HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/4/1999_Annual (3) r
} W ,
Y a ~ f 1} 1 11 � •\y`4�'�`f1N. S_.�W. '�'>1
tA
pw
F Fr
x z
lot
4,0cc
/
I//r# �\^�,r •` _`� � � �' � �'i � � � .ems.
� 1 i
8
��
� H '}ELO
, � si
Mat
I Ho lit all.
• 1 ; � � ,f 1:y�ii,i,1� a
� •��� , • L ! / i I �� branrwu�i�•��6.n�tlf}$r{� i W A
• ,�,;, �- , _- —+v li,l t{c!!i!!:lEl�.i�l�_rt I o V
ge
\``�. �• Gi
M•
ra
It
�ft •�
x � �
� , 't / �• +r •\ Ili. ` 1 + iiiii
.,- � � •�• .. I III I.
' �. •\ � ( I it
:* 1
"ESTER.%If
COUNTY OF 15
rED-AIJGVSA
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPINGGISIADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
DATE: December 4, 1998 FAX 507/287-2275
RE: Type III, Phase 11 Site Planning Permit by Bouquet Builders to (1)amend General
Development Plan#129,currently known as the Mohn General Development
Plan and proposed to be known as"Avalon Cove". The applicant proposes to
change the Plan from a single family detached development to a
townhome/condominium development with private roadways; and(2)Variance
Request#98.30 to exceed the density and number of units per lineal footage
within the Shoreland Overlay District; and (3)Zoning District Amendment#98-18
to amend the zoning district from R-1 (Mixed Single Family)district to the R-2
(Low Density Residential)district on approximately 28.4 acres of land. The
property is located along the north side of tad St. SW,east of Cascade Creek and
west of the Mayo surface parking facility.
Plannina Dei3artment Review:
Applicant/Owner: Bouquet Builders
827 Woodgate Lane NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Designers: McGhie&Betts, Inc.
1648 3d Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Size and Location: The area includes 28.4 acres of land,located along
the north side of tad Street SW, east of Cascade
Creek and west of the Mayo surface parking facility.
Existing Land Use: The property is presently undeveloped cropland.
Proposed Amendment: The Mohn GDP-was approved on May 18, 1998 for
this property. The approved GDP is for single family
detached development. Mr. Bouquet has purchased
the property and he has proposed to amend the
current approved GDP for the site. The proposed
amended GDP proposing using the site for
townhome/condominium development with a density
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Site Planning Permit(Avalon Cove)
December 4, 1998
of approximately 6.6 units/acre.
The plan shows roadway connections Country Club
Road and the Mayo property to the east. The plan
also shows a number of private streets serving the
townhome development.
The plan shows the development being done in three
phases.
Land Use Plan: This property is identified of"Medium Density
Residential"uses and"Flood Prone"on the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family)on
the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
Streets: The amended general Development Plan proposes a
number of new streets to serve the property under
consideration. The streets within the development
will be private streets. The roadway connection to the
eastern property is proposed to be a public dedicated
roadway.
Sidewalks: Sidewalks are not required along private roadways.
There are pedestrian trails located along Country
Club Road and the eastern portion of the site.
Drainage: The General Development Plan identifies a
sedimentation basin in the northeast corner of the
site. This pond will be designed as a triple cell
sedimentation basin to better protect the water quality
of Cascade Lake.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required
when the property is platted.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The National Wetland Indicator Map was
reviewed for this area and identifies the possible
presence of wetlands throughout the property. Prior
to the approval of any Performance Residential
Developments permits or grading activities within this
area,a wetland delineation will be required.
Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer is presently located adjacent to the
east and northeast property lines. The northern
portion of the line will be abandoned in the future.
Water is available from the west and south.
Adequate water supply is available. RPU water
Division will work with the applicant to develop the
Page 3
Site Planning Permit(Avalon Cove)
December 4, 1998
necessary water system layout to serve the property.
Electric power to this property is presently provided
by Rochester Public Utilities.
Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication for the development will be met
via dedication of approximately 1.75 acres. The
balance of parkland dedication that occurs because
of the increased density will be via cash in lieu of land
contribution. Some credit will be given for the
sedimentation basin areas.
Referral Comments: RPU Electric Division, RPU Water Division, Planning
Dept.-Transportation Staff, Planning Dept.—John
Harford, US West, Rochester Public Works Dept.,
Olmsted County Public Works Dept., Park and
Recreation Dept., MnDot.
Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments(6 Letters)
2. Location Map
3. General Development Plan Narrative
4. Approved General Development Plan Map
5. Proposed Amended General Development Plan
Map
Staff Review:
This proposal is being considered as a Type III, Phase 11 Site Planning Permit according to
Section 61.301 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development manual. A site planning permit is
used to consolidate into a single procedure the review of a development proposal, which would
require approval of two or more permits. In this case, the development proposal consolidates 1)
an amendment to a General Development Plan, 2) zoning district amendment and 3) variance
request.
The first action is to amend the General Development Plan #129 currently known as the Mohn
General Development Plan and proposed to be known as "Avalon Cove". The second action
required for this development is a petition to amend the zoning designation on the property from
,the R-1 (Mixed Single family) to the R-2 (Low Density residential) zoning district (report is
separate from this report). The third action requested is a variance. The applicant is requesting a
variance to the density in the shoreland district and to the minimum lot width for a quad dwelling
within the shoreland jurisdiction.
Staff Recommendation:
Amended General Development Plan:
The Council approved the original GDP for this property, known as the Mohn Property GDP,on
May 18, 1998. The GDP was approved with five conditions. They were:
1) A combination of cash and land dedication will be required to meet the parkland dedication
requirements.
Page 4
Site Planning Permit(Avalon Cove)
December 4, 1998
2) The controlled access along 2nd street SW and any required turn lanes will be shown on the
final plat.
3) The applicant should work with Public Works in the design of the connection to the Mayo
property and Second Street along the east portion of the property.
4) The applicant coordinate with the Olmsted County SWCD and Public Works Department on
the design of the sedimentation basins.
5) The shoreland adjacent to the westerly sedimentation basin area and lots 3 and 4 be
stabilized.
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
criteria for approval of a general development plan as follows:
61.215 Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan: In approving a general
development plan, the Council shall find that.
1) The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Land Use Plan
and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been
addressed.
2) The proposed street pattem 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.
The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings under the criteria of Paragraph 61.215:
1. The adopted Land Use Plan identifies this property as "Medium Density Residential" and
"Flood Prone". The zoning map identifies the property as R-1 (Mixed Single Family). The
applicant has petitioned to amend the zoning on this property from the R-1 district to the R-2
(Low Density Residential) district. Although the site is designated for "Medium Density
Residential" types of uses, rezoning the property to the R-2 zoning district will be more
restricted than a zoning district that allows medium density types of uses. The proposed land
uses are in accord with the adopted Land Use Plan and zoning map.
2. The proposed street pattern and access locations appear to be appropriate to serve the
property under consideration. The roadways are proposed to be private streets and will need
to be evaluated when the site plan for a Performance Residential Development is submitted.
The eastern access to the site is a joint access with the Mayo Foundation and the applicant
will work Public Works in the design of the connection to the Mayo property and CSAH 34.
Page 5
Site Planning Permit(Avalon Cove)
December 4, 1998
3. The Plan provides for facilities that are generally consistent with planned capital
improvements.
4. Utilities are available or will be extended to serve this property.
5. The general drainage issue in this area is being reviewed and addressed as part of this GDP
process. Specific drainage and erosion control measures will need to be reviewed at such
time that specific land subdivision and development of the property occurs. Depending on the
grading of the property,an additional sediment basin may be required in the Southwest corner
of the property.
6. The development standards regarding Performance Residential Developments will be
reviewed in more detailed at the time a Performance Residential Development plan is
submitted for the property. The shoreland provisions, which apply to a portion of this
property, required a minimum lot width and a maximum density within the shoreland district.
The applicant has requested a variance to these standards to decrease minimum lot width
and to allow an overall density of the development to be approximately 6.6 units/acre.
Based upon the above mentioned criteria, the staff would recommend approval of the proposed
General Development Plan with the following modification(s), in addition to the five conditions
that were placed on the original GDP (Mahn property)and the park shown on the GDP Is be
known as"Mohn Park",for this property:
1. The Developer shall be responsible to provide right turn lanes along Country Club
Road/CSAH 34 at the access points to the property. The roadway widths at the
entrances need to be 20 feet on each side of the median.
2. The development be investigated for the present of wetlands and the necessary
applications be submitted to the LGU. The applicant has indicated that they are
preparing a no loss certificate for submittal to the LGU.
3. Depending on the grading of the prop", an additional sediment basin may be
required in the southwest corner of the property.
4. The developer provides a written request to the Public Works Department if they wish
to participate in the City's plan for storm water management. Detention ponds are not
shown on the property.
5. That the sanitary sewer be connected to the southern portion of the existing 8" line
along the east property line.
NOTE:
➢ Performance Residential permits will be required for the townhome development.
➢ 2"d Street is Incorrectly labeled on the GDP. The roadway should be Identified as
Country Club Road.
Variance:
The applicant is requesting a variance to the density in the shoreland district and to the minimum
lot width for a quad dwelling within the shoreland jurisdiction.
I
Page 6
Site Planning Permit(Avalon Cove)
December 4, 1998
According to Section 62.1004 1b) (Physical Limitations) in the City of Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, the lot width standard for a 4 unit building is 190 feet
in the Shoreland District, The size of the units within the shoreland district range from 72 feet to
124 feet in width. There will also be open space between the buildings, depending on the setback'
j requirements. A variance is also being requested to the density requirements of Section 62.1004
1 a) (Additional Special Provisions). According to this section, residential developments within
300 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level shall not exceed a base density of 4 units/acres. The
overall density of the site is approximately 6.6 units/acre.
I
Section 60.417 (attached) lists the findings required to approve a variance. In this case the staff
suggests the following findings:
I
j EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS: There would appear to be extraordinary circumstance
that would apply to this property that would not apply generally to other properties in the
neighborhood. With the irregular shape of the property, the shoreland district covers a large
portion of the site restricting the density of the property. The shoreland district only allows a
density of 4 units/acre, while the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates
this property for"medium Density Residential"types of uses, the shoreland district regulations
restrict this parcel from being used at the higher density,closer to the designation on the Land
Use Plan. With a Performance Residential Development, the lot size is usually just the
j building width, but there will additional open space between the units, depending on the PFD
j setbacks.
REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use
of the property. The property is designated of"Medium Density Residential"types of uses on
the Land Use Plan and in order to use the property at higher density a variance to the
shoreland district density and to the lot width standard for a 4 unit building in the shoreland
district is needed.
j ABSENCE OF DETRIMENTAL: This variance request would not appear'to be substantially
detrimental to the other surrounding property. A strip of land and a lake to the north buffers
the property. The proposed pond along Country Club Road will also buffer the property from
the surrounding developments.
j MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the
alleged hardship would be a variance to the lot width standard for 4 unit buildings in the
shoreland district and the maximum permitted density of 4 units/acres within the shoreland
district.
I
I
� II
i
I
Page 7
Site Planning Permit(Avalon Cove)
December 4, 1998
CITY OF ROCHESTER
ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMNET MANUAL
EXCERPTS
60.417 Findings for Variance: 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 it
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 lands
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 have
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.
ii
ROCHESTER PARK AND R. REATION DEPARTMENT
rochester
I
MEMORANDUM
ii
II DATE: November 18, 1998
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
FROM: Denny Stotz vw
SUBJECT: Avalon Cove General Development Plan
i .
I
Park Department staff has met with the applicant and McGhie & Betts representatives.
The Park Department 's concerns regarding this property were addressed with the
adoption of the Mohn GDP. The Park Department's concerns continue to be met in this
GDP proposal.
Parkland dedication for the development will be met via dedication of approximately
1.76 acres as shown on the GDP. The applicant will be given credit for the sedimintation
basin areas because of the unique situation that a triple cell pond is being required to add
further protection for the water quality of Cascade Lake and because the basin will allow
for a continous connection to the potential parkland to the east. The balance of parklanu
dedication that may occur because of the increased density will be via cash in lieu
contribtuion.
The park shown in the southeast portion of the development is be known as "Mohn
i
Park" as per Council action when the Mohn GDP was approved.
�i
I
i
II
I
N:WW2898WVALON COVE GDP.DOC
I
I
!�q
COUNTY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
507/285-8231
November 19, 1998
Suzanne LaPalm
Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Suzanne:
The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III, Phase II Site
Planning Permit by Bouquet Builders to (1) amend General
Development Plan #129 and has the following comments:
Right turn lanes will be required from CSAH 34 (2d St.
S.W. )
Sincerely,
Z 6
o
Michael T. Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS: ss
t:\engindoc\planzone.doc
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks&Agriculture Solid Waste
u
November 23, 1998 1
Rochester-Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III,Phase III, Site Planning Permit by Bouquet Builders to(1)amend
General Development Plan#129, currently known as the Mohn General Development Plan and
proposed to be known as Avalon Cove. Changing the previous single family development to a
townhome/condominium development. (2) Variance request#98-30 to exceed the density and
number of units per LF within the Shoreland Overlay District and(3)Zoning District Amendment
#98-18 to amend the zoning district from R-1 to the R-2 district. The property is located along �
the north side of 2nd St. SW east of Cascade creek and west of the Mayo surface parking facility.,
Dear Ms. LaPalm:
Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and,our comments follow:
1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The
Assessments Manager(507-281-6004)at the Public Works Department determines the
applicability of these fees.
2. The property has adequate water supply for both domestic and fire flow capabilities for the
intended use with connections to the two locations adjacent to the site.
3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system
layout to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
ery truly yours,
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813
telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542
TRANSPORTATION STAF,
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REVIEW DATABASE- 1998
Jurisdiction I Application Comments
NOVEMBER 1998
ty F Plat 98-26 No comment
S Park 4th
City ZC 98-17 No comment
Continental
City 98-32 No comment
rova
City Var 98- No comment
Walterman
County C use 98-17 No comment
Greenwa Coo
City Var 98-33 No mment
US West
County F Plat 98-2 No comet
Weatherhill 5th
City Var 98-29 The driveways on 'd Ave an Ave need to be setback as great a distance as
Kwik Trip possible from 12d'St s operation.I would not recommend or support any
action by the Board of als to move the driveways closer to 12d'St on this
site.
City Var 98-28 No comment
Hiawatha
City Annex 98-17 No co ent
Forbrok/Bi elow
City ZC 98-19 o comment
Arend
City PUD B-90 No comment
Amendm
Fiksd otel
City C se 98-24 No comment
exum
City Vacation 98-19 Does the vacation of the alley affect truck delivery routiag patterns for er
Fiksdal commercial uses on this block?How will truck deliveries be handled uses this
block without the continuityfor throughtravel provided b the alley?
City GDP 129 Some of the comments I offered on the previous General Development Plan are
Avalon Cove still germane to this application.These include:
♦ Some accommodation for a city bus stop should be provided that allows the
buses to pull out of the main travel lanes of 2nd St SW.This could possibly be
accommodated in an auxiliary lane that would also serve as a right turn lane
for the west access to the development.The City Transit Coordinator should
be consulted.
♦ The pedestrian plan element of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan
identified the need for improvements along 2°d St SW between 23`d Ave,
where the existing sidewalk system ends,and West Circle Drive.This need
was identified based on the anticipated pattern of residential and park
development along the 2"d St Corridor,the role of 2°d St in the bus route
system,narrow roadway shoulders that pedestrians will find unsuitable or
uncomfortable for use,and anticipated travel speeds on the order of 35-45
MPH in the corridor.Options that could be considered include a contribution
to the future construction of a sidewalk that would be completed as a public
project or installation of sidewalk at this time along the frontage of the
property.
