9241 S/W Repl #4-92 - Var Loc 7,102.40 9242 Ext 11 Ave NW, 34-37 St NW 16,624.40 9243 S/W Repl #5-92 CBD & 7 & 10 St NW (19.02) 9262 Sn/S Ext Lt 2 Bilk 1 Lenwood Hts 8,929.71 9272 Handicap Access Ramp Proj #1-93 trf to J1996 1,687.59 9275 New SdWk #4-93 Var Loc (32,55) 9276 Sdwlk Repl #5-93 Var Loc (505.97) 9283 Recon Residntl Alleys - 1993 (307.86) 9284 S/W Repl #6-93 & Stscp-Downtown Area (237.71) 9287 Rec E-W Alley-Blk 12 W Zumbro Addtn (273.85) 8201 Water Availability Charges - to J9288 High Level Water Tower, Trunkline Watermain (198,000.00) 9288 High Level Water Tower, Trunkline Watermain - from J8201 Water Availability Changes 198.000.00 Net Funds Transferred $ 92,442.16 Resolution Page 2.... WHEREAS, the above listed projects have been completed and all costs of said improvements have been paid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota under authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, Subd.4 that: 1. The above named funds shall be discontinued and the remaining balances in said funds shall be transferred to the following capital improvement project fund: Project Unexpended Number Project Description Balance 1996 Community Development Program $ 1,687.59 8202 Sewer Avail Connnect Charges 25,045.63 9288 High Level W/T, Trk1n W/M - N Hts 65,708.94 Net Funds Transferred $ 92,442.16 2. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to put into effect the provision of this resolution as of May 31, 1994. Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 20th day of June, 1994. President of said Common Council Attest: City Clerk Approved this day of , 1994 Mayor of said City (Sea] of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETwG DATE: I AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda M DESCRIPTION: Banking Signature Authorizations ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Finance I C (o PREPARED BY: Bruce Atkinson An amendment to the resolution authorizing banking signatures is necessary because of the appointment of Dale R. Martinson as Director of Finance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Respectfully request the adoption of a prepared resolution authorizing the facsimilie signatures of Chuck Hazama, Mayor and Dale R. Martinson, Treasurer of the City on all checks and drafts and other withdrawal orders and authorizing signature by Dale R. Martinson and/or Bruce Atkinson, Assistant Finance Director, on all other directions and instructions with respect to funds of the City. _OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: RESOLUTION NO BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the First Bank, Marquette Bank and Trust Company, Norwest Bank and Rochester Bank and Trust Company, all of Rochester, Minnesota, being designated as a depository for the funds of this corporation, and any officer or other person hereinafter named is hereby authorized for and on behalf of the corporation to open or continue an account or accounts with said Banks and to execute and deliver to said Banks signature card or cards supplied by said Banks containing specimen signature of officers or other persons hereinafter named and assenting to said Bank's Rules and Regulations Governing Bank Accounts, and that any officer or other person hereinafter named is hereby authorized for an on behalf of this corporation to endorse or cause to be endorsed and to deposit or cause to be deposited in such account or accounts from time to time checks, drafts, and other instruments and funds payable to or held by this corporation. While not depositories, the City maintains accounts with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., Dain-Bosworth Inc., Piper, Jaffray and Hopwood, and Prime Vest Financial Services, Inc. through Marquette Bank and Trust Company for the purpose of investing in direct U.S. Government obligations or Federal Agency issues, commercial paper, bankers acceptance, and repurchase agreements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that checks, drafts and other withdrawal orders shall bear the facsimile signature of Chuck Hazama, Mayor of the City of Rochester, and Dale R. Martinson, Treasurer of the City of Rochester and any and all other directions and instructions of any character with respect to funds of this corporation now or hereafter with said Banks may be signed by any one of the following: Dale R. Martinson, Treasurer Bruce W. Atkinson, Assistant Finance Director BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said Banks shall be entitled to rely upon a certified copy of this resolution until written notice of modification or rescission has been furnished to and received by said Banks. Adopted by the Common Council this day of Attest: City Clerk Approved this day of Mayor of said City 1994. President of said Common Council (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) 1994 R E S O L U T I O N BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the action of Chuck Hazama, Mayor of the City of Rochester, and Dale R. Martinson, Treasurer of the City of Rochester, in authorizing the First Bank of Rochester, the Norwest Bank of Rochester, the Marquette Bank and Trust Company of Rochester, the Rochester Bank and Trust Company, and all designated depositories authorized to do business in Minnesota, to honor checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money drawn on public funds of the City of Rochester on deposit with any of the said banks, when such checks, drafts, or other orders for payment of money bear their facsimile signatures, is hereby approved. Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this day of , 1994. President of said Common Council Attest: City Clerk Approved this day of Mayor of said City (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) 1994 RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that until written notice to the contrary is given by the City of Rochester to the Safe Deposit Department of First Bank of Rochester, access to the Safe Deposit Box (herein called safe) standing in the name of this corporation in the vaults of the above named bank shall be had by the following: Dale R. Martinson - Treasurer Bruce W. Atkinson - Assistant Finance Director Cheryl L. Belter - Accountant I any of whom shall have full authority to enter said safe and make deposits therein or remove any part or all of the contents thereof, to rent safe and to execute leases thereof in the name of this corporation, to amend or cancel said lease, to exchange or surrender the safe, and in all other respects to represent the City of Rochester. Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota this day -of , 1994. .Adopted by the Common Council this _ day of 1994. Attest: ty Clerk President of said Common Council Approved this day of , 1994 Mayor of said City (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ME- 'NG DATE. AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT ITEM NO Organizational Business Mayor's Office 0-- S. f r cM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY Appointment to International Affairs Committee Mayor Hazama I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the International Affairs Committee: Karen Fredin 505 6th Street NW Ms. Fredin will replace Floyd Phillips. Application attached. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: to: 67. \fa.�u Ghu�k Ei ]LaI➢a • Ro��m '�10. C;n F{all C=TY OF '1�lbCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPL,=CAT=ON NAME: ADDRESS PHONE: f3II9 7, HOME' C :: DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON YES NO ra, QQ rac VV ur. nn�_nuvacvua�u iar va�ran a.a .. �.+.+•+.�.. �,., .+. ....+ INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS MPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional information, if desired. 0[hes7a' DATE SUBMITTED: fn - J' 7 SIGNED: 1JU/T✓ 1 /(0 Return to: Office of the Mayor 1 Room 200, City Hall�yt Q3l")Rochester, MN� 55(�9,092 {�Tp • * ** ** 'l ili7r t► r7 it *.�F* * ** e�**i(/��!!1t**`!!Y***�ti�i� Mrs or &PPDXW rVn Tv aauarxar: o!m "TA: bum 11up 1 Mir REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEET NG DATE. 6'20i9a AGENDA SECTION. 'T:SENT CALENDAR ORIGINATING DEPT: ?fanning Department A DESCRIPTION: Request to Set Public Hearin;_ Date _`or Pacaticn Petition '96-10 by ".illard and Clarice Vitse June 16,1994 f f 1 P" T T f Petitioner: Location of Property: Requested Action: Reason for Request: Referral Agency Comments: Millard and Clarice Vitse 1703 20th Avenue NE Rochester, MN 55906 ITEM NO. d-S PREPARED BY: . ape Kansier 1703 20th Avenue NE This property is legally described as Lot 4, Block 2, Parkwood Hills Subdivision. Vacate the 10' wide utility easement located along the southwesterly lot line of the property described above. The attached garage on this property, built in 1991, encroaches into the easement. No comments have been received from any of the referral agencies at this time. We will forward any comments to the Council at the time of the public hearing. Planning Department Recommendation: The Planning staff recommends that this item be scheduled for a public hearing on July 18, 1994. If the utility companies do not object to this vacation, the Planning staff would recommend approval of this request. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution setting a public hearing date of July 18, 1994, on this matter in accord with the provisions of the City Charter. 2. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution vacating the utility easement. 1. Petitioners' Site Plan t,;uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Lot- 4, Block 2, Parkwood Hills Subdivision, City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota Millard Vitse 1703 20th Avenue NE Rochester, MN 55906 nV �• y4, 5' utility Easement 10' Utility Easement v Split level / Frame p .0' O.N. /1 •: "• 5' Utility 1 Easement / �+ 7 �`� Garage 9•� D 1g �• 1 ti`O J4, / ^ 4 r� ti NOTE: O.H. denotes overhang on building. Measurements taken to foundation. Dimensions relating house to lot are referenced to tangent shown as "34.97" and its prolongation southwesterly. Based upon monuments found there is an encroachment of the house and garage into the utility easement. A determination of the exact amount of encroachment would require a boundary survey. This document does not constitute such a determination. 1 hereby Certify that I Inspected the above described property. Dtnendom are token from the recorded pint or Iegci description furnished. this drawing is for Informational and/or mortgage purposes only. A boundary survey may vary the relationship of _ improvements to property Ones. this Irsspecfton was prepared fortheabove named E.c /`/ and their use onty. - 2. - c<<C R.LS. 18878 1• a 30 Feet Date 4-6-93 O - Monument Found Job No. 9295-93 LAND CON5ULTAN OF X M N waa93M far- 1418 F4* Avw% w PLL lochodw, irYertwaau- 55%6 507-266-crass 1st Bank/Ohly's REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6!'20/94 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works a' -,I I.�.,DESCRIPTION: Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 4-1994 PREPARED BY: Cox The Public Works Department recommends that the Council initiate, without petition of the property owners, the following local improvement project: Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 4-1994, J-9312 2nd Street S.W. to 2nd Street N.W.; llth Avenue N.W., S.W. to 16th Avenue N.W., S.W. Also various locations. Council Action Requested Adopt the resolution (Form lA & 3A) ordering a hearing to be held after 7:00 P.M., July 6,1994. Attached: Budget & Assessment Schedule Feasibility Report Map G%juNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: S000nd by: to: a m Date: 6-2C-94 Job No.: No. q-1994 REPORT OF FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing Sidewalk Replacement Protect No. 4-1994 was referred to this office on 6-20-94 for the Engineer's Preliminary Report. We report that the improvement is X feasible The estimated costs, made without survey or plans are: $51,708. Director of Public Works REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE The Department of Public works has considered the above project and recommends its construction with the costs to be assessed to the abutting yrooerty owners BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Project No.: 4 94 ate (Orig.) 6-20-94 J No.: 932 Description & Location: Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 4-1994 2nd Street S.W.to 2nd Street N.W.• llth Avenue N.W. S.W. to 16th Ave N.W. S.W. - Also Various Locations Cost Construction Date Sidewalk Replacement Right -Of -Way Easements Engineering 10% Interest 1001 Contingency Total Construction & Expense Distribution To be Presently ASSESSED Postponed Assessments City Funds - City Share TOTAL Protect Budget Final Contract Cost S 51,708 $ 55 548 5 62,048 Make Initial Disbursement from P.I.R. Fund REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Reports and Recommendations Public Works „ --DESCRIPTION: Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 5-1994 MEETING DATE: 6/20/94 ITEM NO. G-/o PREPARED BY: r111 Cox The Public Works Department recommends that the Council initiate, without petition of the property owners, the following local improvement project: Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 5-1994, J-9314 Replacement of Concrete Curb & Gutter and Sidewalk in N.E. Area of the City at Various Locations. Council Action Reauested Adopt the resolution (Form lA & 3A) ordering a hearing to be held after 7:00 P.M., July 6,1994. Attached: Budget & Assessment Schedule Feasibility Report Map %,VJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second ��� 1����11111 I�111111 11 Its RIM a■ .m mm mm Date: 6-20-94 Zob No.: No. 5-1994 REPORT OF FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 5-1994 was referred to this office on 6-20-94 for the Engineer's Preliminary Report. We report that the improvement is X feasible The estimated costs, made without survey or plans are: $17,845. Director of Public Works REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE The Department of Public works has considered the above project and recommends its construction with the costs to be assessed to the abutting property owners. BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Project No.: 5 - 94 Date (Orig.) 6-20-94 J No.: 9314 Description & Location: Sidewalk Replacement Protect No. 5-19�4 Replacement of Concrete Curb & Gutter and Sidewalk in N.E. Area of the City at Various Locations Cost Construction Date Sidewalk & C & G Right -Of -Way Easements Engineering 10%- Interest 10%; Contingency Total Construction & Expense Distribution To be Presently ASSESSED Postponed Assessments City Funds - City Share TOTAL Proiect Budd Final Contract Cost $ 17,845 21,413 $ 20,938 S 475 S 21,413 Make Initial Disbursement from P.I.R. Fund f•O��H ESTE R. yr`, `, ALL-AMEWCA CM W ROCHESTER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 1602 4t" Street S E Rocne=_ter MN 55904-4718 f 507; 28 r -6008 FAX n{5071281-6216 June 3, 1994 Dear Property Owner: This notice is for replacement of concrete curb that has been determined to be hazardous or potentially hazardous to street traffic. The curb in question is marked with red arrows. You can hire your own contractor directly to replace the curb or leave it in the City project and the cost will be assessed to property after the entire project is completed. If you have any questions please call me at 281-6008. Sincerely Mike Cox Sidewalk Supervisor A, Equal Opportunity/Vrnnati* Xtwn ix*51e1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/20/94 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works �m DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids: Project 6316-4-93 J-2296 - Replace Bridge Deck on Bridge No. 55501 on C�* a lliv This is a request for a resolution advertising for bids to be received until 11:00 A.M., July 15, 1994 and considered by the Council on July 18, 1994 for the following project: Project 6316-4-93 J-2296 "Replace Bridge Deck on Bridge No. 55501 on 16th Avenue N.W. Over Cascade Creek" Engineers Estimate $235,000 This project was included on page 257 of the 1993 Budget. It was included with the bridge over Silver Creek at llth Avenue N.E. which will be bid separately in 1996 to avoid conflicts with other projects. Costs for the bridge deck replacement will be paid from Municipal State Aid Funds except for an approximately $5,000.00 City participation in the ornamental railing. Council Action Rernaested If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. NOTE TO CITY CLERK: Please advertise in the Construction Bulletin. 4VUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. S000^d by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR MEETING DATE: 6,20. 94 ITEM NO. 157,� —A DESCRIPTION: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ABATEMENT PREPARED BY: PETITIONS=t78-134 S. KVEN'VOLD The Committee of the Whole has reviewed special assessment petitions numbered 78 through 134 and referred the petitions to the Council meeting without recommendation. All but ten of the petitions are eligible for approval under the Council's special assessment policy. Petition 4's 84. 86, 95. 96, 107, 108. 127, 128 and 130 should be denied as ineligible for approval under adopted policy. The petitions eligible for approval total $219.004.06 which would be reimbursed to property owners. The funding source currently has a total sum available of $205,722.44; therefore. petition #'s 132, 133 and 134 may be approved but payment would not be made until additional monies are received into the fund. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: URequest a motion adopting the findings of fact to approve the special assessment abatement petitions A and referring said petitions to the County Board for their consideration. —JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by 'Ei i I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6r20i94 AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I CITY ADMINISTRATOR M DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING IMPROVEMENTS TO T.H. 14152 ITEM NO. I✓ - PREPARED BY: D. OLSON Attached is a resolution that has been prepared by Richard Freese to be submitted on behalf of the City as part of the public comment period that runs through July 15th. A public hearing on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at John Marshall High School. Adopting this resolution does not commit the Council to a particular design alternative which is still being considered but rather that there is a substantial need to make improvements to the T.H. 14/52 Corridor. It has been suggested that community support as to the need for the project will be helpful in future funding requests. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: GAuthorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the attached resolution. )UNCIL ACTION: Matlaa saaaa by: CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: June 15, 1994 TO: Stevan E. Kvenv/old FROM: Gary Neumann ; SUBJECT: City Council Review and Involvement in T.H. 52 Decision Some members of the Planning, City Public Works, and County Public Works Departments have held a few meetings to discuss how. or whether the City and County government units might have involvement and input into the decision on the preferred alternative for the Highway 52 re -construction. It has been suggested by this group that a time be scheduled for either the June 27th or July 11th Committee of the Whole meetings to review the current status of the Highway 52 alternative design review process and to reach some decisions on the City government input and involvement in this process. The City Council is currently involved in the design review process through its having two representatives on the Policy Committee. In addition there are some City and County engineering and planning representatives on the Technical Committee which will be making a recommendation to the Policy Committee. Under the current schedule a public hearing on the EIS for the project is scheduled for June 22nd. Comments on the project are to be submitted by July 15th. By August 18th, the Technical Advisory Committee is to make its recommendation and the Policy Committee is to have made its recommendation to the District Engineer. From the staff's perspective, the Council should consider whether it wishes to adopt a resolution for submission during the comment period, closing on July 15th, to the effect that there is a substantial need to make some improvements to Highway 52. Community support for the need may be useful in future funding requests. Such a decision would not require a review of the alternatives being considered. Secondly, the staff would like to update the Council on the schedule and the process and determine whether the City Council as a group wishes to review the alternatives which are under consideration and have the Council provide a City Council Review and Involvement in T.H. 52 Decision June 15, 1994 Page 2 recommendation to the Policy Committee for their consideration. This would require a thorough review of the alternatives. This step may best be considered after the scoring of the alternatives has been completed by the consultant and a recommendation from the Technical Committee and from the City and County staff involved in roadway planning is available. These are in general form the topics which the staff would like to discuss with the Council at a Committee of the Whole meeting. c: Richard Freese Don MacGillivray Dave Roseman Phil Wheeler Charlie Reiter Mike Cousino Mike Sheehan WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation commissioned in 1991 the study and subsequent preparation of a final draft environmental impact statement regarding the upgrading of the T.H. 14 and 52 transportation corridors; and WHEREAS, the major reasons the study was conducted was to improve the level of service provided to the user, to improve safety, to replace the deficient pavement and bridges and to consider alternatives to the confusing frontage road system; and WHEREAS, the citizens of the City of Rochester as represented by its Mayor and City Council have encouraged and supported the need for the T.H. 14152 corridor study for many years; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of Rochester encourage the citizens of Rochester, Olmsted County and the entire Southeast Minnesota Region to attend the Public Informational Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on June 22, 1994, at John Marshall High School and become informed on the different corridor alternatives and interchange options; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Rochester do hereby request the Minnesota Department of Transportation to act promptly in making a decision to improve the T.H. 14152 transportation corridor through Rochester; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the State Legislature and the Governor allocate sufficient funding to implement the recommended alternative, including the acquisition of project right-of-way, as expeditiously as possible. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF , 1994. ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved this day of (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL 1994. MAYOR OF SAID CITY REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 620194 AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR E' 3 N DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: PEOPLES NATURAL GAS PIPELINE ALONG 55TH STREET NW D. 0LSON Peoples Natural Gas has asked to install an underground natural gas pipeline along the north side of S5th Street NW. The eastern portion of the pipeline east of the Douglas Trail will be located within an existing utility easement granted to RPU by developer Scott Lampland. This land is expected to become City owned land as part of a new City park within the next year. The western portion of the pipeline west of the Douglas Trail will extend north of the RPU utility easement across land owned by RPU, past the Northern Hills Substation and it will end at 50th Avenue NW, RPU has been consulted on installation of this pipeline and it approves of the proposed course. However. RPU and the City Attorney's Office have agreed that Peoples Natural Gas will only be granted a revocable permit. This means that Peoples may maintain the pipeline at the will of the City and if the City decides the pipeline cannot remain for any reason, Peoples must remove the pipeline at their own expense. In addition, because it is a revocable permit rather than an easement, Peoples will not be entitled to any compensation for the loss of the right to use the land for the pipeline. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Council is asked to approve the revocable permit agreement to allow installation of the pipeline. _JUNCIL ACTION: motion by second by: to: REVOCABLE PERMIT EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED: 50TH A'iENU-E- N.NE- Sw COR Sw 1/4 SEC B-107-14 -PEOPLES NATURAL GAS 519 IST AVENUE S.N McGhie P.O. BOX 6538 ROCHESTER• MINNESO A 55902 lw as r.0 �2E SCALE 1" = 300' I -- ' �wEST UNE Sw 1/4 SEC 8-107-14 15' REVOCABLE PERMIT II LOCATION fo-85' I ,/ I I � I // I � ; A� UNE W 1/2 SW 1/4 Igo— 15' REVOCABLE PERMIT II LOCATION II •� Imo— 85' , ��hti ti II �� I I I �n E N.W. Betts, eo4->ts�4 sate I- — 300' ElRc MR: 06-15-94 .ncc Wo. 2097/424! GBD W 4248 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/20/94 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations City Admn/Development Dist E-4 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Authorization to Bid - Fire Station No. 1 PREPARED BY: 1 Doug Knott Staff is requesting authorization from the Council to advertise for bids for the replacement of Fire Station No. 1. CPMI has completed a cost review and their analysis indicates that the building is within budget. The current plans are consistent with plans previously presented to the Council by the design team at the Committee of the Whole meeting. A memo providing a more detailed description of the project is attached. As was the case with the ramp project, the specifications will carry a prevailing wage rate requirement. We have also included language in the specifications which will encourage participation by minority owned businesses. There is a 5% goal for participation by "small targeted group businesses". This definition includes small businesses that are owned and operated by women, persons with substantial physical disability, and specific minorities. Contractors bidding the work would be required to document their efforts to meet the goal. The election of a contractor for the project would still be based on the lowest responsive, responsible bid. ilure to meet the goal or to document a good faith effort to meet it could result in rejection of a bid oased on non responsiveness. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorization to solicit bids for Fire Station No.1 construction. 