♦ Right turn lanes at the access points should be provided for and the proposed
drainage pond should be setback an adequate distance to allow the long term
public acquisition of an additional right of way if the growth in traffic along
2°d St requires extension of the two way left turn lane from 23`d Ave
westward or the installation of left turn bays at intersections.It appears that
12/03/98 R:\PLANDATA\REFERRAL\98_REFRL.DOC
ill
TRANSPORTATION STAF.
�!! DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REVIEW DATABASE- 1998
VVVV!!!! Jurisdiction I Application Comments
T--7-
the need for left turn facilities is not an immediate need but based on
estimated Year 2015 traffic volumes there is likely to be a need for some
accommodation to facilitate safe left turn movements along this corridor.
I�
12/03/98 R\PLANDATA\REFERRALV8 REFRL.DOC
'LI-AMERICA CITY
R O CHE S TER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
201 4th Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
(507) 287-7800
December 1, 1998 FAX#(507) 261-6216
TO: Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department
FROM: Rochester Public WorksrA,4/1
RE: Type III, Phase 11 Site Planning Permit by Bouquet Builders to be known
as Avalon Cove
Comments by Public Works are as follows:
1 Development is subject to sewer availability fee of$1,500/acre and water
availability fee of$2,000/acre. Charges are also required for traffic signs.
2. The Developer has acknowledged the use and benefits of the regional concept
for storm water management for this property. The developer must provide a-
written request to this Department if he wishes to participate in the City's plan.
3. Depending on the grading of the property, an additional sediment basin may be
required in the Southwest corner of the property (as is was shown on the Mohn
GDP).
4. Development must address the shore and restoration and stabilization adjacent
to Interlachen Lake.
5. The sanitary sewer must be connected to the southern portion of the existing 8"
line along the east property line; the northern portion of the 8" line will be
abandoned in the future.
An Tqud opponunity TiTfoyff
i
ROCHE R•OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTM,
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE
ROCHESTER, MN 55904
FAX (507) 287-2275
I
Date: November 13, 1998
To: Agencies Indicated Below
From: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department
Subject: Type Ill,Phase 11 Site Planning Permit by Bouquet Builders to(1)amend General Development Pian'#129,
currently known as the Mahn General Development Plan and proposed to be known as"Avalon cove", The
applicant proposes to change the Plan from a single family detached development to a
townhornelcondominium development with private roadways;and(2)Variance Request SM40 to exceed the
density and number of units per lineal footage within the Shoretand Overlay District;and(3)Zoning District
t Amendment JIMIS to amend the zoning district from R-1(Mixed Single Family)district to the R 2(Lave
Density Residential)district on approximately 28.4 acres of land. The property is located along the north
I
side of a St.SW,east of Cascade Creek and west of the Mayo surface parking facility.
j
This application is scheduled for consideration by the City Planning and Zoning Commission on
December 9, 1998,at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4`s Street
SE. in order for the Planning Department to prepare a thorough review of this application,we would
appreciate receiving your comments by November 30, 1998. You may also appear at the meeting if
II
you so desire.
Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
City Agencies County Agencles Other Agencies
1. Public works 13. Health Department 16. School Board
Richard Freese Rich Peter Earlene Wickre
2. Fire Department 14. Public Works 17. Peopiem Natural Gas
Lyle Feisch 15. GIS Division Mark Ernst
3. Crime Prevention 18. US West
G. Mulleneaux, Dean Erdmann
Gov.Center 19. TCI Communications
4. RPU Electric Division 20. MN DOT
Roger Kanestadt
Steve Alderson
5. RPU Water Division
Donn Richardson 21. Post Office
Supervisor
6. Park&Recreation 22. MN DNR
Denny Stotz Jim Cooper
7. Building Safety 23. SWCO
Don Wees Steve Connally
8. City Attorney 24. Peoples Coop
Dave Gosiee Rick Wellik
9. Downtown Dev,Dist.
Doug Knott
I
10. City Administration
Terry Spaeth i, /Yt ➢60
ii 11. Transportation Planner I, .
12. John Hanford,Planning 7-7. �,-�-
Dept.
I �
NOTE: CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY ENGi ER. PLEASE CATE IF THE
STREET IDENTIFICATION IS CORRECT IF THE ATTACHED IS A PLAT.
I I
i
..•� � � ye}'i .E?:1i�==!�.h�raF:F«�a'` f.'6��'A.7�.��..n...! ;.�•t'�.�i� :..r.:-..�.
�_` GENERAL: DEVELOPMENT REPORT
�.h.-�' ,.r prt5 . �,x� .��. .��:_ •.:.:-... ,- FOR'
AVALON COVE
9?id!r'�+. •'�-t:'7�:, f i �'.. .., a :,;y�i`. .r.,. ice, � ..
IN- PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF
SECTION 33
CASCADE TOWNSHIP
ROCHESTER9 MINNESOTA
•fr,»tea^�,. . . ;..,� � I
,.+.'a�'.�'-a�.-•hw•�K Y. ,. .. ' 'Sic� .• - ,. - �D
ROCHEStER Ou1,STc
pLpNNINO OEPARTFtENt
..
McGhie Betts,
Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors
Planners
1648 Third Avenue S.E, Rochester,MN 55904 507-289-3919
INDEX
TITLE
INDEX
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY/BACKGROUND
SITE ANALYSIS
PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
EXHIBITS
General Development Plan
Water Distribution Plan by Rochester Public Utilities
Written comments (November 5, 1998) by Department of Public Works
I,i
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT
FOR
AVALON COVE
I. INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B-1, Item
E, of the Informational Supplement to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual, as adopted by the City of Rochester, January 8, 1992.
This report is intended to provide a descriptive narrative of the accompanying General
Development Plan, dated November 12, 1998 prepared by McGhie & Betts, Inc., of
Rochester, Minnesota. The General Development Plan and Report represent planning of the
site in order to guide future development of the property for a townhome project.
The General Development Plan and Report concentrate on 28.4 acres of the former Furlow
farm which is currently being purchased by Bouquet Builders. This narrative address
several issues as required in the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and
provides some clarification of the aesign and function of the General Development Plan.
A General Development Plan and Report for a low density residential development on this
property was prepared on February 18, 1998. This plan was approved by the City Council
on May 4, 1998 subject to four conditions. Those conditions apply to this development as
well and are addressed in the following appropriate sections. The four (4) conditions are:
(1) A cash dedication, in lieu of land, will be required to meet the parkland dedication
requirement. (in excess of the land dedication)
(2) The controlled access along 2nd Street SW and any required turn lanes will be
shown on the final plat.
(3) A possible future north/south trail east of the property to provide connection to the
parkland (west of Cascade Creek) shall be identified.
(4) The applicant should work with Public Works on the design for the connection to
Mayo property and 2nd Street SW along the east portion of the property.
I /
General Development Report
Bouquet Property Pace 5
II. HISTORY/BACKGROUND
This property has been planned for residential development for many years by the previous
owner Mohn Realty & Home Builders Inc. Throughout this time, a variety of flood studies
were performed by Barr Engineering. The current flood elevations are shown on the plan.
In 1993, this area was considered for a designated fill site from the US COE/City Flood
Control Project but was not selected. However, a grading plan was prepared and submitted
to Public Works for the City of Rochester. As a part of the approval process for the
designated fill site, a historical archeological survey was performed. No significant
findings exist and the site was allowed to be designated for fill.
There exists a joint access agreement with Mayo Foundation for access to 2nd Street SW.
This access agreement was in effect prior to Mayo purchasing the property.
In 1997, the County acquired an easement for drainage across the site. This easement is
shown on the plan and hanales upstream arainage. The project has improved the drainage
from upstream and has eliminated unnecessary ponding and flow problems.
III. SITE ANALYSIS
A. Location
The Bouquet property is located in the southwest quarter of Section 33 of Cascade
Township. It is bounded along the south property line by C.S.A.H. 34 (2nd Street
SW), the east property line is bounded by property owned by the Mayo Foundation,
that functions as an employee and construction worker parking lot, the north
property line adjoins Interlachen properties, and the west property line adjoins the
Cascade Creek corridor, a portion of which is owned by Olmsted County.
B. Site Characteristics
The property has elevations ranging from 1020 M p perry g g SL along the west property line to
an elevation of 1010 MSL at the northeast end of the site. Currently the property is
General Development Report
Bouquet Prwerty — - Pace 6
being row cropped. Drainage patterns across the site vary. The overall drainage
pattern is from south to north with upstream drainage flowing from an existing 10'
x 4' box culvert located under Id-nd Street SW into -,, ditch parallel to 2nd Street SW.
There is some tree cover along the north property line in the southwest comer. A
row of trees also exist along the northerly property line on the Interlachen property.
The drainage system proposed for the project site and the related improvements are
discussed in another section of this report.
A sanitary sewer line exits along the east property line that has the capacity to serve
the site.
C. Wetlands
As part of the planning process, McGhie &Betts Environmental Services, Inc.
examined the site for wetlands, as defined by the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act,
and also used the published soils intormation, aerial mapping, and their knowledge
of the area to determine the presence of wetlands. A review of thd Soil Survey of
Olmsted County, Minnesota, prepared by the Soil Conservation Service indicates
areas of hydric soil conditions. The aerial mapping reviewed indicates the
possibility of areas with wetland conditions, however, National Wetland Inventory
Maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands. The staff of McGhie & Betts
Environmental Services, Inc. has performed a field analysis to determine actual
areas of wetland conditions. Based on this field analysis there are no wetlands
located on the project site. A no loss certificate will be filed prior to the
preliminary plat.
D. Soils
A subsurface exploration has not been performed on the site. According to the
Olmsted County Soil survey, the area consists of soils that have formed both in
loess and glacial till, and are largely silty or loamy textured. A subsurface
exploration will be performed to identify the exact soil profiles, water table, and
other features to consider in the design of the subdivision.
General Development Report
Bouquet Proye�Page 7Proye�Page 7
According to the Olmsted County Soil Survey the following soils exist on the site:
289 Radford Silt loam
301B Lindstrom silt loam, 2-6 percent slopes
301C Lindstrom silt loam, 6-15 percent slopes
467 Sawmill Marshan silt loam
E. Land Use & Zoning
The current Land Use Plan designates this property for medium density residential
use. It is currently zoned R-1. As a part of this submittal, the applicant is
proposing to rezone the property to R-2 which would allow townhome development.
A separate document addresses that issue in more detail.
W. PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. Description of the Plan
The attached General Development Plan shows the proposed use of the property.
The entire area is proposed for a townhome development in a R-2 zoning district.
All structures will contain four units with attached garages. There are four different
styles of four unit structures. The plan is designed around a "looped" street and
two cul-de-sacs. A pond will be constructed along 2nd Street SW with decorative
fountains.
B. Access/Roads
Access to the roe will be from 2nd Street SW at two locations. At the east
property�Y I
location, a 66' foot joint agreement for access has been recorded between the Mayo
Foundation and the Bouquet property and is located on the Mayo Foundation
property along their western property line. At this access, a dedicated public
W the east property of Bouquet is proposed. A secondly
roadway from 2nd Street S to p perry q p p i
access lies to the west which is opposite to the entrance to the Rochester Golf and
Country Club. Past discussions with Mr. Sheehan and at the November
General Development Report
Bouquet Property Paee 8
pre-development meeting have taken place to confirm two access points to 2nd
Street SW.
The roads within the development will be private. The planned roadway widths are
22' from back of curb to back of curb.
C. Utilities
1. Sanitary Sewer
The sewer service for this development will be gravity flow sanitary sewer
to the existing 8" municipal sanitary sewer east of the property. This public
sewer will be routed through the internal street system of the proposed
development to the westerly property line.
2. Watermai
The existing water supply facilities in the area include a 12" low level
watermain located south of 2nd Street SW, and an 8" water main extended
north to 2nd Street SW from Estates Lane SW. The existing 12"
watermains will be extended to serve the property and a 12" main will be
stubbed east to the Mayo property for future connection.
3. Storm Water/Drainat,
Storm sewer systems are planned to be extended through the development
with outlets into the proposed sedimentation basins. Along with providing
storm sewer pipe systems, City Ordinance requires that the increase in the
10-year and 100-year storm frequency runoff rates after development must
be detained. Although there is adequate room for the plan to provide both
sedimentation and detention, we have not incorporated detention facilities
into the plan since the Department of Public Works has identified the created
lake from the mining activity to the north as a regional detention area. The
created regional detention area is designed to include runoff rate increases
from the Bouquet property. The sedimentation basins and temporary
erosion control will also be provided as necessary during development of the
17-000
General Development Report
Bouauet Property Page 9
Bouquet property and a triple cell basis is planned in the northeast corner of
the site.
4. Electrical Power
This property lies within the service territory of Rochester Public Utilities.
A three phase line is inplace on the North side of 2nd Street SW. There is
sufficient capacity available to serve this property
5. Gas Service
An inplace 4" main on the south side of 2nd Street SW can be extended
to serve the development in its entirety without any need for additional
capacity.
D. Project Details
The proposed general development plan contains approximately 28.4 acres with 188
units. This converts to a density of approximately 6.6 units per acre. According to
the Shoreland District Ordinance, residential development located-within 300' of the
Ordinary High Level of a lake shall not exceed a base density of four units/acre of
land within the development. As a part of this submittal, a variance is proposed to
allow this increased density. A separate document addresses that issue in more
detail.
The minimum lot width for a quad dwelling type for this property is 190' within the
shoreline jurisdiction area. Lot size is regulated by the Shoreland Ordinance in
Section 62.1000 of the Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance. Based
on 2580 lineal feet of shoreland the Ordinance allows 54.3 units. This development
proposes 64 units along the lake and therefore a variance has been proposed as a
part of this submittal to allow for the increased number of units. A separate
document addresses that issue in more detail.
The northwest comer of the site contains an area of approximately 350' of
shoreland that is in need of reclamation and erosion control. A slope stabilization
permit was issued by the DNR in 1993 for this area that will need to be renewed.
General Development Report
Bouquet Property Page 10
E. Parkland
An agreement was reached between tthe-previous landowner (Mrs. Mohn) and the
Park Department to provide credit for parkland dedication (of land) in the amount of
1.75 acres. This land is located along Bouquet's east property line. This acreage
includes the sedimentation basin area because of the unique situation that a triple cell
pond is being required to add further protection for the water quality of Cascade
Lake system and the basin area also allows for continuous connection to the
potential parkland to the east. The balance of the parkland dedication requirement
will be met by a cash contribution.
A future bikepath/trail system from the future pedestrian bridge crossing Interlachen
Lake to the Bouquet property is shown on the plan. This would tie into the above
mentioned future trail on the property purchased by the City from Quarve/Anderson
to a potential parkland to the east. These are future improvements that would be
made by the City.
A proposed bikepath along 2nd Street SW is also being planned.
F. Phasing
It is anticipated that this property will be developed in three phases. Phase I
includes the easterly one-third of the site (containing approximately 48 units) and
the proposed pond is planned for 1999 - 2000. Phase II would be the middle one-
third of the site containing approximately 64 units will be done in 2000 - 2001. The
final phase would be the westerly one-third of the site containing approximately 76
units are planned for 2001 - 2002
V. Criteria for Approval of General Development Plans:
Section 61.215 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual
lists the six criteria that must be considered in approving a General Development Plans.