'y Attachments: Memo with plan sheet reductions Cost Review Summary from CPMI COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 90% CONTRACT DOCUMENTS COST MANAGEMENT REPORT ROCHESTER FIRE STATION N0, 1 ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 09 JUNE 1994 CONSTRUCTION COSTS SUMMARY BUILDING - 21,000 GSF TOTAL 06 OF DESCRIPTION $/GSF AMOUNT TOTAL Sitework 13.15 276,210 11.360A General Construction 72.05 1,513,130 62.220/a Mechanical Construction 18.28 393,800 15.78% Electrical Construction 12.32 258,680 10.64% Subtotal Direct Costs 115.80 2,431,800 100.00% General Conditions, Overhead & Profit 13.03 273,580 Additional General Conditions & Labor For Phase 2 Construction (900 SF1 0.71 15,000 Subtotal 129.54 2,720,380 Bidding Contingency • 3.0% 3.89 81,810 TOTAL JUNE 1994 133.43 2,801,990 Page 2 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 15, 1994 TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold FROM: Douglas A. Knott SUBJECT: Fire Station No. 1 Project Status This memo is intended to provide you with an update on the status of the Fire Station No. 1 project. While this is the smallest of the three building projects being funded from the sales tax, in some respects It has been the most complicated. This has been largely due to the changing scope of the project and the difficulties presented by the site. In order to construct a station with drive -through bays, the City needs to complete a land swap with SMMPA. Vehicles at the new station will exit on to Broadway and return from 6th Street S.W. (currently trucks have to back into the Station from Broadway on their return). We have proposed trading a City employee parking lot at the corner of 1st Avenue and 6th Street S.W. for a SMMPA parking area located at the rear of their building. The intent Is a straight land swap with no monetary consideration. I anticipate having an RCA ready describing the terms of the exchange for the June 20, 1994 Council meeting. The swap must be completed prior to the start of construction. The decision to keep Station No.1 at the existing location requires the construction of the new building to be phased. The main living area and the apparatus bays will be constructed first. After the Fire Department moves Into the new building, the existing station will be razed. The storage area for the new station and the parking lot will be constructed after demolition of the old station is complete. A number of factors have affected the cost of the project both positively and negatively. Soil borings at the site revealed the presence of voids or caverns belowthe surface at Isolated locations. In orderto protectthe building from future settlement problems, the foundation system was changed from spread footings to caissons. This represented a significant Increase in the project cost. Two minor Fire Station No. 1 Project Status June 15, 1994 page two additional costs associated with the site are the removal of an old underground gas tank (S2,000) and the need to remove any asbestos from the old station prior to demolition (no cost estimate yet). Decisions to relocate the dispatch operation to the Law Enforcement Center and to move the vehicle maintenance operation out of the station substantially reduced construction costs. These costs will eventually have to be picked up elsewhere. The original construction budget for the project was $3,200,000 (this included the maintenance bay and dispatch). The current construction estimate is $2,801,900. We will be requesting authorization to solicit bids from the Council on June 20th. Bid award is scheduled for August 1,1994 with construction starting shortly thereafter. The plans are consistent with those previously reviewed by the Council and we were not planning on any additional presentations by the architects unless so requested. Attached are reductions of the building floor plans and elevations. attachments c: Chief Kapler Dave Stutz n���� �_��■imp �u��::�� FIRST AVE. S.W. - - - -- %9—r—aR__—_—_—_—_---_--------- L, T r I 7i z I TT I �g 'IT --------------- dt '" 4� ° � I (' SOUTH BROADWAI — I yr; � GG: sere C+ fa°.ifffla alaet as Ala es to aav 8 p o mI A:" j I la 9;_iI-n O rn= � f VC ^ J m i taq O �g I Ell? I rn m � Tf m z 00 m n i a mO c9 I..I�L' 011�1 li� SH p D _ 1 I - L-. .r II P li i 1 ��I 5I' Q�j � 'I r � 017 Nu IN• ;r' N 11iNNM r IIINNIi IF, i iN 1111 oil 1 ci I W. I, N c� �m it, 1 M71 [: N 1 �� ® 1.! a IF [: .� ■ 1 flu j pll ;D lu WI I IN 1 rrf•••�� Mosel �■ SIN INNNI N it rw . r•••� _ 1 %� r II1�� � ' ! NI=1 1 •�jj�l � '1 Nam' °• 1 ■ � - I��wi�nu�i•�' <i �1 '1 II 1 1• II1 NNNI'1,I �i N f l 11 M ' C> II 117 � ■ I I QP 3 $11 R " s 4"7FIe o e e e t t 4Ci' S— TTT�t It �II•i 1 � t 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AULNUA stc i wry: ORIGINATING DEPT: REPORTS AND RECOVIYIENDATIONS DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MEETING DATE: 620,94 ITEM NO, E- 5 -M DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: CITY'SMNIPA EXCHANGE OF LANDS FOR FIRE STATION NO. 1 D. KNOTTr One of the basic design requirements for the new central Fire Station was drive -through apparatus bays. At the existing station trucks returning from a call must back into the station from Broadway. At the new facility they will exit on to Broadway and return on 6th Street using a second set of bay doors located at the rear of the building. The existing site lacks sufficient area for the rear driveway. In order to make the design work we need to acquire a triangular parcel of land owned by SMMPA located at the rear of their building. The parcel is currently used for parking for their staff, tenants, and visitors to the building. In exchange for the SMMPA parcel we would trade them a City owned rectangular parcel located at the comer of 1st Avenue and 6th Street SW. The parcel is used for City Hall employee parking (it contains approximately 17 stalls). Once City Hall moves to the Government Center the lot will no longer be needed for this purpose. We are in the process of locating alternate interim parking for the employees who use the lot. The basic terms of the exchange are outlined below: 1) It is a straight parcel for parcel trade with no additional monetary consideration. 2) The City will install a catch basin in the curb separating the properties and grant SMMPA a stormwater drainage easement. 3) The City will file an application for subdivision approval with the Planning Department. 4) The City will amend the Mill Race Assessment Agreement to reflect the revised legal description of the SMMPA property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: V% That the appropriate City officials be authorized to execute an exchange agreement between the City V and S1v1MPA and any other documents necessary to complete the transaction. . JUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second i McGhie Betts, Inc. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors Planners 1648 Third Avenue S.E.. Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (SMMPA property to be deeded to City) FOR: CPMI DATE: April 13, 1994 That part of Lots 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11, Block 102, WILLSON'S ADDITION TO ROCHESTER, Minnesota, and part of the vacated alley in said Block 102, all being described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the west line of said Block 102 with the north line of the South 12 feet of Lot 1 1 in said Block 102; thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 29 seconds East, assumed bearing, along said nortti line of the South 12 feet of Lot 11, a distance of 68.84 feet for the point of beginning; thence continue North 89 degrees 55 minutes 29 seconds East, along said north line and the easterly prolongation thereof, 87.30 feet to the east line of the West 8 feet of said Lot 2; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 01 seconds West, along the east line of the West 8 feet of said Lots 2, 3, and 4, a distance of 108.24 feet; thence South 38 degrees 51 minutes 30 seconds West, 139.15 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 4,725 square feet, more or less. K M. McGhee. P E. P LS, 1904.1975 Wdlw E Tanton, C.ET. Prevaent James E Swenson. R.LS V" Pral0ent Douglas N Ben, P E, R.LS. Vice Pres4wt Allan J- King, P E Narcy Am= Iaame. P E Anarew A Renren G r Mark E S"mon. R LS. Mlcnaw E Gown. P E A LS. An Equal Opportunity Employer Oawa L Mornll. P E V,o Pr"3ctem tyry J. Shannon, R LS Jeffrey S. arooerg. Geologist Mc Ghie Betts, Inc. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors Planners 1648 Third Avenue S.E.. Rochester, MN 55904 507-269-3919 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (City property to be deeded to SMMPA) FOR: CPMI DATE: April 13, 1994 That part of Lots 11 and 12, Block 102, WILLSON'S ADDITION TO ROCHESTER, Minnesota, and part of First Street as platted in said WILLSON'S ADDITION TO ROCHESTER, all being described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said Block 102 with the north line of the South 12 feet of Lot 11 in said Block 102; the Ncrth.89 degrees 55 minutes 29 seconds East, assumed bearing, along said north line of the South 12 feet of Lot 11, a distance of 68.84 feet; thence South 38 degrees 51 minutes 30 seconds West, 14.09 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds East, parallel with the west line of said Block 102, a distance of 112.00 feet to the south line of the North 44 feet of said First Street; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 55 seconds West, along said south line, 60.00 feet to the southerly prolongation of said west line of Block 102; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 10 seconds West, along said southerly prolongation and along said west line, 122.86 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 7,423 square feet, more or less. K M. McGee. P E, R LS. 1904.1975 William E Tomlon. CST. PreSWenl James E Swenson. R LS. vice PreSrcenl Oad L Momil. P E Vice Presicenl Douglas N. Sens. P E. R.LS. vice PreSioenl Aam J. Kinq P E Nancy Anwa1 "ma. P E J:a9 J. Shannon, PLS. Andrew R. Kenren RE Mark E Sswwn, R LS. Mcnain E Gowm. P E. R LS. Jamey S. Srooerg. Geolog.sc An Equal Opportunlry Employer 47 r`yTr� v i m _... ... ... .. .. _..... .... a / ~ B 1 T u Y I R U u S f � S U R/ a; E 1� 61, g•5, p r' I, 8 J 31 2-STORY BRICK / i►' s tt i ♦ �' S" o . 0 cRAss yl41 GT� p , tv I�.?" - � �.ri":E9•,55'2,9 E J � p ...F • :; • f, 87.sot8• . ct- CITYOra sm II 12 .n i m u i B I T U Y N O SS7 R F A C F w•��� b0 % N GRASS E .. u.0 d� N 89'58'55' it EET S.W. 6 I- U Y I N 0 V S S U R F A C E W N � D n1 0. z! z miI I m D �, �M A �. " n D Is `z Zcc �-- C) > i Z r- — !I Ir ' o m it n D n �+ r z K: o-D�. i — �Z c-)mm v' o" \� 'L l I I W D -Z Z D -A I a O S LA r v rQ 0-0 n Z I ni SOUTH BROADWAY m �m r m mm z> n _ _. _ fD A S C) D ;K n 'a m r 0 '0 2 m v Z r m 0 o m r- m O c f r m m . Z m REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6,20/94 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PERSONNEL F_(46 ITEM DESCRIPTION: MUSIC CONTRACT - ROCHESTER SYMPHONY MUSIC DIRECTOR PREPARED BY: F. WAGNER��� The 'Music Board has submitted a contract for the services of Jere Lantz as the Rochester Symphony Music Director for the period from July 1. 1994 to June 30. 1995 (see attached). The contract calls for Jere Lantz to be paid $31,216 from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995. Jere Lantz is currently paid $32,000. The new salary reflects a 3.75% increase. Music Board has Approved. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT MUSIC DIRECTOR This Agreement is between the City of Rochester, acting by and through its Music Board (hereinafter called Board) with the advice and consent of the Common Council, and Jere Lantz (hereinafter called Director). 1. The Board hereby employs Director and Director hereby accepts employment by Board as the Music Director and Conductor of the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1994, and expire on June 30, 1995. Services covered by this contract shall include all regularly scheduled performances pursuant to the published 1994-1995 season and any additional, extra, repeat, and run - out performances, plus the Annual Rochester Symphony Orchestra Youth Concert(s) and a Spring 1995 Chorale Concert. The Director shall receive an annual salary of $33,216.00 and the regular benefits received by employees of the City of Rochester including PERA, Family Health, Family Dental and Life insurance coverages. The salary shall be paid on an equal bi-monthly basis throughout the duration of this contract. 2. Director shall perform those duties and satisfy those responsibilities outlined in the "City of Rochester and Description Music Director and Conductor -- Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale" which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as a part of this Agreement. 3. The Director shall be supervised by and report directly to the General Manager of the City Music Department (hereinafter called "General Manager"). The Director shall report indirectly to the Board. The General Manager shall review the performance of the Director as provided for in the City Personnel Policies and Procedures using the appropriate Performance Appraisal and Development Review Form(s). 4. The Director shall fulfill and implement the position of Music Director and Conductor as a part-time position from September 1, 1994 until May 31, 1995. "Part-time position" shall be defined as the performance of those duties and the satisfaction of those responsibilities described in Exhibit A for at least twenty hours per week. Performance of any duties or satisfaction of any responsibilities not described in Exhibit A shall not be considered as work performed in a part-time position. 5. Any additional performances not covered in paragraph 1 of this document may be contracted for between the Board and the Director separately on a per service basis at a rate of $500 per rehearsal and $1000 per concert. Payment shall be made within 30 days of the date of the event. The Board reserves the right to employ other conductors for any such services. 6. The Director will be the final staff authority on artistic matters concerning the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale. The City of Rochester and the Board acknowledge that although the position includes certain administrative duties, the position of Music Director is primarily and fundamentally an artistic position. 1 7. The Director shall not use equipment, supplies, property, Eacilities, or musical scores and parts belonging to the City of Rochester or any of its offices, boards, commissions, or committees in the performance of duties or the satisfaction of responsibilities not identified in Exhibit A, except with the prior approval of the General Manager. S. The Director shall be entitled to take fifteen (15) days vacation leave during the period September 1, 1994, to May 31, 1995, to be scheduled by mutual consent of the Director and General Manager. The Director shall not earn nor shall the Board be obligated to grant any sick leave or compensatory time off. 9. The Director may request a leave without pay from regularly scheduled performance services so that he might pursue other conducting opportunities. The minimum such leave is for three services (two rehearsal services and one concert service). All requests must be made to the General Manager 45 days before the first service to be missed. Such leave is subject to the General Manager's approval. Director is responsible for reimbursing the City of Rochester for scheduled events which are missed and which the City must hire a substitute. For purposes of this provision, the value of these services shall be $500 per rehearsal service and $1,000 per concert service. Reimbursement must be made to the City within 30 days of notice provided by the City. 10. The Director shall spend not less than eight (8) hours per week in the Music Department offices during the period of September 1, 1994, until May 31, 1995. During such office hours, the Director will be available exclusively to the City to confer with the General Manger, his/her designee, and/or other staff, and to perform those tasks and/or satisfy those responsibilities identified in Exhibit A. It is understood that there may be weeks in which other conducting commitments will require alteration or adjustment of these hours. Such alteration or adjustment will be determined in advance by consultation between and the mutual approval of, the Director and General Manager. In no case does such alteration or adjustment relieve the Director from fulfilling the duties and tasks outlined in Exhibit A. 11. Whenever the name of the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and/or Chorale is used officially--e.g., on stationery, in mailings, in promotional materials --the name of the Music Director will also appear. Whenever the Director conducts concerts by the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale, his name shall appear in promotional materials in a type face as large and prominent as any other individual so enumerated. 12. Neither the City of Rochester nor the Board shall allow the broadcast of any type of recording of Rochester Symphony Orchestra or Chorale concerts conducted by the Director which do not satisfy the Director's artistic standards. The Director shall inform the Board in writing within five days of his opportunity to review such recording if the recording does not satisfy the Director's artistic standards. F 13. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the personnel policies of the City of Rochester, the Civic Music Department, and the Board shall apply to the Director and the Board. 14. This agreement may be terminated by the Director if the Board breaches the Agreement and fails to correct such breach within ten days after receipt of a written notice to correct the breach. 15. This agreement may be terminated by the Board for cause, resulting in the removal of the Director. "Cause" shall be defined as any violation of this Agreement, including the failure to perform those duties or the failure to satisfy those responsibilities described in Exhibit A. "Cause" also shall be defined to mean any pattern or history of inefficiency, misconduct, or breach of duty occurring in the performance of those duties or the satisfaction of those responsibilities described in Exhibit A. 16. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Board retains whatever rights and authority are necessary for it to operate and direct the affairs of the Board in all of its various aspects, including, but not limited to, the right to direct the working forces; to plan, direct, and control all the operations and services of the department(s); to determine the methods, means, organization, and number of personnel by which such operations and services are to be conducted; to assign and transfer employees; to schedule working hours and to assign overtime; to determine whether goods or services should be made or purchased; to hire, promote, demote, suspend, discipline, discharge, or relieve employees due to lack of work or other legitimate reasons; to make and enforce reasonable rules and regulations; and to change or eliminate existing methods, equipment, or facilities. The exercise of the foregoing powers, rights, authority, duties, and responsibilities by the Board, the adoption of policies, rules and regulations, and practice in furtherance thereof, and the use of judgement in connection therewith shall not be the subject of any grievance or arbitration proceeding except as specifically provided for in this Agreement. 17. Any notice required or authorized by this Agreement shall be properly given if mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses or to such other parties or at such other addresses as either party may direct by similar notice delivered to the other party not less than ten days prior to the effective date of the address change: Board: Steven J. Schmidt General Manager Rochester Civic Music City Hall, Room 109 Rochester, MN 55902 Director: Jere Lantz 2835 West Road Woodland MN 55391 (612) 449-9766 3 18. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be Binding upon the parties hereto. Neither this Agreement nor any interest therein shall be transferred or assigned by either party hereto. 19. Failure by either party to insist in any instance on strict conformance by the other to any term of this Agreement or failure by either party to act in the event of a breach will not be construed as a consent to or waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or of any other term contained in this Agreement. 20. This Agreement is the final expression of the agreement of the parties and the complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon. It supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, agreements, and representations. No waiver, consent, modification, or change of the terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. 21. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any term or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected. The rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held invalid. 22. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in compliance with, Rochester Code of Ordinances, Rochester Home Rule Charter, and Minnesota state law. 23. The Director has read the entire Agreement and understands its provisions. The Director possesses sole and exclusive authority to execute this Agreement on his own behalf. 24. Director shall retain copyright and royalty privileges for such custom arrangements, orchestrations, scores, and parts as may be required by the Director that are prepared by the Director during the term of this agreement. Director grants rights to the City to perform at no cost such custom arrangements, orchestrations, scores, and parts as may be required by the Director that are prepared by the Director during the term of this agreement. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands this day of , 1994. BOARD DIRECTOR By: By: President -Rochester Music Board CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Its Mayor Attest: Its City Clerk THIS AGREEMENT PREPARED BY: Office of the City Attorney Room 1, City Hall Rochester, MN 55902 •.�wVNusunW.G� Jere Lantz 5 5_' as contraC RlaeS"` Res is.d. June 2, 1994 Pate I EXHIBIT "A" CITYOF RRCHESTRR POSITION DESCRIPTION MUSIC DIRECTOR AND CONDUCTOR -- ROCHESTER SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA AND CHORALE NATURE OF WORK This is a part-time professional artistictechnical managerial position which performs musical advisory: orchestra personnel: chorale personnel. procurement and preparation of musical scores and parts: conducting: and audience fund development functions and tasks: and other functions and tasks related to the artistic activities of the Music Department as assigned. This position reports directly to the Civic :Music Department General Manager and indirectly to the Rochester Civic Music Board. MAJOR FUNCTIONS TASKS Serves as Music Director of the City Music Department. I. Provides technical assistance and musical expertise to the Civic Music Board and its various teams and committees, the Rochester Civic Music Guild and its various committees, and City staff. 2. Recommends to the Civic Music Board and its various teams and committees musical works to be performed by the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale. 3. Recommends to the Civic Music Board and its various teams and committees guest artists and soloists to perform with the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale. 4. Maintains regularoffice hours. B. Performs orchestra and chorale personnel management duties. I. Conducts open auditions to fill vacant positions in the orchestra and chorale and establish a substitutes/extras list. 2. Recommends to the appointing authority musicians to be contracted members of the Rochester Symphony Orchestra consistent with established budget parameters. 3. Establishes and maintains a ranked list of substitutes and extras for all positions in the orchestra. 4. Places musicians within sections in the orchestra and chorale. 5. Monitors the artistic performance of members of the orchestra and chorale and recommends whether musicians should be retained as contracted members of the orchestra, placed on the substitutes, extras list, or terminated. Conducts exit interviews and/or auditions with musicians to be terminated. 6. Meets with members of the Orchestra and Chorale Committees at least three times per year and as circumstances may require. 7. Conducts coaching and consultation sessions with members of the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale and guest artists to ensure the highest level of collaborative artistic performance. C. Performs duties related to the purchase, rental, marking, arranging, and orchestration of musical scores and parts for pieces to be performed by the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale. 1. Recommends whether musical scores and parts to be performed should be purchased and/or rented consistent with established budget parameters. 2. Marks musical scores and parts owned by the City as required. 3. Marks musical scores and parts rented by the City as required. 4. Prepares custom arrangements, orchestrations, scores, and parts as may be required by the Music Director. i sjs qa contract maestro exhi'o-a6 Rexiscd: June', 1994 Page ? d. Conducts contracted rehearsals and performances of the Rochester S%mphony Orchestra and Chorale. I. Establishes rehearsal schedules for the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale noting the specific instrumentation, musicians and seating assignments. and or voices to be called for each service consistent with established budget parameters. Z. Conducts an} and all Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale rehearsals for contracted performances of the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale or arranges artistically competent replacement, at Music Director's expense. subject to the prior approval of the General Manager, 3. Participates in production meetings. 4. Conducts any and all contracted performances of the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale. Performs duties that support Music Department audience development and fund development efforts. I. Writes program descriptions which may be included in. or used to develop, promotional materials. ?. Writes program notes for Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale concerts. 3. Participates in public relations and audience development efforts including, but not limited to, participating in media interviews, guest appearances. and speaking engagements pursuant to a schedule to be determined. 4. Participates in fund development efforts including, but not limited to, making guest appearances and speaking engagements before potential individual andi'or corporate contributors, participating in fund raising calls, writing and providing narratives relative to the artistic activities of the Department for including in grant proposals and fund development materials, and writing and providing final report narratives relative to grant supported artistic activities of the Music program. f. Performs other functionsitasks related to the artistic activities of the Music Department as assigned. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6 zo/94 AGENDA SECTION: "'PORTS A.ND RECO`MENDATI0VS M DESCRIPTION: Wetland Fee Schedule ORIGINATING DEPT ITEM NO. Planning Department ? PREPARED .iohn Hart Planner` June 16, 1994 WEPIAND CONSERVATION ORDINANCE FEES / The Council adapted Chapter 59 of the Code of Ordinances covering wetland conservation regulations in December, 1993. At the time the ordinance was adopted a fee structure existed that is inconsistent with the final rules. In addition the department has additional data on the amount of time that is needed to administer the program. These fees will cover all activity by the Planning Department only under the Wetland Conservation Ordinance. The fees proposed are consistent with the recent change in state law allowing local units of goven-m a nt to adopt fee schedules that meet the costs of administration. Plannina Staff Reomuiendation Staff rec=wxtds that the Council adopt the proposed fee whedule. Cauhcil Action Needed: The Council may tak action to approve the resolution. Attachments: A copy of the resolution with the fee schedule. ni stri hrhi on• . 