General Development Report
Bouquet Property,
The development plan presented with this report is in accordance with the six criteria;
compliance with the criteria is as follows:
I. The proposed land use for this property is consistent with the adopted Land Use
Plan and Zoning Map. The existing land use is medium density.
2. The proposed street pattern is appropriate to serve the property under consideration
and will not restrict development of adjoining lands. The Mayo property will share
an access with the Bouquet Development.
3. The City of Rochester's current Capital Improvement Program and Currently Held
Thoroughfare Plan do not contain any provisions for planned capital improvements
and streets on the property.
4. Utilities are close to the project boundary and will be available to serve the area.
5. Drainage, erosion problems and construction of this property can be handled
through normal engineering and construction practices.
6. The lot, block and street layout for this property is consistent with the land
subdivision design principle contained in article 64.1W
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held
on Wednesday, December 9, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. at the Government Center, Council/Board
Chambers, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Mr. Bob DeWitz, Chair; Mr. Jim Suk, Vice Chair; Mr. Dave Patterson; Mr.
Randy Staver; Ms. Mary Petersson; Ms. Lisa Wiesner; Mr. Bernard Cevera; Ms. Diane
McGowan
Members Absent: Ms. Christine Schultze
Staff Present: Ms. Suzanne LaPalm, Ms. Mitzi A. Baker; Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch; Mr. John Harford;
Mr. Phil Wheeler
Other City Staff Present: Terry Adkins, City Attorney; Mike Nigbur, Public Works Department
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:
Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve the minutes of November 23, 1998.
Ms. Peterson seconded the motion. The minutes from November 23, 1998,
were approved unanimously.
Ms. Petersson made a motion to change the agenda to hear the Site
Planning Permit by Bouquet Builders first because of the large turnout.
Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Type III, Phase II Site Planning Permit by Bouquet Builders to (1) amend General
Development Plan #129, currently known as the Mohn General Development Plan and
Proposed to be known as "Avalon Cove". The applicant proposes to change the Plan
_ from a single family detached development to a townhome/condominium development
with private roadways: and (2) Variance Request#98-30 to exceed the density and
number of units per lineal footage within the Shoreland Overlay District: and (3) Zoning
District Amendment#98-18 to amend the zoning district from R-1 (Mixed Single Family)
district to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district on approximately 28.4 acres of land.
The property is located along the north side of 2na St. SW, east of Cascade Creek and
west of the Mayo surface parking facility.
Mr. DeWitz handed the gavel over to Vice Chair Suk, and stepped down from the dais for this
' hearing.
q(�age
ity Planning and Zoning Commission;Minutes
Hearing Date: December 9. 1998
Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated December 4, 1998, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Baker explained that this application is a revision to the previously approved Mohn general
development plan, now known as Avalon Cove, in order to accommodate townhome and
condominium development. She noted the density will be approximately 6.6 units per acre, and
explained the roadway connections and drainage, pointing out that there will be a triple cell
sedimentation basin. Ms. Baker stated that prior to approval of any performance residential
development permits or grading activities, a wetland delineation will be required. She explained
that this application also includes a zone change from the R-1 zoning district to the R-2, and a
variance to the density in the shoreland district and to the minimum lot width for a quad dwelling
within the shoreland jurisdiction. She pointed out that three separate actions will be required by
the Commission.
Ms. Baker explained that the original general development plan was approved in May of 1998
with five conditions. She stated that based on staff-suggested findings, staff recommends
approval of the GDP with the five original conditions and five additional conditions. She noted
that on condition number one of the additional conditions, the second sentence should be
deleted.
Ms. Baker reviewed the lot width standards for a quad building in the shoreland district, pointing
out only a portion of the. site will be affected. She noted that staff has suggested findings for the
variance, which are included in the staff report.
Ms. Baker stated the property is currently zoned R-1 and the Land Use Plan designates it
suitable for"medium density residential" and "flood prone." She explained the zoning of
adjacent properties and reviewed the staff-suggested findings. Ms. Baker commented that,
based upon those findings, staff recommends approval: of the zone change from the R-1 to R-2
zoning district.
Representing Bouquet Builders, Mr. Bill Tointon of McGhie & Betts, addressed the Commission.
He presented some background information on this property and presented an aerial map. Mr.
Tointon explained that they met with representatives from the Mayo Foundation in October to
determine if there were any conflicts, and there were none. He stated that a predevelopment
meeting has also been held, along with meetings with the Crime Resistance Unit, the
neighbors, Public Works, and the Park & Recreation Department. He pointed out that this
property lies outside of the floodway, so units will not have to be elevated. Mr. Tointon
explained that a townhome development will be a better utilization of the property and will allow
more control of open space because of common maintenance, snowplowing, landscaping,
drainage, etc. He stated the retention basin will improve water quality and will offer aesthetic
benefits in the form of a fountain. Mr. Tointon listed the types of restrictions that will be
contained in the covenants, and noted that there will be a higher level of security because of
the private road system, additional street lighting, signage and house numbering. He explained
there will be 188 townhomes in four-unit buildings, which will be built in three phases,with a
density of 6.6 units per acre. Mr. Tointon reviewed the overflow parking, landscaping,
parkland, and utilities. He presented photographs taken of the site from the neighbors to the
north, and explained the distances between the single family homes and the townhomes. He
stated a reason to support the variance to the shoreland ordinance is because of the shape of
the parcel, which would result in a majority of the site being consumed if they had to comply by
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes T7
Hearing Date: December 9. 1998
the 300 foot setback. He noted that the variance would also allow them to have units that
overlook the lake, and pointed out that 6.6 units per acre is a low density for a townhome
development. Mr. Tointon explained that this is first project in the area that will go to a triple cell
sedimentation basin, which will consume more land than normal. He stated that Mr. Bezak of
the Department of Natural Resources told him he wasn't concerned with the variance. partly
because this is an urbanized area that will be utilizing municipal sewer and water.
Mr. Tointon addressed the zone change, stating they felt that a change to R-2 was best
because it would be more restrictive in terms of development potential than the R-3 and it
makes it compatible with the surrounding R-1 zoned area. He stated that at the neighborhood
meeting, the issue of the strip of land along the shore, not owned by Mr. Bouquet, was raised.
Mr. Tointon stated that Mr. Bouquet has since purchased that strip of land and will be regrading
and mining a portion it, and this will enable him to stabilize the shoreline. Mr. Tointon made
himself available for questions and asked for the opportunity to readdress the Commission if
other points are brought up.
Ms. Petersson asked about detention/retention ponds and if they are planning on signing off on
the stormwater management plan.
Mr. Tointon explained that the stormwater management plan addresses the issue of stormwater
runoff on the entire site, and during the design phase, they will determine if they can contain all
their runoff within their own pond, and if that is the case, they will not have to participate in the
stormwater management plan. He stated they believe they will be able to contain their own
water, and that is the reason they are going to a triple cell sedimentation basin.
Gary Lingbeck, 146 Interlachen Lane NW, addressed the Commission. He stated he is a
member of the Interiachen Homeowners Association and they held a board meeting where a
majority of the Interlachen homeowners did approve of this development, but he noted they
have some suggestions. Mr. Lingbeck explained they would like the density of the shoreline
units to be decreased to 4 units per acre, they would like the permits for filling in a portion of the
lake to be rescinded, and they would like a bike path to be constructed on the 60 foot strip of
land along the shore. He pointed out that if that strip of land is mined, a number of trees will be
removed.
,nA
Shawn O'Driscoll, 166 Lachenview Lane NW, addressed the Commission. He express.
concerns about the environmental impact of this development and the long-term stability of the
lake. Mr. O'Driscoil stated that any increase in use or density will cause the potential for an
undesirable effect on the lake. He also expressed concern over the affect this development will
have on property values in his-area, and he noted that restrictive covenants may not be binding
over time. He pointed out that at the neighborhood meeting, there was no mention of Mr.
Bouquet purchasing the 60-foot strip of land along the shoreline. Mr. O'Driscoll stated he did
not feel this development should proceed unless these issues are addressed.
Mr. Tointon readdressed the Commission and stated the permit for stabilization of the shoreline
was issued in 1993 to the Mohns by the Department of Natural Resources and the US Army
Corps of Engineers for the purpose of trying to prevent further degradation of the shoreline and
to stabilize it so it would not continue to cut into the Mahn property. Mr. Tointon stated that if
they do not fill this, there is a risk of continuing to degrade the shoreline. He noted that the
permit is transferable to Mr. Bouquet.
Page 4
c1tv Plannine and Zoning Commission \Jitiutes
Hearing Date: December 9. 1998
Mr. Suk asked how much more infill is proposed.
Mr. Tointon stated it would be approximately 60-80 feet in width and about 100 feet in length.
Mr. Suk asked why the infill is necessary to prevent erosion.
Mr. Tointon explained that this area is the old Cascade River basin and as the water comes out
of the large culverts under 2n,, Street, the velocity is so high that in heavy rainfalls, it shoots
around the corner of the shoreline and causes erosion. He noted this also needs to be
stabilized for safety reasons. Mr. Tointon stated that at the time of the neighborhood meeting,
there was no intention of buying the 60-foot strip of land, but after discussions at that meeting, i
made sense to Mr. Bouquet to look into that. He explained that the triple cell sedimentation
basin will help protect the water quality and he noted there is a plan in the works for an
upstream water management plan to help control some of the discharges of nutrients and
chemicals for fertilization that are applied to the crops in the agricultural areas upstream. Mr.
Tointon addressed the concerns about density stating they don't feel 6.6 units per acre is out of
line. He pointed out that the restrictive covenants will be recorded and he believes issues of
concern can be controlled through the covenants.
Mr. Suk asked about the possibility of a bike path on the 60-foot strip of land along the shore.
Mr. Tointon explained there is quite a topographic difference that will cause concerns about
safety, flooding, and erosion.
Ms. Wiesner asked for the proposed floor area ratio.
Mr. Tointon stated it is .209.
The applicant, Mr. John Bouquet, 827 Woodgate Lane NW, addressed the Commission. He
stressed that the Land Use Plan designates this land suitable for medium density uses, which
would allow more density, than what he is planning. At 6.6 units per acre, it will fit in nicely. Mr.'
Bouquet stated that there were no discussions regarding purchasing the 60-foot strip of land 11
until after the neighborhood meeting. He feels that the purchase of that land will allow him to
control the length of time the land is mined. He explained there will be restrictive covenants
that will control appearance, pets, storage of firewood, and accessory structures, pointing out
this is much more restrictive than the covenants would be on single-family homes.
Mr. Suk asked about the concern that some of these will become rental units.
Mr. Bouquet explained that one of the phases in the Waterford development is rental and you
cannot tell which are rental and which are owner-occupied by looking at them. He noted this 1�
has not affected sales of the units at Waterford.
Mr. Suk asked if the 60-foot strip of land will be incorporated into Avalon Cove, or if it will be
kept separate.
Mr. Bouquet stated it will probably be incorporated into Avalon Cove.
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 9. 1998
Ms. McGowan asked for input from a City Council member on whether this development is
compatible with the City's vision for the Cascade Lake area.
Council Member Dave Senjem stated the proposed development is compatible.
Ms. McGowan asked if the water by the driving range at the Rochester Golf and Country Club
flows toward Avalon Cove, or does the water from Avalon Cove run toward the driving range.
Mr. Bouquet stated that most of the water flows to the detention ponds to the northeast.
Ms. McGowan asked if the access to the east of the property will be shared with Mayo.
Mr. Bouquet answered yes, and stated they worked this out with Gary Hayden of the Mayo
Foundation,
Ms. McGowan stated she would like to support this plan and feels Mr. Bouquet is one of the
better builders in Rochester and she commends him for what he has done.
With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve Zoning District Amendment#98-18 by Bouquet
Builders, based on staff-suggested findings. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The
motion carried 7-0.
Findings:
1. The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent wit the Land Use Plan. Although the
site is designated for "medium density residential"types of uses, rezoning the
property to the R-2(Low Density Residential) district will still be inconsistent with the
Land Use Plan, but the R-2 zoning district is more restricted than a zoning district
that allows medium density types of uses.
2. The uses within the R-2 are appropriate and compatible with other residential
districts and neighborhoods. These uses can be compatible with adjacent
neighborhoods by meeting the performance standards of the zoning district
Performance standards, including bufferyards and landscaping, are adequate to
mitigate any negative impacts from the district.
3. The proposed amendment would not result in spot zoning.
Ms.Wiesner made a motion to approve an amendment to General Development Plan
#129,to be known as Avalon Cove, with the five conditions set on the original general
development plan and five additional staff-suggested conditions, noting the second
sentence of additional condition number I be deleted. Ms. Petersson seconded the
motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Original Conditions:
1. A combination of cash and land dedication will be required to meet the parkland
dedication requirements.
II
naVe 0
V l
VCiry Planning and Zoning Commission Ntinutes
Hearing Date: December 9. 1998
2. The controlled access along 2"d Street SW and any required turn lanes will be shown
on the final plat. I
3. The applicant should work with Public Works in the design of the connection to the
Mayo property and 2"" Street along the east portion of the property.
4. The applicant coordinate with the Olmsted County SWCD and Public Works }
Department on the design of the sedimentation basins.
5. The shore/and adjacent to the westerly sedimentation basin area and lots 3 and 4 be
stabilized.
Additional Conditions:
1. The developer shall be responsible to provide right turn lanes along Country Club
Road1CSAH 34 at the access points to the property.
i
j 2. The development be investigated for the presence of wetlands and the necessary i
applications be submitted to the LGU. The applicant has indicated that they are
preparing a no-loss certificate for submittal to the LGU.
3. Depending on the grading of the property, an additional sediment basin may be
required on the southwest corner of the property.
4. The developer provides a written request to the Public Works Department if they wish
to participate in the City's plan for storm water management Deterition ponds are
i not shown on the property.
5. That the sanitary sewer.be connected to the southern portion of the existing 8"line
along the east property line.
Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve Variance Request#98-30 by Bouquet Builders,
with staff-suggested findings. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried
iI 7-0.
I Findings:
EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS: There would appear to be extraordinary circumstance
that would apply to this property that would not apply generally to other properties in the
neighborhood. With the irregular shape of the property, the shoreland district covers a
large portion of the site restricting the density of the property. The shore/and district
only allows a density of 4 unitestacre, while the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use j
Plan designates this property from "medium density residential"types of uses. The
shoreland district regulations restrict this parcel from being used at the higher density, i
closer to the designation on the Land Use Plan. Wlth a Performance Residential
Development, the lot size is usually just the building width, but there will be additional
open space between the units, depending on the PRD setbacks.
REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance is necessary to permit the reasonable
use of the property. The property is designated for"medium density residential"types
Paee i 1
City Plannine and Zoning Commission :Minutes l/
Hearing Date: December 9. 1998
of uses on the Land Use Plan and in order to use the property at a higher density, a
variance to the shoreland district density and to the lot width standard for a 4-unit
building in the shoreland district is needed.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT. This variance request would n appear
� q of ppe r to be substantially
detrimental to the other surrounding properties. A strip of land and a lake to the north
buffer the property. The proposed pond along Country Club Road will also buffer the
property from the surrounding developments.
MINIMUM VARIANCE. The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the i
alleged hardship would be a variance to the lot width standard for 4-unit buildings in the
shoreland district and the maximum permitted density of 4 units per acre within the
shoreland district. i
Mr. Suk called a five-minute break.