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department file a.vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: RFSOLUTICN 94- « • ••� is r WHEREAS, R.C.O. 61-700 provides that the Common Council of the City of Rochester may from time to time by resolution establish and amend a fee schedule for certain zoning actions; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary to recover a portion of costs far the administration of Chapter 59, Wetland Conservation Ordinance by charging fees for the processing, review, field inspection, and monitoring for various applications: Rochester that the following schedule of fees shall be established, effective May 1, 1994, for the various Wetland Conservation Ordinance actions set forth herein. A. Exemption Determination: $75 B. No -loss Determination: $75 C. Delineatian Review: (This covers the wetland delineation of an impact site or a replacement site and is a separate request from a replacement plan.) * wetland size up to one (1) acre: $80 * wetland size between one (1) and ten (10) acres: $200 * wetland size over ten (10) acres: $320 D. Wetland Replacement Plan Review: (This covers the review of wet an d delineation on the impact and replacement sites, sequencing, the development of a replacement plan, and on site inspection/consultation and monitoring. The size of the wetland shall be calculated based on the delineated wetland size of the ambined impact and replacement sites.) * filing fee: $200 * wetland size up to one (1) acre: $200 (includes filing fee) * wetland size between one (1) and ten (10) acres: $440 (includes filling fee) * wetland size over ten (10) acres: $680 (includes filing fee) E. Sequencing: ('This covets a review of a sequencing plan separate from the delineation and replacement activities.) $200 F. Appeal: $150 G. Wetland Banking Plan Review: ('This covers the processing and review of a plan to develop a wetland bank) * filing fee: $200 * wetland size up to one (1) acre: $200 (includes filing fee) * wetland size between one (1) and ten (10) acres: $440 (includes filing fee) * wetland size over ten (10) acres: $680 (includes filing fee) H. Annual Monitoring Report Reviews: $50 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEE DATE: 6/2019 AGENDA SECTION: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DESCRIPTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Services Vacation of a Part of Fourth Avenue NW ITEM NO. - - 9 PREPARED BY,- R Hallinq N The Council is considering a staff recommendation for a land trade with the Mayo Foundation to resolve the acquisition for Parcel 245, Stage 2A of the Corps of Engineer's flood control project. A necessary component of that transaction requires the City to vacate a part of Fourth Avenue NW lying north of Third Street NW. This area of Fourth Avenue was made excess right of way with the completion of the Civic Center Drive project. There are no existing utilities in the area of the vacation. A description of the area to be vacated is attached. The City of Rochester owns the land east of the area proposed to be vacated. No other ownerships are affected by the vacation. The land vacated to the City will in turn be sold to Mayo for assemblage with a smaller parcel. Staff is recommending that the Council initiate the vacation of Fourth Avenue NW so that the City can complete it's transaction with the Mayo Foundation for the acquisition of Parcel 245. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED �iGyl(UI` Approval to initiate the vacation of Fourth Avenue NW immediately north of Third Street NW and south of Third Avenue NW. NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I CONCRETE CURB I � I 3 3.56 R 3-36 7' 1-44.J7r _ 08-N 24'58'01' W '• - at o WEST LINE BLOCK 57 \} _ i P.O.B. \ SW CORNER \ • ' n to e _- ; (•� ::: •+• m 0' BLOCK 57"1 _ E .._ N88'54'49'E 38.68 - SOUTH LINE P N 88'54'48' E BLOCK 57 �, CONCRETE CURB ,t N 88454'49' E 'I. 0 -5'58'48' 8 12.00 ;' R-266.56 ...�,._._� ... L-27.82 CONCRETE CURB N . 5 88'54'49' W 110.74 \\ \\ \NORTH E " BLOCK 4 LEGEND o = IRON PIPE SET WITH REGISTRATION NUMBER 10942 • = MONUMENT FOUND d = CENTRAL ANGLE SCALE 1" 40' R = RADIUS 0 20 40 80 L = ARC LENGTH CS - CHORD BEARING P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING SURVEY REQUESTED BY THE Q - CONCRETE WALK CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA. I n.rasy core", that %1. 'bet, may. two, WHKS " roc TN. by that t ane. my *.at a, larval ..ry " one ace d . eai, Rptat~Sena 3.yar uwear a. la.. of a. St.t. f lam.aaate. .Y{LeC[ tpllAta KAMICA SOYIS \ m INN / / -q� —.aa= Oat e it-,-e7 e.g. qa. itla+i .r m w a.w.t.. aw arr w SHEET I OF 2 WHKS JOB NO. 5150 -=---------- zz m ofwn -ixo�'i=�mi _ C) �2m rnam D 2 � � y = = X mCD O a �<—im�<—a s w MO I I z I I N _r III I .III c> I I I b n'Z I I III I I I ---- 0 -- -------------- i I III L' 3RD ST P 2�SAN < < y\ P G 10, H. G G-2` PEG 10 H.P G--�-— ---- \ q cN 1 j11 1tz it am° ip Cm� Q _ � v i CD c Ll Q x - i t � f`� s affi a.w k I' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ME_ING DATE: 6 AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Public Services A DESCRIPTION: Vacation of a Part of Third Street NW ITEM NO. GEMq PREPARED BY:jk t Hallina The Council is considering a staff recommendation for a land trade with the Mayo Foundation to resolve the acquisition for Parcel 245, Stage 2A of the Corps of Engineer's flood control project. A necessary component of that transaction requires the City to vacate a part of Third Street NW lying between Third and Fourth Avenues NW. This area of Third Street was closed to vehicular travel with the completion of the Civic Center Drive project. The City will retain easements for utilities in the area of the vacation. A description of the area to be vacated is attached. The Mayo Foundation owns the land immediately adjacent to and south of Third Street. The City of Rochester owns the land north of the area proposed to be vacated. No other ownerships are affected by the vacation. The land vacated to the City will in turn be sold to Mayo for assemblage with a smaller parcel. Staff is recommending that the Council initiate the vacation of Third Street NW so that the City can complete it's transaction with the Mayo Foundation for the acquisition of Parcel 245. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approval to initiate the vacation of Third Street NW between Third and Fourth Avenues NW retaining easements for the existing utilities. NCIL ACTION: Motion bv: Seoond T x 3RD ST P I ---- --- N X 0 --- --- N O m F CEM �cn-Ami m m m F Z N N � N D ti �L /I y N O rnz J I 1 I 1 1 I I I II ,I ---------- .� To 2 S SAN ---� H. 10" H.— G G-2" Pt -IN n CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY i ICRETE CURB L J 0=T33'11' R=J36.56 L=44.37 ,7 CB=N 24'58'01' W .... ; 2 . .. . c WEST LINE a. BLOCK 57 m 9 SW CORNER BLOCK 57.1 N '54'49'E _ 38.68 J E `BLOCK �Tp, t, f N 88'54'48' E 5WTH 7 \ I CONCRETE CURB 6.00 C 1, CO `�t. N 88'54'49' E '`ai �=5'58'48' g 8 12.00 R=266.56 7,1 ... ., ,._._ . L.27.82 CONCRETE CURB 9 1200 1� I 64 11 S88'S4'49' W 110.74 5 NOORCTKH\ LINE LEGEND 0 = IRON PIPE SET WITH REGISTRATION NUMBER 10942 • = MONUMENT FOUND 0 = CENTRAL ANGLE SCALE 1" 40' R = RADIUS L = ARC LENGTH 0 20 40 80 C8 - CHORD BEARING P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING SURVEY REQUESTED BY THE Ej = CONCRETE WALK CITY OF ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA, I haw6y aa.tNy Mat wit slot m'. taa.ay WHKS = e•o« ..e Tea q =. a . =y s.a a, al,al aupaMalaa b, wet 1 a= a 4y Re41at~ Laa1 Sut qW uaµ Ma lea, at Me State at llN aata. waur2 IlaIIARR aasna SL1aalL • m. �%�.f, _ [_ _�.� /(jp"=—� uw=eiwa=r No. "@ rw.e.. r arw. a SHEET I OF 2 WHKS JOB NO. 5150 I��IF ROCHESTER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES 16C2 Sr -et S Ooc^ese .'% _c'=H'6CC.9 FAX #i50'. 281h2'6 June 13, 1994 TO: Gary Newmann FROM: Richard Freese SUBJECT: Vacation of Street R.O.W. @3rd Street & 4th Avenue NW Ron Halling has prepared the three attached R.C.A.'s for the 6/20/94 Council meeting. I support Ron's recommendation in all three reports. I raised with Ron a concern of mine regarding the vacation of the street R.O.W. @3rd Street and 4th Avenue NW. I am suggesting that the vacation and/or sale of right-of-way remnants, such as this, carry deed restrictions on ingress and egress to these parcels. In this, and other situations, no additional driveway openings should be allowed. The best way to control that is with plat and/or property deed restrictions. Ron was not sure how this restriction on access may affect the completed negotiations with Mayo. Please advise as to your thoughts. CC: Ron Halling DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES REAL ESTATE SECTION MEMORANDUM DATE: June 15, 1994 TO: Gary Neumann FROM: Ron Halling RE Mayo Transaction The Mayo transaction is completed. I am submitting RCA's for the June 20th Council meeting for consideration of the vacations of Third and Fourth Avenues NW. I will submit an RCA for this actual transaction if and when the vacation requests are approved. The language for the RCA is reproduced below. The City, as agent for the US Army Corps of Engineers, is required to purchase 109,322 square feet in fee simple interest and 10,530 square feet in railroad trackage easement from the Mayo Foundation at the former Fullerton Lumber site. The acquisition affects the westerly part of the property and includes 4th Street SE frontage. The City's certified appraisal found compensation for the takings to be $161,600. Mayo indicated that they were acceptable to the City's offer if it could be made contingent on a trade for certain City -owned lands which Mayo had a desire to purchase. A condemnation action was initiated for the flood control acquisition and the offer deposited with the court in December of 1992. Mayo since has withdrawn the deposit from the court. City staff pursued negotiations with Mayo on the property trades and recently reached an agreement for this transaction. Under the agreement, the City will deed 2,343 square feet of the former Adler's property to Mayo and they in turn will deed 6,971 additional square feet of the former Fullerton site to the City. The result of these trades will reconfigure both lots into more useable properties. In addition, the City will transfer title to 1,039 square feet of lead south of Civic Center Drive between Third and Fourth Avenues NW to Mayo Foundation. Mayo contemplates installing an entrance sign to their complex on this property. Two street vacations are required to make this transaction workable. Third Street lying between Third and Fourth Avenues and 1,389 square feet of excess Fourth Avenue right of way north of third Street need to be vacated prior to closing the transaction. Separate resolutions are being requested from the Council for these vacations. The vacations result in the ownership of the south half of Third Street transferring to Mayo as the abutting owner and the City retaining fee ownership in 3,870 square feet of previous right of way. The land values for the areas to be traded are determined by appraisal. A payment of $14,800 from Mayo Foundation to the City results from the land transaction. CITY OF ROCHESTER/MAYO FOUNDATION LAND TRADE ADLER'S SITE Parcel A (City of Rochester) Just Compensation - 2,343 Sq.Ft. - Total Area - 893 Sq.Ft - Trackage Easement 1,450 Sq.Ft. @ $3.445 = Parcel B (Mayo Foundation) Just Compensation - 6,971 Sq.Ft. @ $4.726 = Depreciated Value of Bituminous TRIANGLE SITE NZ Vacated Third Street Just Compensation - 2,481 Sq.Ft. @ $8.00' X 70% _ Vacated Fourth Avenue Just Compensation - 1,389 Sq.Ft. @ $8.008 = Fee Ownership East of 4th Avenue Just Compensation - 1,039 sq.ft. @ $8.00/sq.ft. Land Value for Triangle Irrigation system Landscaping (5 trees @ $160/tree) Just Compensation SUMMARY: 6 City of Rochester: Parcel A Parcel i Sub -Total Mayo Foundation: Parcel B AMOUNT DUE CITY $ 4,988 SAY $ 5,000 $ 32,903 2,700 $ 35,603 SAY $ 35,600 $ 13,894 $ 8,312 $ 33,318 $ 11,250 $ 800 $ 45,368 SAY $ 45,400 $ 5,000 S 45,400 $ 50,400 $ 35,600 $ 14,800 5 Value established from Parcel 2, Blekre Report 6 Value derived as avenge of Parcels 2 and 3„ Blekre Report. 7 Value derived from Blekre Report. Area 30% encumbered with utility easement. 8 Value derived from Blekre Report. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ST tY so T E N t V Ne6S 501- E 2442! a p'h 00 '.I i 5 68'io 3l"vJ ' njp ' 1 r �4.odm 9co 7.io ' < W l i N m e + 0 "M L'i I l t 0. ZI 0 G _ ; r iA{LCEL j • a l a� J 37 N ee'so C rm 3� • tl'tl) I, 3 j vl HI •YY�r 8_ E < � GY: F - - i :_ Q N. � rOr �r t� �. I n E 9 ei '\!it yI , iy : J 1 I Erna �I0.e•.ee•. C.ar. 3 �£ � e' PARCEL I� i I ' .^_'H pr a ;l � i TRANSFER TO r z 3; s 'CITY OF ROCHESTER NE!'a'i'3YE —�'a• �I! N8E'411341•E ° TRANSFER TO T FS y s ' IMAYO FOUNDATION ; _ raj PARCEI- A I ' } r S^ MOTE: Location of relocated railroad track It as shown on q v ..68 NM Sheet 174 of 1"2 construction plans for Stage 2A Iumbra ,s,pp (2, 14SQ� River Flood Control prolact as prepered by the Carps of 1�;'� 1 Engirmers. As requested by Client. no field verification of the position of the relocated tracks were made, tsi.q' wi 45.11 - - 2si . 5'"•• As requested by Client, no monuments ere found or set and L. i tse, Aw N W 03'34--y,- f N.....a hc.ey no search of the public records for easements or encumbrances was made as part of this survey. I hereby carlift that this survey, plan, or r@porl ..Iprepared by me at under my direct super• vision and that I am a duly Rpistered Land 'G rveyor under tche 1 a of the Stet@ of Yimtowea. DATE- DATE SURVEYED:-1�,{ C. REG. NO. ✓ LG 22-- FOR: ?R Ponta. icevmsu ('�{, McGhie Dell ALE: 1 a 30 Hfyttk _ WylnC. p°n""""° • Iane 3. . DRAWN- K SE,tarasu 160'L 4'e STA.EtT S•E. pWemma DATE; I-Z4.14 FPtNE,TE Mt4 SS9O4 ACCT. NO.' 0007 /t434 FILE NO.: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6i20/94 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports and Recommendations Public Works 6 '(O iicdl DESCRIPTION: Assessment Agreement: Christ Community Church PREPARED B`{f�M / 4400 55th St. N.W. J.M. Loe Assessments were levied for Project J-9173 to Chirst Community Church at the May 16, 1994 Council Meeting. The assessments included watermain and trunkline sanitary sewer. In addition to the assessments, a sanitary sewer direct connection charge is required. The connection charge includes: Plat 5152 Parcel 01001 276.56 feet X $25.00 per foot $6,914.00 Plat 5152 Parcel 01200 193.44 feet X $25 00 per foot $4.836.00 Total Direct Connection Charge to $11,750.00 Christ Community Church The connection charge was direct billed to the Church. A Church representative was at the May 16, 1994 meeting. He requested the connection charge be placed on a 10 year spread. The Council approved the Church's request. An Assessment Agreement has been prepared for the direct connection charge. Church representatives have signed the Agreement. A copy of the Agreement is attached For Council review. Council Action Requested 1. Pass the motion ordering the signing and execution of the v Agreement by the Mayor and City Clerk. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, made this + day of _,;, `, 1994, by and between CHRIST COMMUNITY CHURCH, a religious association (hereinafter "owners") and the CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (hereinafter "City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owners own certain real property located in Olmsted County, Minnesota located at 4400 55th St. N.W. and described by plat and parcel number as follows: Plat 5152 Parcel 01001 Plat 5152 Parcel 01200 (hereinafter "the Property"); and, WHEREAS, Owners have requested permission from the City to connect the property to the adjacent public water and sewer system maintained by the City; and, WHEREAS, the City is willing to permit the Owners to perform the above obligations under the terms and conditions set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises set forth, it is agreed between the parties as follows. 