TABLED ITEM:
1.16
T e Ill Phase 11 Zonin 'strict Amendment by David T. Bishoo to rezone
approximately 3.34 acres ftand of the R-1 ed Sin le Family) to the R-1x Mixed
Single Family Extra district. aarognertv latted as Outlot C. Pine Ridge Estates 3`a
Subdivision and is located wift the l000 onderosa Drive SW immediate) east of
18 Avenue SW.
Mr. DeWitt returned as Chair of the me nd called the meeting back to order.
Ms. Wiesner made a motion to remov 'ng District Amendment#98-16 by David T.
Bishop from the table. Ms. Petersso eco ed the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
Ms. Baker explained this item was t d at the last etng. She stated the applicant has
presented an alternative proposal t neighborhoo d she suggested the applicant's
consultant explain how they intend proceed with their oposal.
Representing David Bishop, Wad Iumond of Yaggy Colb sociates, addressed the
Commission. He explained that alternative layout was pro ed to the neighbors, of which
he presented a copy. Mr. Dumo noted that Mr. Bishop coul t be in attendance this
evening, but he wanted Mr. Du nd to address some issues rel g to this application that
were presented in the media. explained that the cost of these nhomes will be between
$190,000 and $210,000 per u Mr. Dumond noted that the cost o isting homes in the area
was presented in the media, s e did some research and found that tax records show the
most expensive lot and home d a market value of$194,000, with a ority being under
$150,000. He referred to th visions on the new plan, and explained et w shows 3 single
family homes fronting on Po rosa Drive and 8 townhome units, pointing t they are revising
their request to R-1 x to excl a the three single family lots. Mr. Dumond a ined the access
to the townhomes.
i
ail
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 14-99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING D-4
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment#98-18 by Bouquet Builders to rezone PREPARED BY:
approximately 28.4 acres of land from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Residential to R-2(Low Brent Svenby,
Density Residential) district. The property is located along the north side of County Club Planner
Road,east of Cascade Creek and west of the Mayo surface parking facility.
December 28, 1998
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 9, 1998, to consider a zone change request to
rezone the property from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family)to the R-2 (Low Density Residential)District.
No one spoke against the rezoning at the public hearing.
The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria outlined in Paragraph 60.338 of the Land
Development Manual. The Commission made the following findings:
A. The area,as presently zoned,is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Although
the site is designated for"medium density residential"types of uses,rezoning the property to the R-2(Low
Density Residential)district will still be Inconsistent with the Land Use Plan,but the R-2 zoning district is more
restricted than a zoning district that allows medium density types of uses.
The uses within the R-2 are appropriate and compatible with other residential districts and neighborhoods.
These uses can be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods by meeting the performance standards of the
zoning district. Performance standards,including bufferyards and landscaping,are adequate to mitigate any
negative impacts from the district.
C. The proposed amendment would not result in spot zoning.
Motion by Wiesner, seconded by McGowan to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #98-18 by
Bouquet Builders,with staff-suggested findings. The motion carries 7-0.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated December 4, 1998.
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 or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based
on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to:
II J
Page 2
9 �
I RCA
j December 2 , 1998
a) the area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the comprehensive plan, was
originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error, or has changed or is changing to suc
a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage redevelopment of the area;and
j b) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and
compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood,and
c) the proposed amendment does not involve 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 that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated December 4, 1998
2. Minutes of December 9, 1998 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
j 2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
4. Planning Department file
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 .m. on January 4 1999 in the Council/Board Chamber at the
I PP P rY ,
Rochester-Olmsted Government Center Building
8. McGhie&Betts, Inc.
I I
I�
I
I �I
I
I
I
II �
I
wss.ar• -
LoeA
r
oo 167H ST
Rp Aokoto. f + '
t �
N
. 14TH ST NW
14
9TH ST
( '
BTN Si a 1/2 9TH ST
Aft kpyq
SA ST
JL A I4N ST
J
e
k PL
lsr
,TH mr-
3J7Tj Pt
r
ST WCAMOA
tN 1ST ST 1STods-
..
WE,t UNRA ST wmr
'� '�^�rJJPP►�,-"�r 1ST ST 1ST
DR GI+' 15T j� (�J 2Aq r ST sw
( �
ST sw
ff i liao 4 S7 SW 41H Si N`
G < <
5TH N ST; :
STH Sr W9 ST 5
ON sr
� sw t 7TH� � �
GALS ST
3G 8THHOWDW a1H
i � T
o� S*
LN 4 � � �X&tH � so �
Foy �4� cy MBA`
Ro so 'b 3 4_ S< `
46
LAD
' v►++ an ,s A L w �
FOXAll
�►
IV too
Ilk
it
R3
fto
R-1
-tio
�` �\ �.•''4w 1 RaA RAA ii �� 1 \ �q Da.
M-2
1 i
9-4
8.4
R-1 R4 'u:
„ `• ram..-, ��ATScA/ i;;; p�+i'!~i''' •r;
/ .i—•� ems' 94 r i :. ' `• 95.5
<<-L
MUD
V,oN i 04•\,� A•p xrylp ` —.�;�fR"�I!'. {cam,.' :., a^�n,;-7!R R.S •}"*�I"'
PW
-L' ".'�'_ •rMiYIAIF "now.
.n •i EpL�4t j;:: y
PLO ex
pill F-
1''�
f RJ
s
/ R-1 A.
,, R J4- R:1
all
•'i Rr_.ts A• - __�,...�•'.__ .\�,w �-:� rY-� . lip
Jim
tz-
SO-2 a R1
ZONING DISTRICTS
RESIDENCE DISTRICTSPat NON RESIDENCE DISTRICT
`•, IWO•Mead SMON Fw y 0-1 •IteWk ad CwwMeaW
Ovwlay 94•OawNCatataarelM
9-1•Nlaad SbgM 11WAy M-1•MI.W Ca Ard ,.,W
R-2-LowOvisftRaAWAngal M,2•MWwb1A1
R4.M a=o*"AMy R"w MW : IMI1M•Need RadanbK"d
R1 R4-H100anAMTRooMenlil I AG -AWku"nl
` /UO %M UnM 1 PERFORMANI CE DISTRICTS
95 t0A '
y�« FLOOD DISTRICTS CDC.CantrN OAwlopMnl car*r i so -spe"O &W
PC •F rNnaryMa4W baUMM1ooM
Canlnl Ar"
I FW •FrYnary Ntdkil 'IR-uoonal
w AMS
_—... C R•aA .I i TW.W•Modnl TranAlfbeN Area
T"•Medical TconaRlonllal Area
CITY LIA tTS
' RarRirr'� r ,nn.nv
C VJ R.
couff TY0 F
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
TO: City Planning &Zoning Commission PLANNING
GISIADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
DATE: December 4, 1998 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAx RE: Zoning District Amendment#98-18 by Bouquet Builders to rezone 5071287-2275
approximately 28.4 acres of land from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family)to the
R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. The property Is located along the
north side of 2 nd Street SW, east of Cascade Creek and west of the Mayo
surface parking facility.
Consolidated Planning Deg)artment Review:
Petitioner: Bouquet Builders
827 Woodgate Lane NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Location of Property: The property is located along the north side of 2nd Street
SW,east of Cascade Creek and west of the Mayo surface
parking facility.
Requested Action: The applicant is requesting a zone change from the R-1
(Mixed Single Family)district to the R-2(Low Density
Residential)district on the property.
Existing Land Use&Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family)district in
the City. The Land Use Plan designated the property
suitable for"medium density residential"and"flood prone".
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: North: Cascade Creek and Interlachen Lake in the R-1
(Low Density Residential)zoning district in the City. This
property is designated"Flood Prone"on the Rochester
Urban Service Land Use Plan.
South: Across Country Club Road, undeveloped lots and
the Rochester Golf and Country Club in the R-1 (Low
Density Residential)zoning district in the City. This
property is designated for"low density residential"types of
uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
December 4,1998
West: Interlachen Lake and Cascade Creek in the R-1
(Low Density Residential)district in the County. This
property is designated "Flood Prone"on the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
East: The Mayo surface parking lot in the R-1 zoning
district in the City. This property is designated"Recreation
Area&Open Space"on the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan
Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan
indicates that this property is designated as suitable for
"Medium Density Residential"and"Flood Prone".
Referral Agency Comments: None of the agencies had comments on the zoning district!
amendment.
Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a zoning district amendment to rezone the property from its present R-1 III
(Mixed Single Family)district to the R-2(Low Density Residential)district.
Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual,the
Commission recommendation and final determinations of the Council shall be supported by findings
addressing the relationship of the proposed amendment to the following policies:
1) In the case of amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition;
a) the area,as presently zoned,Is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
comprehensive plan,was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or
administrative error,or 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;and
b) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate
on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the
neighborhood;and
c) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot zoning involves the i
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)
Staff Recommendation:
Staff suggests the following findings for rezoning the land from R-1 to R-2:
1. The area,as presently zoned,is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan. Although the site is
designated for"medium density residential"types of uses, rezoning the property to the R-2
(Low Density Residential)district will still be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan,but the R-2
zoning district is more restricted than a zoning district that allows medium density types of i
uses.
Page 3
December 4,1998 Q
2. The uses within the R-2 are appropriate and compatible with other residential districts and
neighborhoods.These uses can be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods by meeting the
performance standards of the zoning district. Performance standards including bufferyards and
landscaping are adequate to mitigate any negative impacts from the district.
3. The proposed amendment would not result in spot zoning.
Based upon the above findings, the Planning Staff would recommend approval of the zone change
request from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family)to the R-2 (Low Density Residential)zoning district.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
0 �
o
O
D I
V 'l
fit\ i
y 8
Or 0
°
oa
Q n
. 1
o II •
oq o .
�o
�I
` � II
�� II
II
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Q
I
DATE: _1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING
1111111'EM DESCRIPTION:Axnendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual— PREPARED BY:)tFj
Advertising signs John Harford,Senior
Planner
December 23, 1998
City Plannine and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The CP&ZC held a public hearing on a City Council initiated text amendment to the zoning ordinance on December
9, 1998. The CP&ZC considered a staff recommended text change to Section 63.224(5)(e) at the public hearing.
Staff presented a rewritten subsection 5(e). The current ordinance states that "No advertising sip shall be located
within 250 feet of a boundary of a district which is zoned residential. The distance shall be measured from the nearest
edge of the advertising sip to the residential district to the closest point on any boundary line of the residential district
as set forth in Figure le." The closest point is measured along the right-of-way perpendicular to the sign face. It is
not a full circle but,rather,a half circle. (See attached figures from the staff report).
The staff recommendation,was to delete the second sentence of the standard such that the standard applies in a 250'
radius around the sign. The CP&ZC denied that recommendation by a 6-1 vote. The CP&ZC recommended no
alternatives although they suggested looking at the options presented by the sign company representatives present at
the hearing. The suggestions included requiring a conditional use permit, or rewriting the standards to address sign
size and lighting in areas close to a residential district.
iz
ere are 138 advertising signs according to our 1997 survey and an additional 4 signs that have been constructed
recently for a total of 142. Of that total 52 are affected by this proposed revision. Of those 52 signs, 21 appear to be
non-conforming, at this time, under the current standard of a 250' separation from a residential district along a right-
of-way. No other location standards were considered in this review.
Planning Department Recommendation: See the attached staff report dated November 30, 1998.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council should pass a resolution adopting the ordinance. -7-,ex
Attachments:
1. Staff report dated November 30, 1998 and attachments.
2. Minutes of the CP&ZC meeting of December,9, 1998
3. Memo from Committee on Urban Design and Environment
AOL
V WCOUNCIL ACTION: motion b,: Second by: to:
II r
vV x0cRESTFR. 1I I'
` COUNTY OF n
n ae
GRg7F.D..�UGU��.S••
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55944-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING '
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
HOUSNG/HRA 507/285-8224
FROM: John Harford BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
j WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
j DATE: November 30, 199$ �� FAx 507t287-2275
RE: Text Amendment to the Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance—
Ij Advertising Signs
II Background: i
In 1997 the CP&ZC, CUDE, and City Council studied the previous sign ordinance
provisions and made a number of changes including changes to the location standards. t
Now that the new ordinance provisions are in place the city can judge the effectiveness of
the various provisions of the ordinance. Recently several advertising signs were
j constructed along US 52 and 63. Council members have been contacted about one or
more of those signs.
These locations and signs are located on commercial parcels that are relatively small in
size and that abut a residential district and homes not located along the frontage but next
j to the rear yard of the commercial lot. The advertising signs are v-shaped, stand 50 feet
tall, 600 square feet in area, lighted, and are highly visible from the residential lots.
j As a result of the recent construction, the City Council has initiated an amendment to the
j text of Section 63.224(5)(e). Subsection 5(e) states that"No advertising sign shall be
located within 250 feet of a boundary of a district which is zoned residential." The
distance is measured along the road right-of-way and extends toward the right-of-way but
not on the private property side of the sign(See the attached description and illustration).
The City Council initiated the amendment at their November 2, 1998 Council meeting.
Earlier this year,during the advertising sign review,the Committee on Urban Design and
Environment and the Planning staff recommended that the previous ordinance be changed
from the 100' distance to 250' as a full radius. The intent was to advance the city's
interests in aesthetics. The CP&ZC voted to increase the distance from 100' to 250' but
II
measured along the right-of-way. The City Council at their Committee of the Whole
.�ww AN EQUAL OPPQRTUNfTY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
3
meeting indicated that the revision suggested by the CP&ZC should be the revised
standard. The City Council later adopted the ordinance with that revised standard.
Other standards in the revised ordinance that are based on a full radius include the setback
from a street intersection, and the setback from street and railroad intersections.
Standards that do not use a full radius but a distance measured along the right-of-way
includes distance between signs, and distance from a church, school, medical facility, or
playground.
The indication from the City Council about this provision of the ordinance is that the
signs can be large(600 square feet in area) and at a height (of up to 50 feet) that is highly
visible. Therefore they may have an impact on the residential areas abutting a
commercial/industrial district where those commercial/industrial districts are relatively
small in size. These impacts consist of aesthetic impacts and potential property value
impacts. The zoning districts that allow advertising signs include the B-4, M-1,M-2, and
the CDC-Fringe. Changing this standard will be most apparent where the commercial
parcels are small or are shallow in depth, and older areas of the city that are fully
developed such as along US 52, 2"d St, SW, S. Broadway, and portions of N. Broadway.
Some conforming signs may become non-conforming with this change. In a preliminary
review of existing signs it appears that most of the signs that may be affected by this
provision are already non-conforming under the current standard(from residential
districts)or under another separation distance standard.
Referral Comments: RPU Operations Division stated that they have on objections.
RPU Water Division has no comments.
City Public Works has no comments.
US West has no comments.
Staff Review and Recommendation:
The most direct way to accommodate the intent the City Council has is to revise the 5(e)
statement to read as follows: "No advertising sign shall be located within 250 feet of a
boundary of a district which is zoned residential. This distance shall be measured from
the nearest edge of the advertising sign to the residential district to the closest point on
any boundary line of the residential district as set forth in Figure le."
Section 60.338 (2)of the zoning ordinance states that in the case of an amendment to the
text of the ordinance the CP&ZC and City Council must determine:
a. Whether there is a public need for the amendment;
b. Whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
ordinance,the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City
of Rochester;
c. Whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful.
Regarding part "a", the staff is of the opinion that there is a public need for the
amendment in that this particular issue was previously discussed and recommendations
on this separation distance as suggested herein were made by CLIDE and staff. Further,
now that we see how the new ordinance is applied and what the results are,the city can
better gauge the impacts and effectiveness of the ordinance provisions.
Section 63.221, the purpose statement for the sip section of the ordinance,reads as
follows, "The purpose of the provisions of this ordinance addressing signs is ...to
promote and preserve aesthetics and to allow citizens to enjoy the natural beauty of the
City,...to preserve property values within the City.... The regulations of this section
attempt to balance the need for signage with the impact of such signage by establishing
minimum standards related to the use, location and intensity of particular land uses". The
proposed revision will accomplish the purpose of preserving the aesthetics of residential
neighborhoods that are very close to potential advertising sign locations. This change to
subsection 5e represents a minimum change to the existing standard.
The third standard is whether it is legal. This amendment represents a minor change to an
existing set of distance separation standards and is supported by the purpose statement.
Based on these considerations the Staff recommends that this amendment be approved as
written.
Attachments:
Section 63.224(5)(e)
• Minutes of the City Council Meeting
• Copy of Figure le as proposed
349 P02 NOV :.9 '98 '1:55
AEt 'D OF OFFICIAL. PROCEEDINGS tj,' 'HE COMMON COUNCI
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MhvNESOTA 5 4 a
Regular Cou1-0
rt M_e�ngi+lo. �1Qvemher 2. 1998
Agenda
Item
1-1 Councilmember McConnell moved,Marcoux seconded, to initiate the zoning
ordinance amendment process with respect to the method by which an advertising
sign distance from adjacent structures or zoning districts is measured. Ayes (6),
Nays (0). Motion carried.
Having no further business, Counciimember McConnell, Marcoux seconded,to
recess the meeting to 4.15 P.M. on November 4, 1993 to canvass the City General
Election. Ayes(6), Nays(0). Motion carried.
ity Clerk
I II
II r
I,
II
II
I I
� � I
c r.
QI
C
II bID Gr3 � •�li
tI�
al
y 161
.0
I L
+r
II �
IIII
a
I
R C I
..vr cz
tinr G a
w �
V1 w +r
a
y
w N
•Poo a
V3 ey. . I
I L Il
.0 G tw
Co ." C
� 4r
Q
,
II
12
II li
I,
O i
rr O
R �
� ao
L
> AWLUA
�Q
. oV or--------------------------- ----------
-
� o
� a
eo , o
C a t w a
e N 99 m
a� otn
v
� N
IA
L
w O 4 •C
�i Aa
d0 �� �L •a
a3o �o
a
g) Any political campaign sign in light of Minnesota Statute 211 B.045.
5) Advertising Sign Location: The following guidelines shall govern spacing
of such signs:
a) No advertising sign shall be located within 1000 feet of another sign
located on the same side of the street. Distances between advertising
signs shall be measured along the adjacent right of way line of the
street or highway to which the advertising sign is directed as set forth in
Figure 1 a.
b) No advertising sign shall be located within a radius of 100 feet from the
point of intersection of the right of ways of two or more streets or
highways as set forth in Figure 1 b.
c) No advertising sign shall be located within 200 feet of the intersection of
a street and a railroad right of way. Distance shall be measured from
the centerpoint of the street-railroad intersection to the nearest edge of
the advertising sign as set forth in Figure 1c.
d) No advertising sign shall be located within 300 feet of a playground,
church, school or medical facility. This distance shall be measured
from the nearest edge of the advertising sign to the playground, church,
school or medical facility to the closest point on any boundary line of
the playground, church school or medical facility property as set forth in
Figure 1 d. This restriction only applies to playground, church, school or
medical facility properties which abut the same right of way an
advertising sign is oriented toward. However, it also specifically applies
to playground, church, school or medical facility properties located on
the opposite side of a right of way an advertising sign is oriented
toward.
e) No advertising sign shall be located within 250 feet of a boundary of a
district which is zoned residential. This distance shall be measured
from the nearest edge of the advertising sign to the residential district to
the closest point on any boundary line of the residential district as set
forth in Figure 1 e. This restriction only applies to residential districts
which abut the same right of way an advertising sign is oriented toward.
However, it also specifically applies to residential districts located on
the opposite side of a right of way an advertising sign is oriented
toward.
f) No advertising sign shall be located closer to a property line than the
building setback for the zoning district when:that sign is located. In
districts where the zoning setback is zero (0) , advertising signs shall be
setback at least two (2)feet from the edge of the right of way line,as set
forth in Figure 1 f.
PAGE 280
JULY 28, 1998
COMMITTEE OIL URBAN ENWONMENT
TO: CP1Y PI ANNING AND"/_ONING COMMISSION
FROM: COAIMI'1711M, ON URBAN DESIGN AND I-NVIRONNIENT` q
SUBJECT: ADVI-11TISING SIGNS
DATE: DF.C.1"\ i it 9,1998
CC: ROCI IL'•.S1 FR COMI ION COUNCIL.AND MAYOR
At the November 19, 1998 meeting of the Committee on Urban Design and Environment
(CUDE), it was brought to the group's attention that there has been a good deal of concern about
some recently erected advertising signs. In particular, the focus was placed on the method of
measuring the distance of an advertising sign from a residential neighborhood.
The previous sign ordinance required that off-premises advertising signs be located at least 100
feet from any residential district property boundary having frontage along the right-of-way adjacent
to the sign. Last year, when CUDE was assisting the update of the sign ordinance, the group
recommended to the CPZC and City Council that off-premises advertising signs be located at least
250 feet from any residential district and measured as a full radius around the sign. The Common
Council adopted the increase in distance to 250 feet, but retained its application only to those
districts having frontage along the right-of-way adjacent to the sign.
The City Staff members of CUDE relayed to the rest of the group that the Common Council
had initiated a test amendment requesting that the distance of an off-premises advertising sign from
a residential district be 250 feet measured as a full radius.
Please consider this memo as official documentation that at our November 19, 1998 meeting, the
Committee on Urban Design and Environment voted unanimously(8-0) to reassert our position that
the distance of an off-premises advertising sign from a residential district be 250 feet measured as a
full radius.Thank you for your consideration.
2192 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E. ROCHESTER, MINNCSOTA 5590A 507 - 285 - 823:
I
r
O&Ca,, 12
ity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearine Date: December 9. 1998
PUBLIC HEARINGS;
City Initiated Amendment to the text of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
j Development Manual #98-5. The proposed amendment is to Section 63,224(5)(e),
Advertising Sign Location, addressing the standard for separation distance between
advertising signs and residential zoning districts.
I
Mr. Patterson stated he has a potential conflict on this issue and he will step down from the
dais.
Mr. Harford presented the staff report, dated November 30, 1998, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department.
II Mr. Harford explained that this is an ordinance amendment that was recently initiated by the
City Council. He stated that several signs have gone up along Highways 63 and 52. one or tw,
i of which Council members have received phone calls about, so they decided that Section
63.224 (5)(e) should be addressed. Mr. Harford explained the proposed ordinance and stated,
that it would include a full 250 ft. radius from the boundary of a district zoned residential.
II
Ms. Petersson asked if one of the problems with the sign at Hillcrest was the lights.
Mr. Harford stated that some complaints may have been received on the lighting, but it does
meet the current lighting requirements.
Ms. Petersson asked how many signs in the City would become non-conforming if this change')
to the ordinance is implemented.
Mr. Harford wasn't sure. He noted that most of those that are potentially affected appear to be
j non-conforming for other reasons as well.
Ms. Wiesner asked for clarification on the diagrams in the packet. Mr. Harford explained them.
j
Mr. Harford reviewed the criteria and stated that staff recommends this amendment be
approved as written.
Ms. Wiesner asked if the City is on the lottery system for signs.
Mr. Harford stated that because of the cap, any company that requests a sign permit, has to
have a sign credit.
Ms. Wiesner asked how many complaints have been received.
Mr. Harford wasn't sure, but he received input from the City Council that complaints had been
made. He noted staff still feels this is a good idea and it is an aesthetic consideration. He
li
stated that CUDE made the same recommendation.
Representing DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Ken Moen of Dunlap and Seeger, addressed the
" Commission. He stated that certain kinds of signs are being singled out for aesthetic reasons,'
II '
I
I
i
Page 13 I O�
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 9. 1998
and that troubles him. Mr. Moen noted that a large number of signs became non-conforming
when they went to the 1000 foot distance requirement and this proposed provision will create a
continuous space where there will be no signs at'all. He asked if the Hillcrest sign is within 250
of a PUD with an underlying residential district. Mr. Moen commented that it is bad policy to
take entire commercial strips for advertising signs when other signs can exist. This proposal
would eliminate whole strips of areas of usefulness for advertising signs. He stated if the
Commission feels a change is advisable, he suggested measuring the 250 feet from the back
half of the circle to the residential district behind it and make it a conditional use so the lighting,
height, etc. can be addressed also.
Ms. Wiesner asked what the permitted height of an advertising sign is.
Mr. Harford stated it is 50 feet.
Representing Universal Outdoor Advertising, Michael Cronin, 8809 West Bush Lake Road,
Minneapolis, addressed the Commission to speak against this amendment. He thinks there is a
more effective way to handle this that will not have such a radical impact on signs, and noted
the forward radius makes sense for two reasons: that is the business end of a sign and the 250
ft. radius looks for the exceptions in the standard patterns of commercial development. The
250 foot front says the property across the street and on either side has to be commercial. He
stated that when you figure the radius backwards, it has the opposite effect and when you apply
the radius backwards, rather than the exceptions, it captures everything and will not allow the
pattern that was intended in the ordinance. His alternative is to take a certain number for a
back radius, and if there is a residential area within that radius, the sign height is lowered to 35
feet, and that way the exceptions are caught. Mr. Cronin stated they would like to have a
chance to meet with the neighbors near the Hillcrest sign and address the lighting issue.
Mr. DeWitt told him he would be welcome to do that and staff will provide him with names of
property owners within a certain radius upon request.
Roger Durst of Tri-State Outdoor Advertising, addressed the Commission. He stated they have
90 percent of the signs in town and most would become non-conforming with this change and
then sign credits would become worthless. He stated they are opposed to the amendment and
he feels Mr. Moen's idea was good.
Mr. DeWitt stated for the record that his grandchildren have a sign on Hwy. 14 and that it is in
his grandchildren's trust.
With no others wishing to speak, Mr. DeWitz closed the public hearing.
Mr. DeWitt stated there should be a better way to do this, such as a conditional use permit.
Ms. Wiesner noted that most uses allowed in the B-4 district have either a size C or D sign, so
you are allowed to put up an business sign the same size as an advertising sign, but you
cannot put up an advertising sign.
Mr. DeWitt stated that a conditional use permit would get the neighbors here for a public
hearing.
()?..Orge 1�4 City Plannmu and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: December 9, 1998
Discussion ensued regarding the difference between business signs and advertising signs. I�
Ms. McGowan made a motion to approve City Council Initiated Text Amendment#98-5.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Ms. Wiesner made a motion to deny City Council initiated Text Amendment#98-5. Ms.
Petersson seconded the motion.
Mr. DeWitt stated he would like to see some of these signs have conditions on them, but he will
support this motion.
Ms. Petersson stated an adverse impact should be eliminated where possible, but it shouldn't
cause all signs to be non-conforming.
i
Ms. Wiesner feels this should address all signs within a given radius, not only advertising signs��
Mr. Wheeler pointed out that when the Council acts on this, they will have to do findings.
Mr. DeWitz stated the Commission's findings have been stated by discussion.
�I
Ms. Wiesner noted she does not think it is lawful to let one person do it and another not.
Mr. DeWitz commented that another nice finding would be that the Commission feels there is a
better way to do this.
it
The motion carried 6-1, with Ms. McGowan voting nay.
Type Ill Phase li Restrict evelo ment Preliminary Plan Amendment to PUD B-90
Fiksdal Motel and Variance allow for thqffivelooment of a new four story hotel
facility and associated oarkinaftat would Ifffflocated within the existing PUD district for li
the Flksdal Motel and would exte ort o the R-3 Medium Density Residential
district. The new hotel would be to tween 2nd St. SW and 16 St. SW west of 12'' 11
Ave. SW and the Canadian Honker anaWth east and north of the existina Flksdal Motel.
i
Mr. Patterson returned to the dais.
Ms. Baker presented the staff report, led Dece r 4, 1998, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester Ol led Planning artment.
Ms. Baker explained that the ap nt is requesting to tract a new hotel facility adjacent to
the Fiksdal Hotel. She presen a map of the proposal a eviewed it. She stated that part
of this property is zoned PUD art B-1, and part R-3. Ms. B r explained that based upon the
proposal, the criteria for a r cted development would be mo ppropriate since the request
would exceed the floor are atio and height o the underlying zon district, and also since the
• off-street parking require nts, setbacks, and landscape area for t roposed use in the i
underlying district will n e met. She noted that in 1996, the appii proposed a different
i
hotel facility that would ve been south of the alley, and it received pr inary approval, but
i
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING to 1.0
DATE: 1 99
JAGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works -�p
ITEM DESCRIPTION: HEARINGS: RECONSTRUCT 16TH STREET N.W., J9520 PREPARED BY:
J. Loehr
This is a hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project No. 6008-99, J9520
Reconstruction of 16th Street N.W. from 18th Avenue N.W. to 19th Avenue N.W.
The Estimated Costs are as follows:
Grading, Paving, Curb & Gutter $ 72,200
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades 8,000
Sidewalk Replacement 3,200
Drive Approach Upgrades 5,000
Engineering. Interest, Contingencies 26.520
TOTAL $114,920
The project is proposed to be funded by special assessments and property tax levy.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since
the project was initiated by a majority of owners of property abutting the project a majority vote of the
Council is required for adoption.
Attach: RCA Requesting Public Hearing
Map
Feasibility Report
Budget and Assessment Schedule
Petition for Local Improvement Project
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
11r�► �►�I�j� ��li�Rjsltt��� '�,�• ��I�1
��,�111■■■■ : �� �1111!■ �� '•++� !ram'` ,sPI ,+
7 �, 1111111111111 111��� � IIIIIIIIr1111111• �I�
�'.� 1111111111(111 II�R4gRRt� � 11111�1�1�111(1a� ��
• �,,� 111111111(111� 1191�1®����a� 1111�11�11rIrF +�
'.+���111111111C 111�!!l�A1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIi
` �'�!i� 111(111111 11(1111111111 1111111�1�111� �� ��
11111111NIL 11111111111111
_, �� �•<� �{� 1(lllll(1�111� i111�111111�1�� -. � r jI*
' �IA�AAAII�I�R� 111111111�111� � � ��� �l
� I�I�1�11�1«�► �ii11131i1:F��S1 22 cm Mlion
► 'I,+
mm
cm
Hill
i
f O�
Report On Feasibility Of
Proposed Local Improvement Project
Project No. 6008-99
J-9520
Inclusion o£
16 Street NW from 18'Ave to 19'h Ave NW
In the
Reconstruction of Sunset Terrace Roadways
Honorable Mayor&Common Council
City of Rochester,Minnesota
A resolution proposing including 16 Street NW from 18'Ave to 191h Ave NW in the currently adopted
project: "RECONSTRUCTION OF, 16TH, 16-1/2, 17TH, 17-1/2 STREETS FROM 18TH AVENUE TO
19TH AVENUE NW,AND RECONSTRUCTION OF 18-1/2 STREET FROM 19TH AVENUE TO 20TH
AVENUE NW',was referred to the Public Works Department for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility
Report.