1. Owners shall have the right to connect the property to the adjacent public water and sewer system installed by the City in a project known as "City Project 7301-91 J9173" (hereinafter project J- 9173). 2. Owner acknowledges that the property is subject to certain special assessments for the extension of sewer and watermains to serve the property and surrounding area levied May 16, 1994. owners also acknowledge that the property is subject to sanitary sewer connection iarges in the amount of $11,750.00 plus interest, which have been billed to Owner pursuant to Rochester Code of Ordinances (RCO) chapter 28. Owner agrees to have these connection charges considered delinquent under the provisions of RCO ch. 28 so that they can be assessed against the property as a service charge. Owner further agrees to pay these assessments and not to contest the validity of the assessments when levied, in any subsequent judicial proceeding. 3. The City acknowledges that these sewer connection charges will be assessed over a period of ten years. interest will accrue on these assessments from the date of May 16, 1994, at the same interest rate applicable to project J-9173. The sale or transfer of the property will not require immediate payment in full providing the assessment payment obligation is transferred with the land to the new owner or owners. 4. The obligations of the parties hereunder shall bind their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall be deemed a covenant running with the property. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this day of 1994. CITY OF ROCHESTER T1 ITS MA BY ITS CITY CLERK CHRIST COMMUNITY CHURCH, a reliai-ou ssociation. Its: C hq,'r By /Lw 1L Its. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) On this y day of 1994, before me, a notary public .rithin and for said county personally appeared r`, (�/ �G `r_. and r //�Jlii Cam` �irGt the and j respectively of CHRIST COMMUNITY CHURCH, who are authorized'Jto and who sign on behalf of the church. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) r.._.. JUDY EVERS i NOTARY ROX,,41NNESOTA f Not - y Pu NTY My Conan. ExpYas Aug. 5, 1998 E The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __day of 1994, by Chuck Hazama and Carole A. Grimm, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Rochester, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public This document drafted by: Rochester City Attorney Room 1, City hall Rochester, MN 55902 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING . DATE: o. - AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: REPORTS 'QND RECO%f-\f NDATIONS I Planning Department IDESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition r94-6 by Robert and Louis Thompson o 8..', acres of vacant land June 17,1994 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: ITEM NO. F- // PREPARED BY: .lane Kansier On June 15, 1994, the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this petition to annex 8.2 acres of vacant land located on the north side of East Highway 14, directly south of Strathmore Lane SE, directly north of Sunnydale School, west of 40th Avenue SE and east of the Victory Baptist Church in the NE 114 of Section 5, Marion Township. The Commission found that this property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by City services. The Commission recommends approval of this request. Motion by Richardson to recommend approval of Annexation #94-6; second by Haley. The motion carried 6-0. Townboard Review Minnesota Statutes do not require Township review of any annexation petition containing less than 60 acres and signed by all of the landowners involved before the City, can adopt an annexation ordinance. Planning Delartment Recommendation: See attached staff report dated June 2, 1994. /// Council Action Needed: 1. Should the Council wish to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted and transmitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board. 1. Staff Report dated June 2, 1994 2. Minutes of June 8, 1994, CPZC Meeting • .i 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Copy of legal Description is attached 3. Planning Department File 4, Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 20, 1994, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. 5. McGhie and Betts, Inc. . wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: RE I I E 1 r. 11 Mcchic l Betts, T11e�wPS�J P"Pl2TY Amti"AT rE1E rr�e nw�.a S.E. n,.. .nw. urea, wr.tq.slf M/ li Mrtl7" c� TO: City Planning and Zoning Camnission FROM: Jane A. Kansier, Planner' DATE: June 2, 1994 J ,LM C5Tt!-OA y,N ��'rt o. �ucusT•b• ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION] 5071285-8232 PLANNING HOUSINGIHRA 507,''285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 NELL'SEPTIC 507/285-8345 RE: Petition to Annex by ordinance #94-6, 8.2 acres of vacant land located in Section 4, Marion Township Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Robert and Louise Thompson 2809 19th Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 Location of Property: nhis property is located on the north side of East TH 14, directly south of Strathmore Lane SE, directly north of the Sunnydale school, west of 40th Avenue SE and east of the Victory Baptist Church in the NE 1/4 of Section 5, Marion Township. Existing land Use: This property is currently vacant land. Size: 8.2 acres Existing Zoning: The property is presently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. Upon anremticn, it will automatically be zoned R-1 (Mimed Single Family Residential) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Land Use Plan: This site lies within the Urban Service Area of the City of Rochester. Adjacency to the Mamicipal Limits: nlis property abuts the existing City limits along its entire south and west: boundaries. Utilities: Sewer and water mains are presently located in 36th Avenue SE and stop at the southwest corner of the Victory Baptist Church property. In order to serve this pxnperty, these lines will be extended to the east, through an AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ! AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Annexation #94-6 June 2, 1994 easement, to Strathmore Lane SE, then along Strathmore Lane in front of this property. This property is outside of the RPU service Area boundary; however, RPU has no objections to this annexation. General Development Plan: There has been no general development plan approved or submitted for this property. Townboatd Review: Minnesota Statutes currently allow the annexation by ordinance of any parcel of land abutting the municipal limits and less than 60 acres in size without Townboard review. Referral C mments: Rochester Public Works Department, RPU Power Division: see attached. No other caume*+*e or objections have been received from any of the referral agencies at this time. Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (2 letters) 2. Location Map staff ReccmTendaticn• This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by City Services. The Planning staff reco mends that the City proceed to adopt an =dinance ann xLng the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2(3). l blad k1l- IMMCA V May 31, 1994 ROCHESTER TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FROM: Department of Public Works Z ,sue•—+.:. ,:a DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE: 1602 4th Street S.E. Rochester. MN 55904-4718 (507) 281-M -AX *(507) 281-6216 RE: ANNEXATION BY ORDINANCE PETITION #94-6 BY ROBERT AND LOtiISE THOMPSON Public Works comments concerning this matter are as follows: 1. Assessments Assessments for Trunkline Sanitary Sewer and water Distribution System have been discussed with Don MacGillivray, Design/Development Engineer. J8358 Trunkline Sanitary Sewer $348.36/per acre Watermain Distribution $263.10/per acre 2. How does this annexation affect maintenance on Strathmore Lane? The City presently does not maintain any of this area. A construction and maintenance agreement between City and Township will be required. A. E4aa1 Oppwr dylVi atrN Aston Snp),yar 4000 E. River Rd.. N.E. tocnester, MN 55906-23"3 07/290-1540 SAX: 507/280-1542 507/280-1581 May 31, 1994 T0: Rose Decklever, Planning Division Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Roger Kanestadt, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #94-6 by Robert and Louise Thompson of 8.2 acres of vacant land located on the north side of East Trunk Highway 14, directly south of Strathmore Lane SE and west of 40th Avenue SE and east of the Victory Baptist Church in the NE 1/4 of section 5 and the NW 1/4 of Section 4, Marion Township. RPU's Power Division has no objections to the above, as it is outside our 1974 service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the future. Sincerely, Roger Kanestadt T c: R. Pawelski W. Lorber A. Amundson T. Adkins, City Attorney J. Chase, Attorney 0 Sm P. f--- 4CCC c. 'liver 3ocnester, .UN 55906-28 507/280-?540 FAk 501/280-1542 507/280-1505 June 6, 1994 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 ATTN: Rose Decklever REFERENCE: Annexation by Ordinance Petition 94-6 by Robert and Louise Thompson of 8.2 acres of vacant land located on the north side of Trunk Highway 14 East, directly south of Strathmore Lane SE and west of 40 Avenue SE and east of the Victory Baptist Church in the NE 1/4 of Section 5 and the NW 1/4 of Section 4, Marion Township. Dear Ms. Decklever: The Water Division has reviewed the referenced annexation petition and the folloi'.ing is our comments: 1. The property is subject to the current water availabi- lity fee. 2. The information provided on the submittal shows that a portion of the proposed annexation area is above 1100' elevation. Currently we provide water service to the 1100' elevation from the main level system. Any property above the 1100' may need additional study to determine if it is feasible to provide water service at this time. 3. Water service is not immediately adjacent to the property, but is in -place in 36 Avenue SE and also on • the Peoples Co-op Electric site to the south. hdCnESiER 0�'+i$iiD ptANM1ING Df3dRTh1ENT May 31, 1994 Page 2 4. We will work with the owners representatives as to our needs for watermain sizes, valving and fire hydrant locations. If there are questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, Harold E. Wobschall Maintenance Superintendent Water Division Page 5 City ?lamning and ng Cissicn Mirntes Hearing Date- June 8, 1994 Division of RPU to dete=iM if additional fire hYltrantS are nlaed� an to V-=- 9 •r .. the site for- •. • - •n pxpcses. If it requiredthe mains • hydrants shoilld be installed at theaqxffisee N the developer. The building must conform to all state and local regulations for licensing of =-h a facility. The developer should contact Daniel Delarn at the Olmsted County public Se<alth Services Center (tel. 507-285-8342) far assistance. Ms. Kansier presented the staff report dated June 2, 1994. She noted that this it= is not a public hearing. She stated that this property would be zoned R-1 and the R-1 district has a minimtm, lot size of 6,000 square feet. 'Luis property is designated for low density residential us?s. The property is adjacent on the ent"=a south and west side to the City limits . Sewer and water are not adjacent at this time, but the ,rains would be extended through an easement to Strathmore Lane. RPU has no objections. There has been no general development plan suhr_itted at this time. Ms. Kansier stated that RPU power division has no objection. All streets shared by the City and the Cozurty would have to work cut an agreement for ma=tenarr_e. RPU ''later Division noted that a portion of the area is above the 1100 elevation line, the water division will need to look at any proposed development on the site. Staff finds that this can be served by City Services and reco=ezids approval of the request. Ms. wiesner noted that this is not a public rearing, Yost be=use of the number of people that are in attendance, she would allow a representative for the area speak. Mr. Dave Kiinkha_nmrx, 3707 Strathmore Lane SE, stated that he lives adjacent to this property and across the street. 'There are 3-5 acres of wetland adjacent to this property and the runoff of this area is quite dramatic. He stated that water flows from two culverts to Victory Baptist Church and they have had to put their driveways back together a number of times. This area is all dormhi7l and this property is over lloo elevation. There would be a lot of water that will oome down the hill and all of this water will eventually drain into Mayo Run. He has already seen 4-5" of water running down Strathmore Lane. There is appro;cimately a 20 foot drop from the top of Strathmore. He does not know how much water can be retainers, there is designated wetland. There will be a flooding problem that will be created for this area. He feels that this isare should be talked with MR, Engineers, etc., to work this out. The wetland area is wildlife habitat and they do not want that wetland disturbed. He stated that he is not too enthused about having annexed property across the street. He stated that there will be a rnmber of problems Oxh as access, additional traffic, and because of the extra residents there would be a need for a park in the area. acm furq sou7rze& asn a ;O aTdmom ue aAeb xaTsuex -sW 'TerupH grr-mdDTaABQ PrreI aq4 04 ' lompt ue a4es-4tuT tmTSS?a=j b=reld qq4 -4vti3 PUXS2 bxra4 ST qT qXM3 parretdxa x3Tmm-A -sW ':p?GASP atp ttt isa33Ttusad a; goer PTrn"+ qeq4 asn Y baT:AYq gtnge tISd7Im Y aAYt; am 'YL Tom) tmTgE3aT ag?S ayg Azen og gtren go[r P TKV& U=99Tu=O W4 ATgzssod gYgg PaPtps MTsut-A -SW •saxretxeA uasn., apnTOM :KU PTr+nm ST41 'aoueuTP= W4 30 guaguT aqg Gatti Im sap qT grtq 'a mTzeA a oab Cr4 za[Se2 gT 50X Pup VOUWir arp Su2XedP1 gT 'pT T� atp uT T u og STeaddy 30 pxeM aA p10TTe T 7A gtramzx-mw sTti; gerp lea; am eTz- 4T= asp ut�DTaNj 04 vTq am Mq4 qmp Tea; qcm op Aacp asn=eq Pe[szaotmo s•T sLeaddy 3o pzeog wql -eT-Tn-E= atT4 tpTA grraastsL'm aq og SPaar AgTO aqg grtg — eTx-X4TA asp abuetp PTt= art gptii PB; nTOtJM ag • sa=eTzeA ;O SzaZ49M a[p UT trae tb tmTga=YsTp peo-'q Aggazd sT asartp 4W4 W474s ATTVDTseq Prp A T asm gY P9-lPOT AauzoggV AgTO ac{t, SW=TaP nB agegs atp gaga[ sa=reTxeA zo3 YtxagT=) aqg gecp Pt=3 Pup PmPxeeP' x 33p.S '044 Pagpss WZ • t66T ' £ atmr PagpP '4- d a 33g-S aqg paguasazd saTSUVA • SW TprazLrri qlra=TataG PU71 V4 og WaLwau-'y •.• •_ • r_ a _• • w•r • • •.. _•n.. .� � 'aorTd uaXp3 aAeq grg4 s=-igtacmnm ATl-apm axe suol-4mac.m aqg P sou p 4W4 P474s VqS 'J 4S I Pule a q-STZ 'Y +S? I PassazPP2 aeTso`J 'sri 'Ag?J arp tmz3 sx7aq xes ;o adAg aa>s an;aoaz upo gs-T s-LT,, uo saT,,2d=d asp 4M4 Pagp:P VIE 't66T '£ aunf PagpP grodaz 33E',s ; t'� Paluasazd aaT�j 'SW r,0?--z4STQ aovva5 T� J0 roe, ,-5d &rggnTd 30 am?q at,-4 ge passe 1pp aq LTTM sgtraPTsaz ap 3o sanssT aRg 3o gs= 's.-aduTbctr f.�,TJ asp Ag POTPZL-4 axe sans- abetrre�p a4Z 'zas�i�2i 3o 24?J att3 jo:zE brmm eq 24zadozd sT44 Pue uorgpxacrua acig 30 sans-[ gcu axe sguapTsaz aqg Ag Tas'Taz axe gegg sanssT a,;L-Uc7gE>a atp sc buTnaiAaz st troTssra=J aqg uoTgt?oTTd32 ATuo aqg gegg Pip S gPrL'aH 'zii g a ue Aq gec{•g z03 P?pa ApgazTe aneq Aagg aouTs z94,em pue zam:as atp xpa aqg 203 squam-sasse ou aq PTrom aza q4 gecp pa-zu tmqu cc,' • zy4 •sgsoo asotp 30 aMs zo3 aTq?TT aq PTA tpatcD aqg a uTs gsm atp =xTe peuxam o azp Aagl •A:zx d zd Zratp og quaoeCpe aq pLrum zagp^ pre zamas gegg pagtps 't,a� gsradea AzrrqoTA 'sTxzDN A.zsal •.41 'm'70TTo3 og ssamad a s- azagg amgs Ag'J a:,-; uT msS- Pue am, vq- q4-r, TpaP m xa;az3 am tmTgt�muLm og =-mad suo -4 r sT sTt AT72DTd/4 47LZ4 Pagpgs aH -gu?od vrgg ge anssgegg ftm,,oTAaz axe Aagg 'spueigam: aqg bu pme aouectagcr eaz zo3 tmTgeOr03= 43sap og ApzATT?�-rp pxe,-,---Lmcq act anssT tmTgpASTa OOTT aqg C3 7uaC4Zpdaa 2a3pM a'','g tpTr, gam aAw Aarz •u0^-.us1aP aqTs-tm Ag FaTTOzgU= aq Og paztttbaz ST 33o4nz uT aseazxrt act, '=74sls Ure--q rs AgTJ a ag goat= earn n-tR aneq 0g AgTJ a.,y ggTm X-701. oq sar,,saP PzeOuuroc4 914L 'abeurezP aqg Seft PeS5,VOSTP PzpogUYK-4 a'q; gegg anss- MZ •zagg 6 psp q-= age== Pup uor�- r,= gaazgs acp z0; Led og aneq pTrem zado Tamp aT4L •passresrp exam: sarssT 3o AgaT mA y -=T4oaCgo ar exam. a-rakw pue uotgeoTTdde srt,*q pamaTla_z seq Pzpoqumog ate, 'sa—e g ATagt TxOzdtiie 30 sT uorgexs' -aup ar;L 'qu=,7Tdde at4 sguesazdaz aq gptrp PS']pg� ''�s 's»gaE Pzm 97q:oZ TTTS 'kI t661 ' s al-: ,' : agpp fx-7zeaH se"Ilmzrw troTSSTc>::sJ EUnro; Pup bunrueTd Ag-J 9 abpd REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/20/94 AGENDA SECTION: IONS ORIGINATING DEPT: tment ITEM NO. (.—... DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition 1194-5 by Western Walls I PREPARED BY: to annex 18.41 acres of vacant land Jane Kansier June 17,1994 On June 15, 1994, the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this petition to annex 18.41 acres of vacant land located south of West Highway 14, north of Valley Drive NW and norht and east of 46th Avenue NW and Diamond Ridge Court NW in Section 29 Cascade Township. The Commission found that this property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by City services. The Commission recommends approval of this request. Motion by Berndt to recommend approval of Annexation 094-5; second by Beed. The motion carried 5-0 (DeNtz abstained). JU • 1♦•_ • Z Minnesota Statutes do not require Township review of any annexation petition containing less than 60 acres and signed by all of the landowners involved before the City can adopt an annexation ordinance. See attached staff report dated June 2, 1994. Council Action Needed: 1. Should the Council wish to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted and transmitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated June 2, 1994 2. Minutes of June 8, 1994, CPZC Meeting W rr_ •i 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Copy of legal Description is attached 3. Planning Department File 4, Applicant This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 20, 1994, in the Council Chambers at City Hall. 5. McGhie and Betts, Inc. CUUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ANNEXATION EXHIBIT ` EXISTING C;TY LIMITS ,L ` , RESTERN IIAu s. INC. ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA McGhie Betts, SCALE 1" = 200' 2� Ob E=-- - a s r' I, = 200" M. Dr• BVC IM TI M(. l.C. Yya„�. �. AM fli-rfDlf G�OS-19-99 ilfLT. NO 1 Ol3/9196 GOD W, 4196ANNX n IV C3t�� o bl�.j _ c 1 1, .1 'SU: City Planning and Zoning Commission FRCM: Jane A. Ranier, Pla DATE: June 2, 1994 ♦V LN[ST G. y,M1hc 7 OI 2t • ,1 O aR�T[p..VLUST'S� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING HOUSINGiHRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELLiSEPTIC 5071285-8345 RE: Petition to Annex by Ordinance #94-5, 18.41 acres of vacant land located adjacent to the Diamond Ridge Development in Section 29, Cascade Township Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Western Walls, Inc. P.O. Box 6378 Rochester, MN 55903 City of Rochester Park and Recreation Department 403 East Center Street Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: This property is located south of Trunk Highway 14 West, north of Valley Drive NW and north and east of 46th Avenue NW and Diamond Ridge Court NW. Existing Land Use: This property is carresitly vacant land. Size: 18.41 acres Existing Zoning: The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) District on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. Future Zoning: Upon annexation, this property Will automatically be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single ai) . Family Residential). Land Use Plan: This site lies within the Urban Service Area of the City of Rochester. Adjacency to the Municipal Limits: 'Ibis property abuts the existing City limits along its entire south and east boundaries. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Annexation #94-5 une 2, 1994 Utilities: Sewer and water main will be extended from the existing mains located in 48th Avenue NW, 46th Avenue NW and Diamond Ridge Cast NW. This property is also located outside of the RPU Service Area boundary; however, RPU has no objections to this annexation. General Development Plan: In November, 1991, the Council adopted a general development plan for the area ]mown as Diamond Ridge. A revised version of this plan was approved by the Council in April, 1994. This annexation includes a part of Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the revised plan. This annexation also includes the City -owned parkland. Tawnboarl Review: Minnesota statutes currently allow the annexation by ordinance of any parcel of land abutting the municipal limits and less than 60 acres in size without Townboard review. Referral Camments: Rochester Public Works Department: see attached. _ No other comments or objections have been received from any of the referral agencies at this time. Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (1 letter) 2. Location Map 3. Diamond Ridge Gennxal Development Plan Staff Recommendation: This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by City Services. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2(3). ROCHESTER �% ��17�trPJIiCLL Mav 31, 1994 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 FROM: Department of Public Works g��llESTEA. to �� k .4A TED•�CG E"at •••` DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICcE !602 4th Street S.E. Rochester. MN 55904-4718 (507) 281-6008 FAX #(507)281.6216 RE: ANNEXATION BY ORDINANCE PETITION #9'4-5 BY WESTERN WALLS Public works comments concerning this matter are as follows: 1. Assessments J 8251 - CCM High Level Water Tower $1,531.496 per acre (includes 10 years interest) J 8619 - Trunkline Sanitary Sewer $1,130.7717 per acre (includes 10 years interest) 2. This annexation should include any portion of T.H.14 adjacent to it. Page 2 City Plannu-mg and Zoning nomi =ion Minutes Hearing Date: June 8, 1994 Mr. DeWitz noted that he would be abstaining from the disotLssion and vote on the two above items. Ms. Kansier presented the staff report dated June 3, 1994 for the Zand Subdivision and Annexation ¢94-5 dated June 2, 1994. She stated that the property would automatically be zoned R-1 when annexed. She stated that the plat would consist of 83 lots. 'There are 19 lots that do not meet the minirmm, lot requirement of 60 feet. The ordinance states that the continual frontage should be 60 feet and 19 of these lots do not meet this requirement. She stated that on the General Development Plan there are retention areas and a neighborhood park. There will be the dedication of three new streets. Ms. Kansier addressed the new streets and stated that there would need to be s®e changes to the street names. Because of the size of this plat it requires 100 spillover parking spaces. Staff noted that one of the six conditions of approval of the general development plan was for a drainage plan, and that has not been received at this time. Ms. Kansier stated that staff has reviewed this plat and would recommend approval based on the criteria being met. Ms. Kansier addressed the conditions. She stated that there was a referral from RPU water Division noting that they reed condition 13 done. Ms. Kansier stated that the annexation covers a little different area then the plat. She stated that this takes in area that is not a part of this plat at this time. This area is designated for low density residential uses. She stated that the property is also adjacent to the City limits. The townbcard has not reviewed this item. The property can be served by City services. Ms. Wiesner asked if the street renaming should be added as an eighth condition. Ms. Kansier stated that it would be a good way to have a reminder that this will happen. thus that could be added as an eighth condition. Mr. Chuck DeWitz, 604 11th Avenue NW, asked what condition #8 world be. Ms. Wiesner explained the name of the streets as addressed in the staff report. Mr. DeWitz addressed the citeria of staff as follows: 1. No problem to meet that. He thought the drainage report would have been ready today, but it is not quite yet done. 2. He stared that the 19 lots that do not meet the frontage requirements are pie -shaped lots. The lot size for square footage is over the buildable area. He stated that they world work with whatever they have to to get the lot frontage straightened out. Page 3 City Planning and 7cnirg nm=ission Minutes Hearing Date: June 8, 1994 Mr. Chuck DeWitz noted that there .nuld not be a problem .rich any of to remainder corditicns. He stated that the biggest concern is #2. He feels that they wild work with staff on tas. He would like s®e consideration for curvilinear streets. Ms. Kansier stated that under the 1972 ordinance, there was a provision for crrvizilinear streets. We do not feel that we could provide that provision since this was rescinded with the bard Development Manual. Ms. Wiesner asked how far were the lots off. Ms. Kansier staters that they ran from 45-57 feet. No one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request. Ms. Weisner closed the public hearing. Mr. Beed stated that is would be difficult to clear the lot frontages without seeing an amendment to the ordinance. He does not know what the c�iion can do, he does not feel that these could be varied at this time. Ms. Wiesner rented that they could cr.�e in for variances to those lot frontage requirements. Mr. Berndt made a motion to rea®arl approval. of Annexation 194-5, seconded by Mr. Peed. The mourn carried 6-0. Ks. Haley made a motion to recommend approval of Land Subdivision for Diamorx3 Pddge Eight with the following conditions: 1. A dra3xkige report and grading plan for this area, prepared according to the provisions H . _ .arxi. . . the . the condition of approval of the revised gerim7al development plan must be submitted far approval prior to the f I nal plat- Any improvements required by the drainagereport YYiwater detentionponds, constructed with otber improvements in the plat. The follamxj lots n3st be mac• to meetthe MUUMUM lot frontage requirementof •.Block •Block lots Block the plat so that it can eventually be ccroxx-� to a water =.in in the future Ruby Tane in the plats to the west. 4. Parkland dedicationfor this plat be met by a V dedication, in lieu of land. 5. The drainageway located beMoeen IDt IS, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, shall d be cbanged to a draincKga easement. .• s� 7. The suJArain system m3st be design8d to the Weclfla3t� Of the City g =J Page 4 City Planning and ZcrLi.ng C=i=cicn Pi=tes Hearin Cate: J.zie 8, 1994 n• - • •- - r - - • c-Y a r• '•_ _ _ • 1• - •' • •• • •� ofthe firehycIrant 1 •• • _ • _ •- - r•u- n•that theyhave no problem not have any signs on the • • _ _ _ _ •-�1 of or in cpposit-ion to - request. 1 •> n•- • •...iuu� • 31ZtIrCAIdl Of •�-V- DeVELI-OpMent line, beti,� tbe parking lot and •- - • •�.- •.•L• •- -rr •c•with a minimm NI • - sbrub far J •1 - r • r�J- q r• y,• .be •1 • pe ••- •Or into designed • • - I•- •� II •- - 15"•e•I•• v or J •1 -••- •-Y. •- ••. _•• v _•r • -length a•) - -•1r - - the •l•• •• area-area- L3ts 8 & 9 of Block 1, Any easements necessary to ••• •• -r• .. •r • - • • - be provided to the City case, the plans as •ri r a• •- JAM. • . • - • • •I •w • • •r driveway •_ •_ - •- • •,rr�• c .• :�rC n •r• • •• •rru • m _ •. • • • r • nrr 1 • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/20/94 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT E_ ( 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RAMP/SKYWAY/LIBRARY INSPECTION SERVICES D. KNOTTi The City is using BKBM Professional Engineers to provide special inspection services related to the construction of the Ramp, Skvwav and Library. The inspection work is a requirement of the building code. So as not to delay the projects we have had them on the site for some time. The scope of service to be provided and the fee was negotiated by our construction managers.. CPMI. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization to enter into a contract with BKBM Professional Engineers in the amount of $16,000 for the Ramp/Skyway and $13,890 for the Library for engineering inspection services. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: J1;N.-16'94!THl' 13:11 CHI ELOOT\GTON TEL:61' 654 1663 v )0? AGREEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT made as of the day of in the year Nineteen Hundred and BETWEEN the Owner: City of Rochester and the Consultant; BKBM Professional Engineers For the following Projects: Rochester Public Library Civic Center Ramp and Skyway Owner Representative: CPMI, Inc. ARTICLE 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 These general conditions and the accompanied proposal or authorization constitute the entire agreement between both parties. It supersedes all prior agreements in past or future purchases or work order conditions, even if the document Is signed by both parties. 1.2 Scope of Services shall be as outlined in BKBM's proposal dated 11 April 1994 and 19 April 1994. Copies attached. ARTICLE 2 OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY 2.1 The Owner shall provide Information relevant to the project. The Owner shall furnish required information as expediently as necessary for the orderly progress of the work. The Consultant shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness there of, 2.2 The Owner has designated a representative authorized to act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the project. The Owner's authorized agent is CPMI. All communications shall be through the Owner's representative. ARTICLE 3 CONSULTANTS RESPONSIBILITY 3.1 Testing and observations will be conducted using appropriate procedures and protocols. The Consultant shall provide professional services as described in ARTICLE 1. In performing the services, the Consultant shall act with the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of the engineering profession acting in the same locality. Written reports shall contain professional opinions and recommendations regarding conformance of things tested or observed based an established or agreed upon criteria. 3.2 Consultant services do not include supervising other contractors or commenting on, overseeing, or providing the means and methods of their work unless specifically agreed to in writing. Consultants shall provide a health and safety program for -heir employees. Responsibility for the contractor, job, or site health and safety is not included unless specifically authorized in writing. 41 Jl'� !6 ?,4 1 TH 1 15 CFM1 5L0011NGTON TEL:612 854 ,"63 P 90: iJ 3.3 The Owner shall provide access to the work site for the Consultant's personnel. The Consultant shall act with reasonable care to minimize damage to the work >ite. The cost of restoration of damage incurred beyond what is normally considered acceptable shall be paid for by the Consultant. 3.4 Reports furnished by the consultant shall be in triplicate. Documentation related to the services performed shall be retained as follows: Analytical Data will be retained for seven years and Financial Data for three years following the submission of the final report. 3.5 Neither party will assign this agreement without the express written approval o' the other, but the Consultant may subcontract work as they deem necessary after notice to the Owner. ARTICLE 4 DISPUTE RESOLUTION 4.1 Both parties may exercise those legal remedies in District Court as may be avai able to them in connection with any dispute arising out of disagreement which cannut be settled by the parties by change order. The venue for any proceedings is hear by agreed to be Olmsted County State of Minnesota unless otherwise specifically agreed. The Consultant shall carry on the work and maintain the progress schedule during any proceedings unless otherwise agreed to by both parties in writing. ARTICLE 5 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION 5.1 This agreement may be terminated by either party upon not less than seven (7) days written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with the terms of this agreement through no fault of the party initiating the termination. 5.2 In the event of termination not the fault of the Consultant. The Consultant shall be compensated for services performed prior to termination_ ARTICLE 6 GENERAL INDEMNIFICATICN 6.1 The Consultant will indemnify and hold the Owner harmless from and against demands, damages and expenses caused by the negligent acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract and of those persons for whom the Consultant is legally responsible. The Consultants are indemnified and held harmless from and against demands, damages and expenses caused by the Owner's negligent acts, errors, omissions or breach of contract and of those of persons for whom the Owrer is legally responsible. 6.2 To the extent that may be necessary to Indemnify either party under ARTICLE 6.1, both parties expressly waive in favor of the other only any immunity or exemption from liability that exist under any worker compensation low. JI.'S -16 ?4IT C1 ;j T i;F1'.I K00111SG70 TELL 6i2 6 w 766 "' P•004 ARTICLE 7 PAYMENTS TO THE CONSULTANT 7.1 The Consultant shall be paid within 60 days following the receipt of invuice. Interest may be charged on unpaid balances at the rate 1.5% per month but not to exceed the maximum rate allowed by law, beginning 60 days after receipt of invoice. 7.2 Compensation shall be as shown on attached proposals dated 11 April 1994 and 19 April 1994. Price quoted shall be a guaranteed maximum price (GMPI as follows: Civic Center Ramp and Skyway ($16,000.001 Rochester Public Library ($13,890.001 Consultant shall notify the Owner of changed conditions which may cause the 3MP to be exceeded. Additional work will not be paid for unless approved, in writing, by the Owner prior to commencement of work. 7.3 Reimbursable costs shall be compensated at direct costs and shall not include travel or living expenses. Acceptable reimbursable casts Include reproduction, postage, handling and delivery of documents, specifications or other documents, excluding reproductions for the office of the Engineer, Owner authorized overtime work. This agreement entered into as of OWNER CONSULTANT at REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 06/20/94 AGENDA SECTION: 10 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I ORIGINATING DEPT: FINANCE ITEM NO. E_14 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: REQUEST APPROVAL FOR LOW BID ON 1994 4 DOOR SEDAN JENNY KING The Public Works Department requests approval to accept the low bid of Universal Ford in the amount of $13,500. The funds have been approved in the 1994 Equipment Revolving Budget for this vehicle. The Universal Ford bid meets all specifications. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval for the Public Works Department to accept the bid of Universal Ford, in the amount of $13,500 for the purchase of a 1994 Ford Taurus G.L.. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Z a C m 3 a z d � Q n c o E o rt n � � c o r c w � N O u �O A 2 Viking Olds Datsun Rochester, MN Olds Ciera - 1994 v X o c W Ui N V } 3 Viking Olds Datsun m Rochester, MN Olds Supreme Specia -f Co Edition Sedan - '94 X 1p N A G N O 3 Universal Ford Rochester, MN 1994 Taurus G.L. 0 w x C:) 0 0 0 0 0 � C T C 2 a 0 n m 0 m O' 43 00 z-" aM m0 C = Sm N 0 zx x z z m Vl 0 i a T CD REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 06(20/94 AGENDA SECTION: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORIGINATING DEPT: FINANCE ITEM NO. -e--1 S ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: REQUEST APPROVAL FOR LOW BID ON 1994 1/2 TON 4/4 PICKUP JENNY KING The Public Works Department requests approval to accept the low bid of Universal Ford in the amount of $17,000. The funds have been approved in the 1994 Equipment Revolving Budget for this vehicle. The Universal Ford bid meets all specifications. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: proval for the Public Works Department to accept the bid of Universal Ford, in the ount of $17,000, for the purchase of a 1994 Ford F-150 4 WD pickup. r COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to: Z ¢ O 70 m 0 Q Z m n CD m z (D v G m m v ^ 3 L cr, 1 iT � n� n 0 E o c m m c � N � A O O � � A G � i-f � A N � c'' � O n G � � A C G 1 C i� Universal Ford Rochester, MN + x CD 0 1994 Ford F150 4WD 0 o n m 'aC z G CD Of T C a C x LI T"11 D 2 n m 0 m O1 c0 za >M QJ 0 G = rp m N 1 Z Z C Z Z m Cn O 4 D T m REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION_ MEETING DATE: 06/20/94 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINANCE go ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: REQUEST APPROVAL FOR LOW BID ON 1994 1/2 TON 4/2 PICKUP JENNY KING The Public Works Department requests approval to accept the low bid of Universal Ford in the amount of $11,000, less trade-in of one 1980 Chevrolet 1/2 ton pickup, City unit #502, for a total amount of $10,700. The funds have been approved in the 1994 Equipment Revolving Budget for this vehicle. The Universal Ford bid meets all specifications. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval for the Public Works Department to accept the bid of Universal Ford, in the amount of $11,000 less trade-in of one 1980 Chevrolet 1/2 ton pickup, City unit #502, for the purchase of a 1994 Ford F-150 2 WD pickup. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seoond E Z A o O 4 g Z s = 3 gm 0 CD m C a C7 E O CJ N 1p C� O 'p T !D � rt f �+ F O G O a � �p m v 3 Universal Ford m x Rochester, MN 1994 Ford F150 2WD + 0 X V CDO W O 0 a)O O O O C) �C 1 �C C A O 1 ! 2 � �C n C @ .3T f .Q REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ME=Ti" DArE 6/20/94 GENOA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY AITORNEY'S OFFICE I ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPY RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES RRY L. itiS F. 1. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. F..2. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). (a) Ordinance Rezoning the Rochester Airport Property from the R-1 lj District to the M-1 and AG Districts. (b) Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Subsection (5) of Section �3 63.252 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Site Location Standards for Site Location "Ell.(c} Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 62.342 and 62.352 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to Site Appearance Standards for Private and Public Air Transportation. F. 3. MISCELLANEOUS. F((a) Owner Contract; Basic Construction in Innsbruck Eighth p� Subdivision; Arnie Bomgaars and Rochester Sand and Gravel. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/20/94 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. TABLED ITEMS CITY ADMINISTRATOR C-7-' ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD BIDS FOR PHASE II AUDIOVISUAL IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED BY: FOR JOINT MEETING ROOM AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER D. OLSON On May 17th the City opened bids for the above project. Two bids were received and are summarized as follows: EPA EDC Labor $22,825 $12,388 Materials $70,638.29 $102,924 Base Bid $93,461.29 $115,312 Alternate Deduct for On/Off Mics. S 6,465 S 47235 Total Bid Less Deduct $86,998.29 $111,077 The total estimate prepared by Electronic Interiors for Phase II was $76,000 (not including on/off mic switches). The staff recommends that the on/off mic switches not be installed at this time. The County was contacted and was offered an opportunity to install the mics at their cost. They indicated that they did not wish to put in the mic on/off switches at the cost of $6,465. It should be noted that the City and County could install the on/off switches at a later date. EPA, who is the low bidder, was also the company that installed the Phase I improvements. The City has a credit of $1,950 from EPA from the Phase I installation resulting from the installation of a smaller screen Crestron panel than was originally specified. This would reduce the contract amount for Phase II to $85,048.29. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the low bid to EPA for Phase 11 Audio/Visual Improvements at the Joint Meeting Room at the Government Center for $85,048.29. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Electronic Interiors Inc 612 292 1063 P.02 E ^ June 3, 1994 Dave Olson City of Rochester City Hall Room 212 224 1 st Ave. SW Rochester, MN 55902 Dear Dave: We have reviewed the bid results for "Olmsted County Government Center City Council Chambers/County Boardroom Technical Systems, Phase 2". These are our findings: There were two qualified bids. One from EDC and one from EPA Audio -Visual. EPA Audio -Visual was the Phase 1 contractor. The bids breakdown as follows: Bidder Base Adjusted Base Deduct Deduct Total without Labor Equipment Alternate Alternate alternates Labor Equipment EPA 22,825.00 68,688.29 EDC 12,388.00 102,924.00 Pre -spec 12,000.00 64,000.00 Estimate 3,500.00 2,965.00 85,048.29 1,829.00 2,406.00 111,077.00 600.00 1,400.00 78,000.00 (additional) (additional) 5� 40 Mackubin Street 5t. Paul Minnesota 55102 2 Voice:612.292.1035 Fax:612.292.1063 as Architectural Gonoultants and Peolomem for Electronic Mcdla 5yotem5 & Technolooles Electronic Interiors Inc 612 292 1063 P.03 Our observations of the bid are as follows: 1. Our estimates were accurate with respect to EPA's equipment and EDC's labor. The Increase in EPA's labor rate can be attributed primarily to the driving distance from Rockford, MN to Rochester, MN. It has been determined that EDC's equipment bid is high due to the fact that they are not dealers for some of the higher cost items required by the specification. 2. We suggest that the Deduct Alternate be taken since the bids were high for this work and neither the City or County feel this feature is necessary at this time. This work can be re -bid at a later date. 3. With these conditions noted, we suggest that EPA Audio -Visual be obtained for the contract for a total of $85,048.29. If you have any questions, please call. Please continue to copy us on any correspondence you may have with the EPA. Sincerely, Dickson Stewart Electronic Interiors, Inc., Letter 06103194, Page 2