Engineers Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction.The existing street was constructed
with bituminous curbing between 1957 and 1963 and is need of resurfacing or replacement in certain
sections.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive
Pavement Management Strategy(CPMS).The CPMS is an objective,cost-effective program for the
preservation,rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's infrastructure.The most cost-effective
strategy at this time for the roadway section with a Pavement Rating Index of 18.0 is reconstruction.The
reconstructed pavement sections include the addition of concrete curb and gutter.
The property owners direct contribution for reconstruction is$25.50 per assessable foot.
Upgrading of drive approaches to concrete or to a greater dimension and replacement of broken and
deteriorated sidewalks will be assessed directly to the benefited property owners involved.
There will be no assessments for sewer repairs.
The estimated costs of the project,made without completed plans or survey are as follows:
Grading&Paving, Curb&Gutter $72,200
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $8,000
Sidewalk Replacement $3,200
Drive Approach Upgrades $5,000
Engineering,Interest,Contingencies $26,520
Total $114,920
Assessment Basis for Reconstruction
The cost of reconstruction as established by City Council Policy is$25.50 per assessable foot of the
abutting properties.
The estimated assessable reconstruction cost is the assessable frontage(1,463.67')X$25.5 per foot=
$37,323.59.
Assessment Basis for Sidewalk Replacement
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed directly to the
abutting property owner.
Sidewalk replacement will be assessed as follows:
4"Sidewalk $2.55 per square foot
6" Sidewalk $3.32 per square foot
The assessable cost for sidewalk replacement is$2,39231
Assessment Basis for Drive Approach Upgrades
Upgrading of drive approaches is assessed by the square yard and is assessed directly to the property
owner.
Driveway upgrades will be assessed as follows:
6"Concrete Drive Approach $29.58 per square yard
3"Bituminous Drive Approach $18.36 per square yard
The estimated assessable cost of drive approach upgrades is$5,000.
I�
ICI
(07
Total Estimated Funding Distribution
16'' Street NW
Special Assessments $44,715.90
City Funds $70,204.10
Subtotal $114,920.00
Currently Adopted project:
Special Assessments $187,980.02
City Funds $199,173.98
Subtotal $387,154.00
Inclusion of 16' in current proiect:
Special Assessments $232,695.92
City Funds $269,378.08
Subtotal $502,074.00
D�ugfielson
Assistant City Engineer
A -
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6008-99 Date: December 1 1998
J No: 9520
Description: "Reconstruct Roadways in Sunset Terrace Area"
16'' St NW from 181"Ave to 19' Ave NW
16 Y2 St NW from 18'h Ave to 19"Ave NW
17t' St NW from 18'h Ave to 19'Ave NW
171/ St NW from 18th Ave to 19'Ave NW
18 Y2 St NW from 1 Vh Ave to 21't Ave NW
16tt' Street Combined Contract Final
Budget Project Cost Cost
Budget
Construction:
Grading, Paving, Curb & Gutter $72,200 $303,750
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $8,000 $41,681
Sidewalk Replacement $3,200 $15,780
Drive Approach Upgrades $5,000 $25,000
Engineering, Interest, & Contingency $26,520 $115,863
Total Construction & Expense $114,920 $502,074
Distribution:
To be presently assessed (Street) $37,323.59 $192,350.02
Sidewalk assessments $2,392.31 $16,780.00
Drive Approach Upgrade assessments $5,000.00 $25,000.00
City Share Street Costs $70,204.10 $268,943.98
TOTAL $114,920.00 $602 074.00
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
III
\\CITY_OF ROCHESTER\PUBLICWORKS\PROJECTSW-PROD\J952Q\DESIGN\DOCS\BSCHEDI6.DOC
I
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF ROCHESTER
We the undersigned owners of property in 'SVA!ee
Subdivision, in the City of Rochester, Minnesota, do hereby
petition the Rochester City Council to construct the following
local improvement project:
�CD � Sire.,�.�ur3 �ti.xnst'Y'vct�e� �fa�tt� IOiSSti4�,.� At
l GL
. commencing at /E Ave- Na3 and ending at I V4 Ave IVY in
199-$ . we are aware that as 0 ore of property abutting this
proposed local improvement project, we are subject to special
assessments pursuant to the City of Rochester's, Comprehensive -
Pavement Management Strategy.
Name please print) address Signature
5-7- M.W.
..4 Mrs. ILL
Mo Wk % IJuJ UWLQ-.
I
e r .S -Faz2njt�a �S'ram-.
nail
is
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPRO VEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF ROCHESTER
We the undersigned owners of property in
Subdivision, in the City -of Rochester, Minnesota, do hereby
petition the Rochester City Council to construct the followill
ng
local improvement project:
commencing at and ending at in
199_. We are aware that as owners of property abutting this
proposed local improvement project, we are subject to special
assessments pursuant to the City of Rochester's, Comprehensive
Pavement Management Strategy.
Plane (pl_ ease Frint) Address 3jgaature
e gt �
(-7raV1+ (J Ise rn i 8 43 14 A St. A/W
Kcke,//e 2ellm, i /Z-`*SZ1JJ �O'XL69'-
IIAO;t4
�s 156 G*sr Mid
N/ED
OFFICE
1808 16th St NW
Rochester, MN 55901
December 28, 1998
i iAN
Judy Scherr, CMC
City Clerk
201 4th Street SE, Room 135
Rochester, MN 55904-3742
Subject: Project No. 6008-99 (J-9520)
Ms Scherr:
I object to the proposed reconstruction of 16th Street NW due to the fact that
the street condition is acceptable and should continue to be for another
couple of years.
Sincerely,
Steven R Ritland
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 499
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works D.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: RECONSTRUCT 16TH STREET PREPARED BY:
N.W., J9520 J. Loehr
This is a Hearing to consider the levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following local
improvement project:
Project No. 6008-99, J9520
Reconstruction of 16th Street N.W. from 18th Avenue N.W. to 19th Avenue N.W.
praiect Cost Distribution
The estimated construction cost and expense of this project is$114,920.00. We propose to currently
assess $39,982.12. The estimated amount of Assessment Agreements for drive approach upgrades is
$5,000.00. The estimated balance of$69,937.88 is City share of project.
Assessment Rates (including-expenses)
Street Reconstruction $25.50 per foot
4" Concrete Sidewalk Replacement $2.55 per square foot
6" Concrete Sidewalk Replacement $ 3.32 per square foot
3" Bituminous Driveway Approach $18.36 per square yard
6" Concrete Driveway Approach $29.58 per square yard
Assessment,Spread = 10 Years
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments.
Note: The project is scheduled for construction in 1999. No payment of the assessments are required
until the project is substantially completed. Assessment Notices (invoices) are sent to the owners of
property abutting the project at that time.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: send by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1-4-99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works D- 8
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing for Permit Parking on 4th Street NW/400 & 500 PREPARED BY
Blocks and 5th Avenue NW 400 block vy D. Rossma
This is a public hearing to consider a petition from the residents of this neighborhood to control all day
employee parking on their streets, by adding the following streets to Permit Parking Zone#7 Cummings
Addition, onto the following Streets:
1. 4th Street NW on both sides from 4th Avenue to 6th Avenue
2. 5th Avenue NW on the both sides from 4th Street to Civic Center Drive.
The area is shown on the attached map. The petition has been reviewed as to meeting the requirements
of R.C.O. #138.03. The streets requested are impacted heavily by all day parking Monday through
Friday from a source outside the neighborhood,that being employees from the Medical Institute.The
blocks involved are all zoned for residential use. The petition has signed by the following percentage of
abutting property owners or residents:
Block street/ROW width #of signers #of units % signing
4th St. 400 & 500 blk 34/ 75 7 11 64 %
5th Avenue/400 block 40/75 2 2 100 %
Total 7 11 64 %
The petition has been discussed with the City Police Department and they have no objection. Staff
recommends approval of the request. All conditions are met,therefore staff would recommend in favor
of the petition. The zone requested is to be effective 8:00am to 4:00pm,Monday through Friday.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph (5 &6)to Residential Permit Parking Zone#7
(Cummings Addition)of Section L of the Comprehensive Traffic and Parking Resolution Book to read
as follows:
(5) 4th Street NW on both sides of the street from 4th Avenue to 6th Avenue;between the hours of
8:00am to 4:00pm Monday through Friday.
(6) 5'Avenue NW on both sides of the street from 4' Street to Civic Center Drive NW;between the
hours of 8:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
TED
LLJ
I I • •- _ U-) —
II I ` •�
? „ �� � JIZ�I• :7�1 ��
o /f
I � ,
1; - 1 ( i � W � -—- �y0� 'fit•
4 S T. N. W.
3t� 3t vl
3140 3 y
3 tS
! `os 34
3 Sj. N P awl F*ts i1D r "'04 1 ,
Ui
• � = 213• 21e � "its 7.t6 i
_ c - --sue,• ____..�-- ,-- Zeq 21'� � _ ---
Z
yullt5�•33 �,�p5't r,r; 9nwx�a� TRM• 3tn' �,
77563' u•�',"X•.•;rE•rce�� :'j�-7' rig PP�t,.w. ri'a �Pp.Y,,.ic II
1
T I&T ' E :.N -:TxE nl St o it
_/ ` '•`1. "i'JT.•'��,.y� =•Ki.� _•4'i .'F .- '?'f� .. •, -� •' - y�':i"��'iy�jz•S• T•
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 (7
DATE: 1/4/99'
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS CITY ADMINISTRATOR E-1-5
AML
7
TEM DESCRIPTION: ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS FOR 1999 ANNUAL MEETING PREPAREDBR:
K. EVANS 7
Following are the Council Organizational Business items which are normally handled at the Annual Council
Meeting:
E-1 Address by President Hunziker
E-2 Request a motion adopting the following prepared resolutions:
a) Resolution adopting the Roberts Rules of Order for the conduct of business by the Council;
b) Resolution adopting the Rules and Regulations for Order of Business of the Council;
C) Resolution establishing committees of the Common Council, prescribing their functions and
duties,and providing appointment to members of subcommittees.
U�_E-3 Appointment to Committees by President Hunziker
E4 Address by Mayor Canfield
g,_E-5 Designation of Official Paper
Request a motion designating the Rochester Post-Bulletin as the official newspaper to publish the
official printing and advertising of the City of Rochester for the official year commencing January 4,
1999, at the rate established by the statutes of the State of Minnesota for legal publications.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (
Iq
DATE: 1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR E-6-17
EM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 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:
E-6. Approval of Minutes
E-7. Woolworth to Pavilion Skyway-Change Order#1
E-8. Request to Advertise for Bids for a New Ten Unit T-Hangar
E-9. Professional Services Agreement with Holabird & Root/Reynolds, Smith & Hills for Improvemen
Projects in the Terminal Building
E-10. Professional Services Agreement with ACSG/McGhie & Betts for a NPDES/SDS Permit Applicatioi
from the MPCA
E-11. Professional Services Agreement with ACSG/McGhie & Betts for a 2,100 Foot Extension to Runwa;
02/20
E-12. Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
E-13. Approval of Accounts Payable
E-14. Establishing Airport Operations Special Revenue Fund and Amended Budgets for 1998 and 1999
E-15. Closing of Tax Increment Projects-Funds 311 & 319
E-16. Banking Items
E-17. Mileage Allowance
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: ."
Motion to approve consent agenda items.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
l
'I�
III
I
li
I
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 1/4/99 '
;EM
ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Administration G _�
DESCRIPTION: Woolworth to Pavillion Skyway -Change Order#1 PREPARED BY:
Doug Knott
Attached is Change Order #1 to the Floyd Larson construction contract for the Woolworth to Pavilion
skyway project. This Project is substantially complete and the bridge is open to the public. The light
fixtures are back ordered and will be installed in mid-January. Temporary lighting is being provided by
the contractor. Minor punch list work remains to be done on the interior of the bridge. Touch up painting
on the exterior will be done in the Spring.
The Change Order consists of three deduct items and two add items for a total increase in the project
cost of $599.00. This Project required the cooperation of three owners (City, Mayo, and GAC) each with
their own separate contractors. Overall it went very smoothly. The change represents one tenth of one
percent of the contract amount. The Change Order has been reviewed and recommended for approval
by the project architect.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval of Change Order #1 to the Larson contract for the construction of the Woolworth to Pavilion
skyway.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
i
I'le. RDER - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Hammel Green and Abrahamson, Inc. Copy No: ONE
Architecture Engineering Interior Design
202 First Avenue SW
Rochester,Minnesota 55402-3129
(507)281-8600 Fax (507)281-8688
i
Project: SKYWAY PAVILION TO WOOLWORTH
BUILDING
Location: 2nd Street SW and Broadway
Rochester, Minnesota 55902
Owner: CITY OF ROCHESTER HGA Comm. No: 1009-013-00
201 Fourth Street Southeast, Room 266
Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Change Order No: One
Type Contract: General
Contractor: FLOYD LARSON CONSTRUCTION ADD: $599.00
Address: 3848 East Highway 14
Rochester, Minnesota 55903
When this Change Order is properly signed,the Owner-Contractor agreement is modified as follows and the work is authorized too
be done in accordance with all the contract requirements. (Cost breakdown is required.)
REFERENCES: (List previous letters,quotations and correspondence,when applicable)
Price Quote items relating to Request For Proposal#1, dated August 10, 1998:
1. Delete hanging salvaged door/frame. $ (370.00)
2. Labor only not to remove brick at skyway roof-existing Pavilion. $ (226.00)
3. Patch at flashing. $ (260.00)
4. Dig test hole at footings-Pavilion. $ 955.00
5. Shift work to accommodate Mayo Clinic. $ 500.00
TOTAL ADD: $ 599.00
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ( ,z 3
DATE: 1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Rochester International Airport 16-00
TEM DESCRIPTION: Request to Advertise for Bids for a New Ten Unit T-Hangar. PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Le ve
q
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Advertise for bids for a new steel ten unit T-hangar to be constructed at the Rochester International Airport.
Funding: 80%Mn/Dot State Hangar Loan Program
20%Local (T-hangar Account)
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
ISO
vq I
III
f
i
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �,
DATE: 1/4/M'
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Rochester International Airport 1
M DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with Holabird& Root/Reynolds, PREPARED BY:
Smith& Hills for improvement projects in the Terminal Building. Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Enter into a professional services agreement with Holabird& Root/Reynolds, Smith& Hills for improvement projects
in the Terminal Building to include a new canopy over the drive-up area, restroom remodeling, and other building
improvements. This project was included in the CIP.
Attached is a list of firms that received the RFP in addition to the required advertisements.
Funding: PFC
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement.
i
I
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
12/30/98 11:53 V507 282 2348 ROCH .AIRPORT CO A002 f
I �
Mr. Brian Reed, Director-Aviation
Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc.
4651 Salisbury Road
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Mr. Eric P. Peterson
Architectural Alliance
344 Lindbergh Terminal
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport
St. Paul, MN 551 I 1-3003
Mr. Christopher S. Jann
TEA and Associates, Inc.
1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101-2140
Short Elliott Hendnckson,Inc.
3535 'Vadnais Center Drive
200 SEH Center
St. Paul,MN 55110
Mr. Bill Ohm
Mead&Hunt, Inc.
221 North Third Street
La Crescent, MN 55947
Mr. Hosea Rivas
Yaggy Colby Associates
717-3rd Ave SE
Rochester,MN 55904
Holibird&Root
400 Broadway South
Rochester,MN 55904
Mr. Roger K. Toulouse, PE
TSP Architects and Engineers
1500 Highway 52 North
Rochester,MN 55901 0296
Steven W. Leyve,Airport Manager
Rochester International Airport
Helgerson Drive SW
Rochester, MN 55902
consult.lis 12/30/99
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1/4/99! ZI
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Rochester International Airport 6 -10
EM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with ACSG/McGhie & Betts for a PREPARED BY:
NPDES/SDS permit application from the MPCA. Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Enter into a professional services agreement with ACSG/McGhie& Betts for a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit application that is required by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). This is a result of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that was submitted
to the MPCA by the Rochester International Airport.
Total project cost not to exceed$23,000
Funding: 60%State
40%Local
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1/4/99 I
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Rochester International Airport
M DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with ACSG/McGhie& Betts for a PREPARED BY:
2,100 foot extension to Runway 02/20. Steven W. Leq,
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Enter into a professional services agreement with ACSG/McGhie& Betts for a 2,100 foot extension to Runway 02/20.
These engineering services will be for a period of two years. Phase I will be completed in 1999 and Phase II will be
completed in 2000. This project was included in the CIP.
Estimated project cost including engineering and construction: $4,450,000
Contract amount not to exceed$711,309
Funding: Local(sales tax)
Passenger Facilty Charges
Federal
UNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
December 15, 1998
Professional Services Agreement
Attachment Number Thirteen (13)
THIS AMENDMENT,made and entered into this_day of 1997,by and between The City
of Rochester, M H
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and ACSG, Inc., an Oklahoma
Corporation with an office at 800 W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 102A, Naperville, IL 60563, hereinafter
referred to as the "consultant".
The Parties acknowledge the following:
The City of Rochester, Minnesota owns and the Rochester Airport Company is charged with
operating, through the Rochester Airport Commission, the Rochester International Airport,
Rochester, Minnesota, and;
This Attachment is made a part of the Professional Services Agreement dated May 8, 1995,1, as
amended, by and between the City of Rochester and ACSG, Inc. Except as contained herein,'I all
terms and provisions of aforementioned contract shall remain the same.
NOW,THEREFORE,for and in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants herein set forth,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE, SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULE
The City of Rochester desires to construct a 2100 foot extension to Runway 02/20 and Taxiway
Bravo to the southwest. .The project shall be accomplished over a two year period, 1999 and 2000,
in two phases as follows:
Phase I In 1999 the following activities shall be accomplished:
1) Extensions will be graded and, time permitting, the base and subbase placed.
2) Installation of storm sewer and sub-drainage systems.
3) Necessary erosion control and detention facilities.
4) Temporary activities for NAVAIDS, including runway and taxiway lighting,
Temporary threshold lighting.
5) Temporary construction to fully open Runway 02/20 to traffic until construction
resumes in year 2000.
6) Clearing and grubbing of trees and necessary building removal in the RPZ(Runway
Protection Zone)
�I
II
7) Completion of land acquisition and avigation easements.
Phase II In 2000 the following activities shall be accomplished:
1) Complete base preparation and concrete paving of the runway extension and
bituminous paving of the taxiway extension.
2) Complete grading, seeding and sodding.
3) Install runway and taxiway lighting.
4) Relocation/installation of NAVAIDS.
5) Complete necessary boundary and security fencing
2. CONSULTANT RESPONSIBILITIES
For Phase I, the Consultant shall provide the following services:
TASK I
1. Provide services for project development and planning including the preparation of
cost estimates and preliminary layouts prior to commencement of the preparation of
plans and specifications. Review of Environmental Assessment for compliance
requirements. Assistance with Air Space Study,visual depth perception from control
tower,with land acquisition,and determination of clearing and grubbing needed with
a 50:1 glide slope under precision RPZ.
TASK II
1. Engineering Surveys
2. Preparation of Plans and Specifications including:
a) Preparation of Project Grant Pre-Application Amendment
b) Preparation of Advertisement of Bids
c) Preparation of Engineer's Estimate
d) Preparation of Construction Safety Plan
e)Preparation of Project Schedule
f)Attendance at Airport Commission Meetings
g) Conduct Pre-Bid Conference
h) Provide up to 25 sets of plans and specifications for
bidders, plan review, Consultant, City Clerk, and Airport Manager
TASK III
1. Assistance with Bidding Process, Bid Tabulation, Engineer's Recommendation on
Bids, Bid Package Submittal and assistance with amendment of Grant Application,
Prepare contract and bond forms for signing by contractor/city, Conduct Pre-
Construction Conference, Issue Notice to Proceed on behalf of the Owner.
2. Construction Staking
3. Inspection
4. Quality Control Testing
5. Engineer's Construction Management Report
6. Record Drawings
7. Update Airport Layout Plan
8. Preparation of Payment Requests for the Contractor
9. Attendance at Airport Commission Meetings
10. Process necessary change orders
11. Coordinate Activities with Airport Management
12. Provide Project Management including Engineering Supervision, Review of Wage
Reports,Review ofMinority Goal Data and report status,Preparation ofRecords and
Certifications, Request and attend Final Inspection, Preparation of documents for
Project Close-out combined with Engineer's Construction Management Report.
For Phase H, the Consultant shall provide the following services:
�I
TASK I
1. Provide services for project development and planning including the preparation
Qf
cost estimates and preliminary layouts prior to commencement of the preparation of
plans and specifications.
TASK H
1. Engineering Surveys
2. Preparation of Plans and Specifications including:
a)Preparation of Project Grant Pre-Application Amendment
b)Preparation of Advertisement of Bids
c)Preparation of Engineer's Estimate
d)Preparation of Construction Safety Plan
e)Preparation of Construction Management Plan
f)Preparation of Project Schedule
h) Attendance at Airport Commission Meetings
i) Conduct Pre-Bid Conference
j) Provide up to 25 sets of plans and specifications for
bidders,plan review, Consultant, City Clerk, and Airport Manager
TASK III
1. Assistance with Bidding Process, Bid Tabulation, Engineer's Recommendation on
Bids, Bid Package Submittal and assistance with amendment of Grant Application,
Prepare contract and bond forms for signing by contractor/city, Conduct Pre-
Construction Conference, Issue Notice to Proceed on behalf of the Owner.
2. Construction Staking
3. Inspection
4. Quality Control Testing
5. Engineer's Construction Management Report
6. Record Drawings
7. Update Airport Layout Plan
8. Preparation of Payment Requests for the Contractor
9. Attendance at Airport Commission Meetings
10. Process necessary change orders
11. Coordinate Activities with Airport Management
12. Provide Project Management including Engineering Supervision, Review of Wage
Reports,Review ofMinority Goal Data and report status,Preparation ofRecords and
Certifications, Request and attend Final Inspection, Preparation of documents for
Project Close-out combined with Engineer's Construction Management Report.
Consultant shall complete PHASE 1, Tasks I, II, and III, subtasks I through I 1 by October 1, 1999,
weather permitting. It is anticipated that PHASE I Task III, subtask lZ will be completed by
November 30, 2000. Consultant shall complete PHASE II Tasks I, II, and III, subtasks 1 through
11 by October 1,2000,weather permitting. It is anticipated that PHASE II Task III, subtask 12 will
be completed by November 30, 2001,
3, PROJECT COST
The total project cost of$711,309 is a not-to-exceed cost and, as per the aforementioned agreement,
will be invoiced in a lump-sum format monthly based on percentage of completion. This cost includes
all general and administrative overhead, direct project expenses, fixed payment, and other project
costs.
ATTEST CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
BY BY
TITLE TITLE
Meeting
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 1 4 99
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action I Kathy Wilson
The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on December 22, 1998 and requests
the Common Council's favorable consideration:
to approve a resolution to approve a 5% increase in water revenue rates effective
March 1, 1999.
to approve a resolution to approve an insurance agreement with Hartford Steam
Boiler Company for furnishing all risk property insurance. The amount of the
twelve month premium effective December 31, 1998 to be$150,560.00.
to approve a resolution to approve an insurance agreement with the League of
Minnesota Cities for furnishing commercial automobile and general liability
insurance. The amount of the twelve month premium effective December 31, 1998
to be$96,311.00.
to approve a resolution to approve an insurance agreement with the Associated
Electric and Gas Insurance Services, Ltd. (AEGIS) for furnishing excess general
liability insurance. The amount of the twelve month premium effective December
31, 1998 to be$63,316.00.
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with SAP America,
Inc. for software maintenance and support from January 1, 1999 through December
31, 1999. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be$64,233.00.
to approve a resolution to approve an amendment to the Zumbro Lake Dam Grant
Agreement entitled Supplement No. 1 to Contract No. R2902000000117, and that
the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the
agreement.
to approve a resolution to approve a Joint Funding Agreement with the U.S.
Geological Survey for the third year of a three year study of "Assessment of the
Recharge Along the Edge of the Decorah-Platteville-Glenwood Confining Unit
Near Rochester, Minnesota," and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor
and the City Clerk to execute the agreement. The amount of the local share of the
third year of the project to be$35,000.00.
GENERAL MANAGER:
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item# 4 Meeting Date:
12/22/98
SUBJECT:
1999 WATER RATE INCREASE
PREPARED BY:
Larry Koshire,General Manager
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
In order to support the 1999 water capital and operating budgets,a water revenue increase of 5% is needed.
The increase will support continuing capital investments in the system, increases in water operatinIg costs,
and provide for necessary financial reserves. The last water revenue increase was in January of 1993.
The proposed water rate increase has been advertised in the local media in accordance with the Board
policy. The revised Water Rate Schedule is attached for your review. Further financial details on the
recommendation for the rate increase can be found in your 1999 budget book under the Ovate% utility
operating budget.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED:
It is recommended that the Board request the Common Council to approve a 5%revenue increaser water
rates effective March 1, 1999.
eral Manager Date
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES RATE SCHEDULE WTR
(RPU) SHEET 1 OF 1
WATER SERVICE
AVAILABILITY: At all locations within the Rochester City limits and at locations external to the City
limits that have been authorized by the Rochester Common Council.
MONTHLY RATE:
Customer Charge:Size of Meter Rate
5/8" $3.65
3/4" $5.17
1" $8.31
1-1/2" $16.05
2" $25.34
3" $47.13
4" $78.19
6" $155.84
8" $280.07
Commodity,Charge: $.479 per CCF
NOTE: Customers whose service is taken outside the Rochester city limits with individual water
systems not connected to the City water system shall have a rate of 2.0 times the customer and
commodity charges.
MINIMUM BILL: Applicable monthly customer charge according to size of riieter provided.
PAYMENT: Payments are due on or before the due date.
CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY:
1. Service furnished under this rate schedule is subject to connection policies of the Rochester City
Council.
2. Service furnished under this rate schedule is subject to provisions of RPUs Water Service Rules
and Regulations.
3. RPU shall not be liable for damage or loss sustained by customer in conjunction with taking service
under this rate.
4. Water furnished under this rate shall not be resold.
Approved by Rochester Public Utility Board: December 22, 1998
Effective Date: March 1, 1999
I
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item# 6 Meeting Date: 12/22/98
SUBJECT: INSURANCE QUOTATIONS
PREPARED BY: Curt Kraft,Director of Administration
I,
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Listed below are the recommended insurance quotations for obtaining all risk property insurance and
general liability insurance for 1999.
ALL RISK PROPERTY INSURANCE:
The C.O. Brown Agency received three different quotations with our current insurance carrier Hartford
Steam Boiler being the lowest.
PROPERTY VALUE PREMIUM
1999 $148,200,000 $150,560
1998 142,700,000 159,410
The 1999 renewal premium is a$8,850 decrease over 1998.
LIABILITY AND COMMERICAL,AUTO INSURANCE:
Staff recommends maintaining the same structure of coverage that was initiated last year for liability and
auto insurance and having the League of MN Cities provide the primary coverage up to$750,000.
Three quotes were obtained by C.O. Brown for providing blanket coverage with limits from $ 750;000 up
to$ 20,000,000. AEGIS,our current carrier,is the lowest quote.
1999 1998 Difference
League of MN Cities $96,311 $103,555 ($7,244)
AEGIS 63,316 75,412 ($12,096)
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
The Board iS requested to approve the attached resolutions for property and liability insurance for 1999 and
to request the Council approval of the same.
rd 714
Manager Date
ROCEWMER.PUBLIC UTILITIES
i
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item# 7 Meeting Date: 12/22/98
SUBJECT:
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE ON BUSINESS SOFTWARE
PREPARED BY:
Jim Daley,Manager-Information Systems
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Software maintenance is a critical component of all major software systems to ensure up-to-date access to
information on software problems, updates to fix software that does not work correctly and new
functionality that is developed as the software is enhanced. Our software contract agreement with SAP
included a six-month warranty period effective from the original installation date of the software. During
this period, normal software maintenance is included as a part of the original purchase price. Ongoing
annual software maintenance after the six-month warranty period is available for 15% of the current SAP
purchase price. Annual SAP software maintenance for January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999 will be
$64,233.00.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED:
It is recommended the Board request the Common Council to approve a purchase order agreement with
SAP America, Inc. for$64,233.00 to provide software maintenance and support'on our business software
from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.
64�(L4ai Manager bate
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES
I /
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item# 11 Meeting Date: 12/22�9g
SUBJECT: ZUMBRO DAM COST-SHARING AGREEMENT
SUPPLEMENT NO
. 1
PREPARED BY: Joe Hensel,Manager,Environment and Facilities
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
The agreement between the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources (DNR)and RPU,�:which
provides for 50% cost-sharing for the Zumbro dam rehabilitation project has an expiration date of
December 31, 1998. The DNR has agreed to extend the term of the agreement until December 31, 1999 to
allow additional repair work to be performed on the powerhouse. This additional work has been scheduled
for late spring or summer of 1999. A copy of the transmittal letter and Supplement No. 1, which amends
the term of the agreement,is attached.
UT -ITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the Board request Council approval of Supplement No. 1 to the grant agreement.
y
Gaeral Manager
I O
ROCEMSTER PUBLIC UTILITIES
II
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item# 12 meeting Date, 12/18/98
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF USGS GROUNDWATER STUDY FUNDING(YEAR 3)
PREPARED BY: Doug Rovang, Civil Engineer
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
A proposal from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, hereafter) to conduct a three-year "Assessment of
the Recharge Along the Edge of the Decorah-Platteville-Glenwood Confining Unit Near Rochester,
Minnesota" was approved by the Utility Board and City Council in January, 1997. The $270,000 three-
year project cost is being equally shared by RPU and the USGS.
The proposed Water Utility budget for 1999 includes funds for the $35,000 local share of the third
(final)year of the project.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends the Utility Board approve the proposed Joint Funding Agreement with the U.S.
Geological Survey for the third(final)year of funding for this previously approved three-year project for
accomplishing the "Assessment of the Recharge Along the Edge of the Decorah-Platteville-Glenwood
Confining Unit Near Rochester, Minnesota!', and request the City Council to authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute the Agreement for the final year of the project at a Water Utility Cost of$35,000.
I-L- 1-1- Cis wyv;,
(Wneral Manager to
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda Finance Department
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$1,128,402.41.
Less: Any exceptions
IML
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1/4/9
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Finance Department oe -I 1
EM DESCRIPTION: Establishing Airport Operations Special Revenue Fund and Amended PREPARED BY:
Budgets for 1998 and 1999 Dale Martinson
During our annual pre-audit planning meeting held with our auditors, we discussed a new Federal Aviation
Administration Advisory Circular , #150/5100-18. Implications of this circular are to require our auditors
to express an opinion on all revenues generated by the airport facilities and record them in our annual
financial report and single audit certification. The theory here is that a share of the facilities were
constructed with federal monies and therefore any revenues generated by those facilities are subject to the
same audit and reporting requirements of the rest of the recipient government's revenues. They are also
requiring assurance that any annual revenues over expenditures are spent on the airport.
All of the City's airport revenues in excess of operating expenditures are dedicated to expenditure on
airport improvements through the "airport profit & loss account" in the CIP program. We have not,
however, traditionally reported all revenue and expenditures of the airport operations. Our agreement with
the Airport Company specifically authorizes the Airport Company to manage those revenues as agent for
the City. We receive annual audited financial statements from the airport company as well as a check for
the net revenues in excess of expenses and management fee. This arrangement has worked extremely well
for the City over the years and we will not materially change the way this program works.
In order to meet the new requirements of the FAA, however, we will need to fully report all revenues and
expenditures on our financial statements and our auditors will need to certify the accuracy of those reports
in the federal single audit report. Ultimately, we will need to make a few amendments to the agreement
between the City and the Airport company to comply with FAA requirements.
The attached budget amendment request would establish a new special revenue fund for all airport
operations and a legally adopted estimated budget for 1998 and 1999. The affect of this action would
increase special revenue funds budget by $2,151,383 for 1998, but will reduce the general fund budget by
$547,302 for a net increase in the total 1998 budget of$1,604,081. The net affect on the 1999 budget will
be an increase of$1,628,032. This action will have no impact on the approved tax levies.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Authorize establishment of a new special revenue fund, Rochester International Airport Operations, and
amend the 1998 and 1999 budgets as reflected in attached exhibit A.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
IL(( I /
v Amended Budget Request Exhibit A
Rochester International Airport Operations Special Revenue Fund 12/29/98
Special Revenue Fund
Rochester International Airport Operations Fund
Amended Budget Amounts
Revenues 1998 1999
Taxes
Ad Valorem Taxes 547,302 537,135
Total Taxes 547,302 537,135
Intergovernmental Revenues
H.A.C.A.
MN DOA Maintenance Contract Reimb. 76,000 78,000
Total Intergovernmental Revenues 76,000 78,000
Rents and Other
Building Rentals 281,000 284,000
Field Operations-Land Area and Land Rentals 609,000 611,000
Sale of Service, Concessions and Other 541,186 557,421
Fixed Base Operator&Fuel Sales 71,595 72,311
Interest Income 25,300 25,300
Total Rents and Other 1,528,081 1,550,032
Total All Revenues 2,151,383 2,165,167
Expenditures
Contractual Services
Utility Service 150,752 144,085
Insurance and Bonds 950 950
Airport Management Contract 1,392,000 1,419,840
Total Contractual Services 1,543,702 1,564,875
Operating Transfers
Transfers To CIP-Airport 607,681 600,292
Total All Expenditures 2,151,383 2,165,167
Note:
(1) Assumes:
Airport Company Expenses 1,350,000 1,377,000
Airport Company Income Taxes 4,500 4,590
Airport Operating Agreement Net Operating Share 37,500 38,250
Total Management Contract 1,392,000 1,419,840
(2) Establishment of this budget will move general (547,302) (537,135)
fund budgets for department 101-4270 to this fund
thus reducing general fund amounts by the following:
r f r .. 1
:(ii(1li. -1
t �r.(r,`r:r'
_,I
U.S.Department 8001ndependenee Ave..SW.
of Transportation Washington,OC 20591
Federal Aviation
Administration
AUG 3 11998
Dear Airport Sponsor:
Attached is new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)Advisory Circular
150/5100-18, "Guide for Audit Certification by Airport Sponsors", which provides
guidance to airport sponsors on the requirement for a certification of airport
revenue use in connection with a single audit conducted under the Single Audit
Act, 31 U.S.C. §§7501 through 7505. This additional audit certification is
required by Federal law and is incorporated in AIP grant assurance No. 25. The
assurance requires a sponsor to include as part of its annual single audit a
review and opinion concerning transfers of revenues between the airport and the
sponsor. The certification will address whether such transfers were paid in a
manner consistent with FAA requirements, including FAA's policy on use of
airport revenue.
AC 150/5100-18 describes audit certification responsibilities as they pertain to
the sponsor, the auditor,the OIG, and the FAA. The FAA believes it is
particularly important for the sponsor to convey the audit certification requirement
to the auditor before a single audit has begun. The circular advises the sponsor
to: .
Ensure the engagement letter, agreed upon -audit procedures,
and/or other statements of work provide that the auditor will: (a)
audit and express an opinion on the airport's financial statements,
and (b) determine whether funds paid, and property or services
transferred to sponsors were paid or transferred in a manner
consistent with 49 U.S.C. §47107(b) and related policies and
procedures, including the FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning
the Use of Airport Revenues.
0 Page 16
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING '
DATE: 01/ /9
4;EM
GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA FINANCE
DESCRIPTION: Closing of Tax Increment Projects - Funds 311 & 319 PREPARED BY:
Dale Martinson
Attached is a prepared resolution closing completed projects and authorizing
transfer of the neccesary funding. The project funds were created and financed
pursuant to City Charter, Section 11.10.
The amount of funds transferred is $248,753.48.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Respectfully request a motion adopting the prepared resolution closing
completed tax increment projects and authorizing the necessary fund transfers
pursuant to the City Charter, Section 11.10.
*0-U-NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
; r
'! R E S O L U T I O N
,/0
WHEREAS, the Common Council has appropriated funds to the following projiects:
Project
Number Project Description Amount
2526 First Street Plaza (security cameras) ( 10,7013.29) 0
2551 Woolworth Block Development ( 378,.6014.43)
transfer to J2551 from J2550 (TI Balances) 378, 604.43
2552 Mayo Civic Center Expansion-Phase 1 220,363.14
2559 Pemstar Expansion 462.43
2560 TIF 7-1 Site Acquisition 40, 14i15.85
2561 Constr Street & utility - TIF Dist 7-1 1,63�6.96
2562 Old City Hall Bldg Development ( 433,161P.57)
transfer to J2562 from J2550 (TI Balances) 433,1610.57
2568 Pemstar Expansion - Phase 3 ( 3,15I1.61)
Net Funds Transferred S 2 7513.48
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 in compliance with the Charter of the City of Rochester,
Minnesota, Section 11.10 that:
1. The above named projects shall be discontinued and the remaining
balances in said projects shall be transferred to the following
tax increment projects:
Project
Number Project Description Amount
2550 Tax Increment Balances 209,659.85
2710 Ext Technology Drive NW to West Circle Drive 39,09'3.63
Net Funds Transferred $248,753.48
2. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed
to put into effect the provision of this resolution as of
December 31, 1998.
Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester,
Minnesota, this 4th day of January, 1999.
President of said Common Council
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved this day of , 109
Mayor of said City
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
I
I
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t}`�
DATE: 1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Aft Consent Agenda/Organizational Business Finance 6—/
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
Banking Items
Bruce Atkinson
A. Designation of Depositories:
This is a statutory requirement that must be accomplished at the beginning of each fiscal
year. The proposed resolutions designate the First Bank of Rochester, the Norwest
t
Bank of Rochester, th
e e Marquette Bank and Trust Company
q p y of Rochester and the
Rochester Bank and Trust Company as depositories of the public funds of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota.
While not depositories, the City maintains accounts with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
and Smith, Ltd Inc., Dain Rauscher, Inc., Primevest Financial Services through
Marquette Bank and Trust Company of Rochester, Miller and Schroeder Financial Inc.,
Norwest Investment Services Inc., Piper, Jaffray and Hopwood, FBS Investment
Services and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc., for the purpose of investing in direct U.S.
Government obligations or Federal Agency issues, commercial paper, banker
acceptance, and repurchase agreements or other investments authorized by the City's
investment policy.
B. Authorizing facsimile signature and endorsement of Certificates of Deposits:
Checks written against the General Account at Marquette Bank and Trust Company of
Rochester and the payroll account at First Bank of Rochester will bear facsimile
signatures. The use of the signatures must be authorized through resolution by the
Common Council. The transactions are covered by a forgery bond.
C. Assignment of Securities:
Sufficient securities have been pledged as collateral in lieu of a depository bond by the
Marquette Bank & Trust Co., Rochester, Minnesota, First Bank of Rochester, Minnesota,
and Norwest Bank of Rochester, Minnesota, to meet the security requirements of
Minnesota statutes.
The prepared resolutions authorize the City Treasurer to execute documents which
pledge or release securities as collateral, and to accept the collateral in lieu of a
depository bond.
Council Action Requested
Respectfully request a motion adopting the proposed resolutions.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
.y
�� ��
�►
',,,I �
��
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING '`93
DATE: 1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA PERSONNEL �0-17
TEM DESCRIPTION: MILEAGE ALLOWANCE PREPARED BY:
F. WAGNER
At the 12/21/98 City Council meeting, the Council authorized an increase in the mileage reimbursement ral
from $.31 to $.32 per mile, effective 1/l/99. Since that time, we have learned that the IRS will be lowering tt
allowable deductions for reimbursable mileage from $.32 to $.31 per mile. Rather than creating a situatic
where the additional $.01 would be taxable income, we would recommend that the City's mileaE
reimbursement rate remain at$.31 per mile.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST:
Request a motion establishing the reimbursable mileage rate at$.31 per mile,effective 1/1/99.
7 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
4� �'
I�
�i
II
I
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK C .�
'cM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY:
DONNA J SCHOTT
The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or
disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals,the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding
debts with the City of Rochester.
NUSCELLANEOUS
NAACP
Dr. Martin Luther King Parade 1/18/99 11:45 Am to 1:00 PM
Government Center to Mayo Civic Auditorium
Rochester, Mn. 55904
COUNCIL.ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the Dr.Martin Luther King Parade for January 18, 1999.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 166
DATE: 1/4/99
F AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MWEIVI DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISHMENT OF 1999 AND 20M COMPENSATION FOR PREPARED BY:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL S. KVENVOLD
Pursuant to the requirements of the Rochester City Charter, the City Council can establish the compensation
level for the Mayor and Councilmembers at the 1/4/99 meeting,covering the calendar years 1999 and 2000. The
next opportunity to amend this compensation will take place at the City Council annual meeting in January,
2001.
It is recommended that the compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers be increased by 3% for 1999
and 3%for 2000. The current and proposed salaries are as follows:
PROPOSED PROPOSED
CURRENT 1999 2000
Mayor $25,626 $26,395 $27,187
Council President $18,882 $19,448 $20,031
Councilmember $14,777 $15,220 $15,677
COUNCIL ACTION QUESTED:
Request a motion instructing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance establishing the 1999 and-20K
compensation levels for the Mayor,Council President and Councilmembers as recommended.
OUNCIL ACTION Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A, F- 1.0
MPIYEM DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISHMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR CITY PREPARED:BYl:7 ;
ADMINISTRATOR S. KVENVOLD
The Committee of the Whole conducted a performance evaluation of the City Administrator at
their January 4, 1999, meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
If the City Administrator's compensation for 1999 is to be increased, a motion establishing the
compensation increase would be in order.
OUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Reports and Recommendations City Administration F-3
�EM DESCRIPTION: Skyway Golf Tournament— PossAbilities of Southern MN PREPARED BY:
Doug Knott
PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota is seeking permission from the City to hold a skyway golf tournament
as a fundraising event. They are a non-profit organization serving the handicapped. The event would take
place on Saturday, February 27, 1999. The course layout is shown on the attachment. I support their
request with the following conditions:
1) They use no more than one-half of the width of a skyway bridge or corridor for the golf course.
This will leave the other half open for pedestrian traffic.
2) They provide the City with a hold harmless agreement acceptable to the City Attorney and name
the City as an additional insured on its insurance policy.
3) They have the permission of all property owners abutting the skyway corridor segments to be
used for the course.
4) They are responsible for clean-up after the event.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approve the request of PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota to hold a skyway golf tournament as a
fundraising event following the above stated conditions.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota _
Supporting Individuals with Disabilities as Active Community Participants
II
December 28, 1998 Q
s
Doug Knott
Downtown Development �Ps
Rochester Government Center Jsu''4"niversvry i962-�qq�
201 4th Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Doug,
This letter is to request permission to use a portion of the Downtown skyway for the 1999i
Skyway Golf Classic, on February 27, 1999. This will be our third year of putting on this event.
All event operations in the past two years went smoothly, orderly, and were conducted within the
dictated time constraints.
The golf tournament headquarters will be at the Radisson Plaza Hotel. Permission to use
skyways adjacent to downtown buildings has been obtained from: Chafoulias Co./Lanmark, S&l�
Services,Norwest Bank, Barnes&Noble, and First Bank.
The tournament course for the 1999 Skyway Golf Classic will be the same as 1998. The
skyways to be used will be: Radisson Hotel to Marquette Bank; Second Street from the Radisson
Hotel to the Galleria Mall; Galleria Mall to First Bank; Galleria Mall to Norwest Bank. A map is
enclosed for you to review.
Hole sponsors understand that they can use"up to"one-half of the skyway corridors or
skyway bridges. We will be responsible for clean up of the areas used for the event. PossAbilities
will obtain a"hold harmless"agreement from the City Attorney Office.
Your attention in regard to this request will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your
continued support of this fun event.
I
Sincerely,
cC
Kathy�dson
Marketing and Development Specialist
0
U
m
G
•C
0.
m
t
M
a
3
d
O
` N
>_ ca 0c
(D S'
U c > \J0 U) m
ca U c
c� o
-io 0
U G2C c o
a^U(]laluao ai^1.0
OQ
Z
CL
' E fl�
0 � y co
' m
• �� � � U a�i
C W c U
c
L V Z 3s a"d 3S6 > co
S y.. tU CD.. I a � Q o
� E
N
J � �
O = ; ¢ L
O
V) 0 rn co
V♦ .. a> m co
O4— 1 U p'm m C
O
� m ca v
ci a@ Cc
a �teMpeaS
} N
10
o o Lc
(D _
.�
�c E n
co
m ♦♦^^
a.
a�
c
o
,, Z
AAU (U=
0 v+ Cl) ;�c
m MS any 3S
L i
a
m o tiY 0) 6
�Y� Ya= mm cm
Y ca
+- c
m E rn a
E'o cm
as 0 Q a
D
7
a
o`
•41
m
N
W
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Reports&Recommendations City Administrator ��
M DESCRIPTION Request to contract with Freilich, Leitner&Carlisle to complete drafting PREPARED BY:
of mining ordinance revisions. T. Spaeth
The Planning Department is requesting that the Council consider the contracting with Freilch, Leitner& Carlisle
to complete drafting of provisions related to mining. This could be completed in addition to the fmal draft of
amendments being prepared for the subdivision ordinance.
The reason for this request is that other projects have interfered with the completion of this project(See attached
memo).
The proposed cost estimate for these additional services is $10,000, but could be reduced to $7500 provided that
the consultant doesn't need to come to Rochester for meetings related to this item.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorization to expand contract with Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle to cover drafting of mining ordinance
revisions an a motion to extend the mining moratorium for an additional 60 days.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 1; I /
DATE: 1/4/99
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE G
ITEM DESCRUMON: PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY ADKINS
F. 1. RESOLUTIONS
F. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
F. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
a) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 13.57 Acres of Lan
Located in a Part of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 10
North, Range 13 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located South of rock
Creek Drive, West of East Circle Drive.
b) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately .33 Acres of Land Locate
in Lot 18, Block 6, Sunnydale Subdivision, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Locate
on the North Side of Strathmore Lane SE West of 40'" Avenue Southeast.
c) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property From the R-1 District to the R-1x District an
144F Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manu4
of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Being 11 Multiple Family Units.
F. 4. MISCELLANEOUS.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion w. somw W. oo: