Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCILIBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" SfREET SE MEETING NO. 3 REGULAR PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 00-03 FEBRUARY 7, 2000 7:00 P.M. (3-6) 1) Feasibility Study for Roadway Improvements to 50"' Avenue NW (7-10) 2) Feasibility Study for Roadway Improvements to 50`h Avenue NW D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (11-12) 2) 2000 Compensation for Department Heads (13-22) 3) Request for Funding/Youth Employment Project (23-24) 4) Request for Funding/RCTC Summer Youth Program (25-26) 5) Request to Call a Hearing for Issuance of Airport Exempt Facility Bonds for Airborne Express (27-32) 6) Closeout/Settlement Agreement with Western Digital (33-34) 7) Request to Set a Public Hearing Date for Establishment of TIF District on Weatherstone Townhomes Project (35-36) 8) Time Square/Exclusive Negotiation Period Extension (37-40) 9) Skyway Golf Classic (41-42) 10) Agreement for General Consulting Services ` (43-48) 11) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action (49-54) 12) Approval of Employment Agreement and Release for City Employee Richard William Peterson (55-60) 13) Lease Agreement with Olmsted County for Storage Space (61-64) 14) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (65-66) 15) Approval of Accounts Payable (67-68) 16) Mileage Allowance (69-74) 17) Promotional Appointments/Police Department (75-76) 18) Amend Ordinance 3304 Regarding Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Western Walls, Inc. to Annex Approx. 10.84 Acres in Rose Harbor Subdivision Council Agenda February 7, 2000 Page 2 (77-78) 19) Amendment to Southern Woods Development Agreement and City/Owner Contract (79-80) 20) Development Agreement/White Oaks 4th Subdivision (81-82) 21) Land Donation to City by IBM Corporation/Ryan Companies (83-86) 22) Property Addressing/Initiate Change to Rochester Code of Ordinances Chapter 74 (87-88) 23) Street Name Changes/Southern Woods First & Second Subdivisions (89-90) 24) Declaration of Restriction and Covenants for Replacement Wetland/60th Avenue & Highway 14 West (91-92) 25) Acquisition of Needed Right -of -Way for 41s` Street NW & West Frontage Road for Highway 52 (93-98) 26) Revised Feasibility Report/Public Improvements to Sunset Drive, Rose Avenue, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor (99-104) 27) Feasibility Report/Reconstruct 70 Street NW from 46th Avenue NW West Approximate 1,250 Feet (105-106) 28) Parking Petition 2" Street NW/700 Block (107-116) 29) Award of Bids for ZIPS Buses (117-118) 30) Lease of the Rochester Airport Agricultural Land (119-120) 31) Consulting Services Contract Agronomy Services Plus, Inc. E) HEARINGS (121-126) 1) Continued Hearing/Final Plat to be Known as Wimbledon Hills 3rd Sub (127-158) 2) Preliminary Plat by Leslie Lurken to be Known as North Park 10th Sub (159-168) 3) Final Plat to be Known as White Oaks Fourth Subdivision (169-180) 4) Final Plat to be Known as Wedgewood Hills Third (181-188) 5) Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Payne Company to Annex Approx. 10.93 Acres East of Century Hills Drive NE, South of Viola Road NE, in Section 29 and Section 30, Haverhill Township (189-194) 6) City Initiated Text Amendment to Amend Section 61.148, 62.707 and 62.709 of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and LDM (195-196) 7) Public Hearing for Housing Revenue Bonds for Weatherstone Townhomes Project F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (197-198) 1) City Administrator - Establishment of Compensation for City Administrator (199-200) 2) Planning Dept. - Arboretum Special District/Request for Clarification Council Agenda February 7, 2000 Page 3 (201-202) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: _'.'' 00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR A �jd DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. %,vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2,' CONSENT AGENDA .. -M DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CITY ADMINISTRATOR I D-1-31 PREPARED BY: G.NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council. The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs D-1. Approval of Minutes D-2. 2000 Compensation for Department Heads D-3. Request for Funding/Youth Employment Project D-4. Request for Funding/RCTC Summer Youth Program D-5. Request to Call a Hearing for Issuance of Airport Exempt Facility Bonds for Airborne Express D-6. Closeout/Settlement Agreement with Western Digital D-7. Request to Set a Public Hearing Date for Establishment of TIF District on Weatherstone Townhomes Project D-8. Time Square/Exclusive Negotiation Period Extension D-9. Skyway Golf Classic D-10. Agreement for General Consulting Services D-11. Consideration of Public Utility Board Action D-12. Approval of Employment Agreement and Release for City Employee Richard William Peterson D-13. Lease Agreement with Olmsted County for Storage Space D-14. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-15. Approval of Accounts Payable D-16. Mileage Allowance D-17, Promotional Appointments/Police Department D-18. Amend Ordinance 3304 Regarding Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Western Walls, Inc. to Annex Approx. 10.84 Acres in Rose Harbor Subdivision D-19. Amendment to Southern Woods Development Agreement and City/Owner Contract D-20. Development Agreement/White Oaks 4t Subdivision D-21. Land Donation to City by IBM Corporation/Ryan Companies D-22. Property Addressing/Initiate Change to Rochester Code of Ordinances Chapter 74 D-23. Street Name Changes/Southern Woods First & Second Subdivisions D-24. Declaration of Restriction and Covenants for Replacement Wetland/60"' Avenue & Highway 14 West D-25. Acquisition of Needed Right -of -Way for 41" Street NW & West Frontage Road for Highway 52 D-26. Revised Feasibility Report/Public Improvements to Sunset Drive, Rose Avenue, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor %,JUNCIL ACTION: Motor, by: second by: to: Request for Council Action Approval of Consent Agenda Items February 7, 2000 Page 2 D-27. Feasibility Report/Reconstruct 7'h Street NW from 461h Avenue NW West Approximately 1,250 Feet D-28. Parking Petition 2nd Street NW/700 Block D-29. Award of Bids for ZIPS Buses D-30. Lease of the Rochester Airport Agricultural Land D-31. Consulting Services Contract Agronomy Services Plus, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: _'. 7 00� AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Letters & Petitions City Administration C _' DESCRIPTION Feasibility study for roadway improvements to 50th Avenue NW PREPARED BY: T. Spaeth The developer of the "Ripley" property located along the west side of 501h Avenue NW, between 55'h Street NW and 65 Street NW has submitted a petition for public roadway improvements to 50`h Avenue NW, between 55'h Street NW and 60d' Street NW. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A motion to request the Public Works Department prepare a feasibility study. i UNCILACTION: Mohonby: Second by: to: j a December 22, 1999 Honorable Mayor and Common Council City of Rochester c/o Mr. Stevan Kvenvold 201 41h Street SE Rochester MN 55904 HAND -DELIVERED RE: Petition for Public Improvements on 501h Avenue NW Dear Mayor and Common Council: We are in the process of planning for development of approximately 85 acres of land along the west side of 501h Avenue NW known as "Ripley property". This development will utilize 50`h Avenue NW as a primary access roadway. Currently, this roadway is somewhat substandard for a roadway that is classified as a collector road. Construction on the respective first phase of our project will begin next year and involve a roadway connection to 50`h Avenue NW. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Council authorize a feasibility study for the improvements to upgrade 5V, Avenue NW along the boundary of our project. The attached exhibit graphically represents the area of the study which begins at the south line of the Ripley property to 60`h Street NW. If you have any questions, please contact me. Respectfully submitted, BBB Development LLC PC: Mr. Richard Freese, PE Mr. Michael J. Nigbur Ms. Mitzi Baker PM 'OAV glOS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 17; 00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Letters & Petitions City Administration C1 _OIL i cn1 DESCRIPTION Feasibility study for roadway improvements to 50th Avenue NW PREPARED BY: T. Spaeth Arcon Development, Inc. is the developer of the "Graves" property located along the east side of 50`h Avenue NW, between 55`h Street NW and 65 Street NW has submitted a petition for public roadway improvements to 501h Avenue NW, between 55 h Street NW and 65 h Street NW. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A motion to request the Public Works Department prepare a feasibility study. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: .ARGON DEVELOPMENT, INC. 7625 METRO BLVD. • SUITE 350 • EDINA, MINNESOTA 55439 • PHONE 612/835-4981 • FAX 612/835-0069 February 2, 2000 Honorable Mayor and Common Council City of Rochester C/o Mr, Stevan Kvenvold 2010 Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Petition for Public Improvements on 50'h Ave. NW Dear Mayor and Council, Arcon Development, Inc. is in the process of a GPD approval for the Graves property, a 144-acre development along the east side of 50th Ave. NW and south of 651h Street NW. It is our understanding that the City of Rochester is in the process of conducting a feasibility study for the up -grading of 50`h Ave. NW, from 55`h Street NW north approximately'/2 mile. Because of the impending development of the Graves property by Arcon Development, Inc. and also the Ripley propett� on the west side of 50'h Avenue NW, it seems appropriate the feasibility study for 50 Ave. NW extend the full distance from 55'h St. NW to 65`h St. NW. Arcon Development, Inc. hereby requests the City of Rochester to add this additional section of 50'h Avenue NW to the existing feasibility study. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me. Sincerely, Larry D. Frank, Project Manager Arcon Development, Inc. Cc: Mr. Michael Nigbur Mr. Richard Freese, P.E. Ms. Mitzi Baker McGhie & Betts WE DO MORE THAN DEVELOP LAND.... WE CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS DEVELOPERS -PLANNERS -CONTRACTORS i Ave. NW R x IM 111 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NIEETiNG DATE: 2.7 00� AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D —O�L i i trr: DESCRIPTION: 2000 COMPENSATION FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS PREPARED BY: S. KVENVOLD The department heads are a non -union group of City employees who get together as a "meet and confer" group to present their compensation requests to the City Administrator and City Council. I recommend the City Council's approval of the following 2000 compensation program for department heads: 1. Cost of living adjustment of 3%, effective 1/l/2000. 2. Merit Pay - The City Administrator would be authorized to grant pay -for -performance increases of 0-5% if a department head is below the midpoint of their salary range or 04% if they are above the midpoint. If a department head is above the midpoint of the salary range, any pay -for -performance increase above 2% will be paid as a lump sum and would not be added to the department head's base salary. 3. Salary ranges are to be adjusted by 3%. 4. Personal Leave - The department heads would be granted personal leave as follows: Years of Service Hours (Days)/Year Less than 2 years 8 hours (1 day) 2 years 12 hours(1.5 days) 3 years 16 hours (2 days) 4 years 24 hours (3 days) 5 years or more 32 hours (4 days) This leave is paid time off and may be taken at the department head's discretion. Personal leave must be taken in the year earned and may not be carried over into a subsequent year. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion adopting the prepared resolution setting forth the terms of the department heads' meet and confer agreement for their 2000 compensation. %.vJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 13 , DATE: 2.' 00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMNISTRATOR D-3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQL7EST FOR FUNDINGrYOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROJECT PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD The Youth Employment Project (YEP) is requesting funding from the City of Rochester to fund their annual Summer Youth Employment Program. The YEP Summer Youth Employment Program involves the employment of a number of youths between the ages of 14 to 19 to clean the City parks. The City has provided funding in past years for this program; the YEP Program is a vital part of the City's summer park maintenance operation. YEP is requesting funding in the amount of $6,500. The City's 1999 appropriation was $4,000; however, YEP's 1999 costs for the program were $6,869. YEP is requesting the additional appropriation in order to cover their anticipated expenses. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion transferring $6,500 from the 2000 Contingency Account to YEP for their Summer Youth Employment Program. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: l Youth Employment Project, Inc. January 25, 2000 Rochester City Council c/o Mr. Stevan E. Kvenvold, City Administrator 201 4th St SE Rochester MN 55904 Dear Mr. Kvenvold: Youth Employment Project would like to make an appeal to you for assistance in financing our Summer Work Project for 2000. We are requesting $6,500.00 from the Contingency Fund this year. Some, but not all of the necessary funding consists of gifts from service clubs and community organizations. The Summer Work Project has operated effectively for fourteen summers because it is both a valuable work experience for teens and a service to the community of Rochester. Much of the success of the project is due to the close supervision provided both on-the-job and from the office. The opportunity to work is open to all Y.E.P. members who wish to participate. A project proposal outline and budget is enclosed. This year we are asking for an increase in funding from the city since Summer Work Project has operated at a loss for several years. I look forward to the continued support of the community as we meet the challenge of building a strong foundation for the future of our young people. Thank you for considering our proposal. Sincerely, 41�x� 4'e_ Dawn A. Roush Executive Director 300 11th Avenue NW, Suite 120 Post Office Box 86 • Rochester, MN 55901 • Pine Island, MN 55963 10 • 507-529.2708 • FAX 507-529-2715 • 507-356-4591 • FAX 507.356.8230 u..r a U. Q� 1 iK Recrea�. Qa Park and Recreation Department City of Rochester 201 Fourth Street SE • Room 150 • Rochester, MN 55904 (507) 281.6160 • FAX (507) 281.6165 January 27, 2000 Mr. Stevan Kvenvold Once again, I am writing to encourage the continued financial support of the summer Youth Employment Program. In the past the Park and Recreation Department has used the services of the Y.E.P. personnel during the summer for litter pickup in our parks as well as Mayo stadium. This program runs Monday through Friday, mid -June through mid -August. Without their continued effort, we would not be in a position to keep our parks as clean as they are. The Y.E.P. program is a vital part of our summer park maintenance operation and without their support we could not produce the level of service that the public has come to expect. This Department needs and supports the continued funding of the Y_E.P. program. S cer Steve awson Park Operations Supervisor cc: Roy Sutherland Dave McDonald 1(0 Youth Employment Project, Inc. Revenue City of Rochester Community Donations Expenses Youth Wages Workers Comp Policy Payroll Taxes Crew Leader & Youth T-Shirts Mileage .30 x 30 miles x 50 days Supplies Office Staff SWP 2000 Wages 2000 Budget 6,500 1 000 7,500 4,700 525 400 725 350 50 750 7,500 Youth Wages $5.50 hour x 4 hour days = $22.00 x 3 youth x 5 days week x 8 weeks = $2,640,00 Crew Leader $7.50 hour x 6 hour days = $45.00 x 5 days a week $225 x 9= $2025.00 Total $4,665.00 Office Staff Office Manager $ 8.75 hour x 1 hour per day = $8.75 x 5 days a week $43.75 x 10 weeks = $437.50 Executive Director Total $12.11 hour x 25 hours over 10 weeks = $302.75 $740.25 SUMMER WORK PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Reminder of the following: You need to have on file at the YEP office a copy of your birth certificate and social security card before you can be scheduled to work. ALSO: When you do work: * Be at the YEP office by 7:45 a.m. * No Sandals will be allowed * Bring something to drink * Bring gloves * You must wear the YEP T-shirt * You must be 14. * YEP membership must be up-to-date. * If the crew leader needs to discipline and the crew is brought back to the YEP office early, the crew will be paid only for those hours worked. * No "second chances" will be given. Sorry. Remember: Payroll will be run the 15th and 30/31 st of the month. Any questions, call the office at 529-2708. ult YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROJECT, INC. SUN v1ER WORK PROJECT BUDGET INCOME AS OF JUNE 14, 1999 City of Rochester $4,000.00 Community Donations $ 750.00 $4,750.00 EXPENSES 1999 Youth Wages $5,550.00 Workers Comp. Policy $ 500.00 Payroll Taxes $ 450.00 T-Shirts $ 725.00 Mileage $ 400.00 Supplies $ 125.00 Office Staff $L050.00 MUC I P SWP 1999 WAGES Youth Wage- $5.50 hour x 4 hours day-- $22.00 x 3 youth x 5 days week x 10 weeks = $3,300.00 Crew Leader- $7.50 hour x 6 hours day = $45.00 x 5 days week $225.00 x 10 weeks = $2,250.00 Office Staff Hours Tonya's hours- $8.65 hour x 1 hour per day-- $8.65 x 5 days week $43.25 x 10 weeks = $432.50 Dawn's hours- $11.54 hour x 1 hour per day = $11.54 x 5 days week $57.70 x 10 weeks = $577.00 Community Contributions Breakdown Deputy's Assoc. Disbursement $500.00 Benevolent, Patriotic Order of Does $100.00 Paula Rome $ 50.00 Eagles Auxiliary 2228 $100.00 $750.00 PM Revenue City of Rochester Community Donations Western Digital Youth Employment Project Ire/ 1999 1999 2000 Budget Actual Budget 4000 4000 4000 3000 750 1000 0 0 2500 7000 4750 _ 7500 Expenses Office Manager Wages Executive Director Wages Crew Leader Wages Youth Wages Workers Comp Policy Payroll Taxes Crew Leader & youth T-shirts Mileage .30 X 30 mile X 50days Supplies 450 798 450 600 600 2250 1843.13 1900 3300 2315.5 2400 500 502 500 450 318.14 450 725 701.92 725 400 313.72 350 125 77 125 8800 6869.41 7500 Balance @ 12/3119 Checking 4,858.45 (1,800.00) (2,119.41) 0.00 4,858.45 1999 change (2,119.41) 1g98 wages transferred (1,639.00 ) Insurance 502 -- 1100.04 Director Wages 798 Fica W/H 318.14 3278.2 Fica Expense 318.14 State W/H 115 Transfer Required -2178.16 Federal W/H 37 2088.28 SWP 2000 Wages Variance -89.88 Youth Wages $ 5.5 hour X 4 hours day=$22.00 X 3 youth x 5 days week x 9 weeks = 2,970.00 Crew Leader $7.5 hour X 6 hours day = $45 x 5 days a week $225 x 9= 2025 Total F31ne7 Office Staff Office manager $ 8.75 hour x 1 hour per day = 8.75 X 5 days a week $43.75 x 10 = 437.50 Executive Director $12.11 hour X 1 hour per day =12.11 X 5 days a week $60.55 x 10 = 605.50 Total 1043 �a. Inc. Page 1 09/13/1999 1999 Projected Budget 1999 Actual Youth Wages $ 5,550.00 $ 4,158.63 Workers Comp. Poli $ 500.00 $ 502.00 Pa roll Taxes $ 450.00 $ 433.15 T-Shirts $ 725.00 $ 701.92 Mileage $ 400.00 $ 313.72 Suppliesl $ 125.00 $ 30.00 Office Staff $ 1.050.00 $ 798.00 Total L $ 8,800.00 $ 6,931.42 a 1999 Summer Work Project Report Total number of youth in program: 31 Males: 23 #Females: 8 Number of times each worked: Eight: 1 Seven: 2 Six.: 3 Five: 2 Four: 7 Three: 6 Two: 3 One: 7 Ages of youth: FEMALES MALES 14 3 2 15 4 17 16 1 3 17 1 Ethnicity of youth: FEMALES MALES Caucasian: 7 22 Multiethnic: 1 Hispanic: 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 � DATE: 2.7 00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM NO. D_ l ovl DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR FUNDING:RCTC SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAM PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD The Rochester Community and Technical College Foundation is requesting $10,000 from the City of Rochester for the RCTC Summer Youth Program called Voyageurs Club (see attached). The City of Rochester has previously provided funding in the amount of $10,000 in each of the years 1998 and 1999. i I COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion appropriating $10,000 from the 2000 Contingency Account to the RCTC Foundation for the 2000 Summer Youth Program. i I L,utJNCIL ACTION: Moron by: second by: to: IL Rochester Community and Technical College Foundation R `` 851 3 h ne:A%enue (50 Southeast. Rochester. Minnesota 5i904 ,,2 December 17, 1999 anDDe: Isa»zsla77l •ear: io 80-2970 r E-mail: jud%.bird'droch.edu City of Rochester Stevan Kvenvold Education 201 4'h St SE Rochester MN 55904 Dear Mr. Kvenvold: Excellence I am writing to submit a request for funding for the RCTC Summer Youth Program called Voyageurs Club. This will be the third year that RCTC has conducted this summer day camp to serve the needs of low-income youth in our Through community. Last year we served over one hundred young people, ages 10 — 15. It is our intent to again target this same population, however with additional funding anticipated from the state of Minnesota, we hope to double the number of Philanthropy participants. In addition, we plan to offer year round activities that will also include parental involvement. The grant from the Minnesota Higher Education Services Offices is aimed at low- income middle school children. Its purpose is to prepare these children and their OFFICERS parents to anticipate post -secondary education if they hope to achieve economic independence and success. MHESO recognizes that the growth in higher OH1' WADE Pre WADE education students in the next two decades will come from first generation, low P.AUL SKOVEIROTEN income and immigrant families. That is precisely the population that assumes 17" Pnvd"w higher education is out of their reach. AL SCHAFER T,,.,,' Rochester Community and Technical College intends to operate the summer SLE DRIPPS camp on campus, exposing participants to career exploration, group activities ,, that encourage team building and leadership and community involvement. This is the same format as used last year and was found to be highly successful at engaging the kids and teaching real life skills. BOARD OF DIRECTORS We are again requesting $10,000 from the City of Rochester to provide the matching dollars necessary in order to access the grant from MHESO. Let me MICHAEL BIRDSEYE take this opportunity to thank the city leaders for your past support and your MARTHA BOWMAN willingness to provide the necessary resources for the truly needy youth in our ARDELL BREDE community. BOB CARLSON Sincerely, RICXARD DEVLIN 1 STVART EI[KELBEAG BEV GERZEVSKE , �} C"' CAROL HOLINKA jdith Bird, Director of Development MICHAEL KLAMPE Rochester Community and Technical College Foundation DAVE NELSON BOB PENMNGTON IRV PLITZUWEIT WILLIA TOINTON SHARON TUNTLAND REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT I CITY ADMINISTRATOR „cn1 DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO CALL A HEARING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AIRPORT EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS FOR AIRBORNE EXPRESS MEETING DATE: '_.' 0� ITEM NO. y — 5- G. NEUMANN MDC of Lenexa, Kansas, the developer for Airborne Express, has requested that the City call a public hearing for the purpose of considering the issuance of $1 million in Tax Exempt Facility Bonds. The bond proceeds would be used for the construction of a 15,437 sq. ft. facility located on 58,089 sq. ft. of land leased at the Rochester Airport. This facility would allow Airborne to expand their operations in Rochester. The proposed bonds to be issued are similar to industrial revenue bonds. They are an obligation of the applicant and are not a financial responsibility of the City of Rochester. Both the applicant, MDC, Inc. (Midwest Development & Construction, Inc.), and the Underwriter, GE Capital Public Finance, Inc., have experience with similar airport facility projects. A copy of the application submitted by MDC, Inc. has been provided to the Mayor and Council separate from the agenda due to its length. The staff is recommending approval to call the hearing for February 7, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt resolution calling a hearing on the MDC, Inc. application for Exempt Facility Bonds for the Airborne Express project at Rochester Airport. %,wJNCIL ACTION: rood«, by: second l k4, a-.7-oo A{jeA-901— CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing 1. APPLICANT: a. Business Name: MDC Rochester, LLC b. Business Address: 11401 Strang Line Road Lenexa, KS 66215 c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, etc.): Kansas Limited Liability Corporation d. Parent Organization (if any): None e. Authorized Representative: Jerry Dean Phone: 913-327-7677 2. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MAJOR STOCKHOLDERS OR PRINCIPALS: a. Jerry Dean 11401 Strang Line Road, Lenexa, KS 66215 b. Clay Kenmore / Atlantic United Construction, Inc. 1475 Klondike Road, Suite 200, Conyers, Georgia 3. GIVE BRIEF HISTORY OF BUSINESS (INCLUDING PAST OWNERSHIP DATA), DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS AND PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS: Jerry Dean has successfully developed properties throughout the United States. He has developed at numerous airports and has a clear appreciation and understanding of airport needs and airport development. In addition to his airport development experience in MDC's corporate headquarters town of Kansas City, he has successfully developed and constructed over 1,000,000 square feet of commercial properties. In addition to the development business MDC provides property management services for over 500,000 square feet of commercial property. The following is a representative listing of our airport development experience: Hector International Airport Fargo, ND Airborne Express Facility Contact: Shawn A. Dobberstein, Executive Director 701-241-1501 Wichita Mid -Continent Airport Wichita, KS Airborne Facility & Federal Express Facility Contact: Bailis Bell Director of Airports 316-946-4700 City of Rochester, Minnesota Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing Page 2 of 5 • Forbes Field Mather Airport Topeka, Kansas Sacramento, CA Airborne Facility Airborne Facility Contact: David A. Stremming Contact: Larry Kozub President Airport Manager 785-862-2362 916-855-5577 Colorado Springs Airport Colorado Springs, CO Airborne Facility Contact: Mr. Gary Green Director of Aviation 719-550-1900 4. PURPOSE OF REQUESTED FINANCING: a. New facility (describe): The Project consists of an Airborne Express air cargo facility located at Rochester International Airport in the City of Rochester, MN. The building will be a 15,437 square -foot facility located on 58,089 square feet of land, located contiguous to a concrete aircraft ramp reserved exclusively for air cargo operation. The building will be a metal frame building with architectural metal panel sidewalls on all exposures. The building interior will consist of approximately 2,091 square feet of general offices, open work areas and employee facilities. Drive-in loading doors for delivery van and direct aircraft access as well as dock -high doors accommodating over -the -road tractor - trailers will access the distribution portion of the building. Exterior improvements include extensive concrete paving for auto parking and tractor -trailer loading and maneuvering. Landscaping will include front and side easement consisting of various indigenous trees and shrubs, with attractive green areas. Expansion (describe): The requested bond funding is for new construction only no expansion of existing facilities is included. Estimated project cost i. Land n/a ii. Buildings $1,000,000.00 iii. Equipment n/a iv. Other n/a Total Improvements & Equipment $1,000,000.00 City of Rochester, Minnesota Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing Page 3 of 5 5. BOND ISSUE: a. Amount of Proposed Bond Issue: $1,000,000.00 b. Proposed Date of Sale: March 1, 2000 c. Length of Bond Issue and Proposed Maturities: 15 year bond with corresponding maturities. d. Describe Any Interim Financing Sought or Available: none e. Describe Nature and Amount of any Permanent Financing in Addition to Bond Financing: none 6. HAVE YOU APPLIED FOR CONVENTIONAL FINANCING? a. Yes Describe: b. No Why Not? We have utilized this method of financing at other airport locations. Airports are a specific development that requires specialized financing mechanisms. '. BUSINESS PROFILE: a. Are you located in the City of Rochester now? yes b. Number of employees in Rochester - c. Before this project - 16 i. After this project - Up to 40 without expansion d. Approximate annual sales — see attached Airborne Financials e. Length of time in business — see attached Airborne information in Rochester - f. Do you have plants in other locations? If so, where? i. Airborne Express has locations throughout the world. g. Are you engaged in international trade? yes City of Rochester, Minnesota Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing Page 4 of 5 8. NAMES OF: a. Underwriter - GE Capital Public Finance, Inc. i. Has preliminary financial analysis by underwriter required by City been completed and attached to this application? See attached information from GE Capital Public Finance, Inc. ii. Is underwriter's letter of commitment attached to this application? Yes c. Bond Counsel - Mr. James Omera Briggs and Morgan 2200 First National Bank Bldg. 322 Minnesota Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 i. Tax Counsel - Mr. Normal E. Gaar McDowell, Rice, Smith & Gaar 7101 College Boulevard, Suite 200 Overland Park, KS 66210 c. Corporate Counsel - d. Accountant - Phone: 1-913-338-5400 Mr. Albert Kuhl Attorney at Law 13000 W. 87`h Street, Suite 100 Lenexa, KS 66215 Phone: 1-913-438-2760 Mr. Kevin Kieefer Pratt , Kieefer & Company 9381 W. 75th Street Overland Park, KS 66204 Phone: 1-913-648-5005 e. Name and address of suggested trustee and paying agent? GE Capital handles all trustee issues. City of Rochester, Minnesota Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing Page 5 of 5 9. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN BANKRUPTCY? DEFAULTED ON ANY BOND OR MORTGAGE COMMITMENT? NO If so, give details 10. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR: a. Construction start — b. Construction completion — April 1, 2000 weather permitting September 1, 2000 11. DO YOU HAVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ZONING AND CONSTRUCTION TYPE? The airport has indicated the Airborne use is consistent airport use. 12.FINANCIAL REFERENCES: a. Bank Mr. Joseph Close Mercantile Bank 1101 Walnut, Suite 700 Kansas City, MO 64106 b. Mortgage Mr. Dick Davis Director of Public Finance Municipal Financial Group c. Other ID Bonds, if any (give name of Trustee) None MDC Rochester, LLC APPLICANT BAY— �. �ATE� /- //- 00 1-816-871-2315 1-800-765-1011 January 4, 2000 Mr. Jerry S. Dean President Midwest Development & Construction, Inc. 11401 Strang Line Road Lenexa, KS 66215 Dear Mr. Dean: Sc Cemra) PuDifc r'xance. Inc. A ina of GerP,ral Elecrcc Cap tal Corporarrcn 3:C+] Normandale lake 8oulevard. Suite -17C V oneepaAs, MN 55437-1079 612 E975600, Fax. 611897-5601 GE Capital GE Capital is pleased to submit the following tax-exempt financing proposal for your review and acceptance: Transaction Structure: Tax-exempt, Exempt Facility Bond Issuer/Project Location: City of Rochester, MN / Rochester, MN Borrower: Midwest Development & Construction, Inc. or its Assigns Tenant: Airborne Freight Corporation Lender: GE Capital, through its wholly -owned subsidiary known as GE Capital Public Finance, Inc. or its Assigns or Nominees. ("GECPF") Bond Amount: $1,000,000 Project: The proceeds of the bond issue will be used to finance an air cargo facility which will be owned by Borrower and occupied by Tenant. The term of the ground lease agreement between Borrower and Issuer will exceed the term of the bonds. In addition, the lease agreement between Borrower and Tenant will exceed the term of the bonds and the lease payments will be sufficient to fully amortized the bonds. Closing Date: On or before July 1, 2000, but not prior to execution of Issuer's Documents. Term and Payment: Fifteen (15) years, monthly payments in arrears. January 4, 2000 Page 2 Fixed Interest Rate: The interest rate as of the date of this proposal is 6.18%. MARKET INDEX OPTION: The interest rate as of the date of this proposal is 6.18% (based on a 7-year Treasury of 6.52% for the week ended December 31, 1999): Borrower has the option to adjust to the change in market condition (56% of the change in the 7-year treasury as reported on the Federal Reserve Bank's Release H.15). The rate at the time of funding will then be fixed for the term of the financing. RATE LOCK OPTION: The Borrower has the option to lock the interest rate for funding (funds closed into an escrow account) that occur on or before 90 days from the date of this proposal or any subsequent date the customer chooses to exercise the option to fix the interest rate (the "Rate Lock Date). If the Borrower locks the rate and the transaction does not close (documents executed) by the Rate Lock Date, the interest rate will increase by 3 basis points per month retroactive back to the date of the Borrower's election to lock the interest rate. Real Estate Advance Rate: $1,000,000: GECPF's advance rate will be 90% of the purchase price or cost to construct (which cost specifically excludes developer's overhead and any leasing fees not paid to independent third parties); or 75% of appraised value per MAI appraisal (subject to GECPF's approval and selection), whichever is less. Any additional advance, if requested by the borrower, will require additional collateral secured by a perfected UCC-1 showing lender a first secured party with no additional liens or encumbrances on the equipment, or a Letter of Credit acceptable to GECPF. The amortization of any additional advance will be appropriate to the useful life of any additional collateral pledged at GECPF's sole discretion. Funding for the Real Estate will be based on final completion of the project. If construction financing is requested, it shall be secured by a Letter of Credit. Security for the Bond: Real Estate will be secured by a first deed of trust or first mortgage on the Borrower's fee simple interest in the real property and improvements thereon generally described as Midwest Development & Construction, Inc. facility located in Rochester, MN ("Property"). Borrower shall execute a (1) Loan Agreement and either (2a) a Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing or (2b) a Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing, plus other documentation and financing statements deemed necessary by GECPF which shall evidence a first lien covering all leases, rents, security deposits and personal property owned by Borrower and from time to time installed and/or used in the maintenance and operation of the Property. January 4, 2000 Page 3 No secondary financing or liens will be permitted, and the entire balance of the loan will be due on sale. GECPF will also have assignment of lease between Borrower and Tenant as well as assignment of lease between Borrower and Issuer (ground lease). Such leases will be subject to review and approval by GECPF and will be for a minimum term of fifteen years. Call Provision: The Borrower will have the option to prepay this financing in whole, but not in part, on any payment date after thirty-six months from the date of closing. In the event the Borrower elects this option, a premium of 2% of the outstanding principal balance shall be due in addition to the principal amount. This proposal is based upon the following additional terms and conditions: 1. Net Financing Agreement: Borrower will be responsible for all expenses, maintenance, insurance and taxes (other than taxes based solely on the net income of GECPF) relating to the purchase, possession and use of the Project. 2, Insurance: Borrower or Tenant, at its own expense, will provide casualty, liability and other insurance in such amounts as GECPF may from time to time require and provide satisfactory evidence of the same prior to any loan closing. In flood and earthquake hazard areas, GECPF may require appropriate coverage for such perils. All policies must be in accordance with GECPF's requirements and from companies that are acceptable to GECPF. Each policy shall include GECPF as loss payee and additional insured and include all endorsements which GECPF may reasonably require. 3. Appraisal: GECPF shall require a current appraisal be conducted on the Property. Such appraisal shall be conducted by an MAI certified appraiser acceptable to GECPF and which is also contracted for and directed by GECPF. Any loan disbursement shall be subject to satisfactory review by GE Capital of the appraisal and its conclusions. 4. Title and Survey: Borrower shall furnish GECPF with an ALTA Loan Policy of Title Insurance (including all required endorsements) insuring GECPF's interest. Borrower shall also furnish GECPF with a current ALTA title survey by a registered public surveyor. Both the title insurance and survey must be in a form and substance satisfactory to GECPF and the title insurer. 5. Environmental Survey: GECPF shall require a Phase I environmental study be conducted on the Property the results of which must be satisfactory to GECPF. Said study shall be conducted by a firm acceptable to GECPF and its direction. 6. Site Inspection: GECPF shall require that one of its representatives conduct an on -site inspection of the Property the results of which must be acceptable to GECPF. GECPF may also require that an independent consulting engineer also make an Inspection of the Property. January 4, 2000 Page 4 7. Documentation: GECPF will provide and require loan/security agreement documentation plus all applicable and required supporting documentation for this transaction. Such documentation will also include a cross collateralization and cross default provision with certain existing or proposed GECPF equipment loans and/or leases or lien on related personal property. All documents shall be subject to the approval of GECPF and its counsel. 8. Transaction Costs: Borrower shall be responsible for all of GECPF's out-of-pocket expenses including, without limitation, outside legal fees, appraisal fees, site visit fees, environmental study fees, consulting engineer fees, escrow, recording and transfer fees and taxes, title charges, UCC search and filing fees, survey costs, and all other costs incurred whether the loan is closed or not. Upon acceptance of this proposal by Borrower, GECPF will engage appraiser and an environmental assessment firm at Borrower's expense. Borrower shall be responsible for all its own costs and expenses. 9. Lenders Legal Review: The Document must be reviewed and approved by GECPF's legal counsel and any changes to the Document must be approved by GECPF's legal counsel and the Issuer. The fee for review will be charged to the Borrower for documentation, overnight mail and filing fees. Lenders Legal Review is $12,500. This review fee is due after GECPF's credit approval process is complete and Borrower is presented with an approval letter containing terms and conditions acceptable to Borrower. This fee is not refundable after this point. 10. Bond Counsel, Borrower's Counsel and Issuance Costs: Borrower will be responsible for all costs it incurs with respect to the transaction including, but not limited to, issuance costs from the issuer and its bond counsel. i I. Covenants/Restrictions: Financial covenants and ownership restrictions may be required based on GECPF investment review and analysis. 12. Good Faith Deposit: In addition to the Lenders Legal Review costs outlined above, the Borrower is required to remit a non -interest bearing Good Faith Deposit of $ 10,000. This Deposit will be returned to the Borrower, less expenses referred to above, (i) in the event that GECPF does not approve this proposal, (ii) upon closing into escrow, which includes receipt of all properly executed documentation, title insurance and recorded originals of all loan documents, the balance of the Deposit will be applied to the initial payment(s) due under the financing agreement, (iii) in the event that GECPF and the Borrower fail to agree upon a material provision of the bond documentation, (iv) upon GECPF's termination of this proposal because of a material adverse change in the Borrower's'or guarantor's financial condition. If this transaction is not closed by the Closing Date, or any mutual extension of the Closing Date, then GECPF will retain the Deposit as liquidated damages. 13. Other Conditions: This proposal is based upon preliminary information supplied by Borrower. In the event that GECPF, based upon its review and in its sole discretion, approves this transaction, an approval letter will be issued setting forth the terms and conditions of the transaction. January 4, 2000 Page S 14. Year 2000 Compliant: All of the terms and conditions of this proposal have been made on the assumption that the assets related hereto are Year 2000 Compliant. The term "Year 2000 Compliant" shall mean that the assets have been designed and/or engineered such that they will, on or after the date December 31, 1999, continue to fully function in the manner intended, and perform all of the duties that they are intended to fulfill, by the user thereof on the commencement of the transaction contemplated by this proposal. This proposal is an expression by GE Capital of its interest in considering a financing transaction on the general terms and conditions outlined above. This proposal is not intended to and does not create any binding legal obligation on the part of either party. TIES PROPOSAL IS NOT, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS, A COMMITMENT BY GE CAPITAL OR ANY OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO ENTER INTO THE PROPOSED FINANCING TRANSACTION. Neither GE Capital, nor any of its subsidiaries, will be obligated to provide any financing until the satisfactory completion of its investment review and analysis, the receipt of all requisite approvals by GE Capital's management, and the prior execution and delivery of final documentation acceptable to all parties and their counsels. By accepting this proposal, Borrower acknowledges that this letter contains the entire proposal (superseding all previous representations and agreements, either oral or written) and that there are no promises, agreements or understandings outside of this letter. Please acknowledge your consent to the terms outlined above by signing a copy of this letter and returning it, along with the Lenders Legal Review and Good Faith Deposit, on or before the expiration of this proposal on January 14, 2000. Sincerely, 0 GE CAPITAL Public Finance, Inc. A�e4z Michael J. Hanel Business Development Manager PROPOSE, ACCEPTED BY: By:/ � 1 Title. i/ �h fM tis� Mark W. Beardslee Vice President -Account Executive Borrower elects rate lock 7 Q (initial) Date: / — /1) `O 6 Fed. I.D. 4: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ,I T DATE: 2.7 00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Administration T>- rP I fEM DESCRIPTION Closeout I Settlement Agreement with Western Digital PREPARED BY: T. Spaeth As the Council is aware, Western Digital Corp. is closing its Enterprise Storage Division operations in Rochester. As you are also aware, the City had been involved in the provision of assistance for the Western Digital expansion through providing tax increment financing assistance and helping to secure grant / loans from the Minnesota Department of Trade & Economic Development. As part of the closeout process, a Settlement Agreement has been prepared which spell out the terms of the closeout as follows: • In 1996, a DTED grant / loan in the amount of $200,000 was secured to assist Western Digital in its original start up here in Rochester. Pursuant to the grant / loan agreement, the first $40,000 of the funds were repayable by Western Digital to the City of Rochester. The remaining $160,000 is forgivable in $80,000 amoums on August 16,2000 and August 16, 2005 respectively, if Western Digital maintained 67 full-time equivalent jobs in the City. Last week City staff, DTED staff and Western Digital staff met to discuss the closeout, and it has been indicated by Western Digital representatives that the Company is retaining its technical support staff here in Rochester, and will therefore be complying with the terms of that Agreement. Based upon that indication, DTED staff has indicated that no acceleration of outstanding loan amounts is presently anticipated, and that the existing Agreement may continue as at present. • In 1997, the City and Western Digital entered into a Development Assistance Agreement wherein the City would provide tax increment assistance over time to facilitate the expansion of their facility at 41" Street NW and West Circle Drive. Based upon the Company's inability to comply with the terms of the Development Assistance Agreement, the Company shall surrender the executed TIF Note, which the City shall cancel, and Western Digital and the City agree that upon execution of the Settlement Agreement, the Development Assistance Agreement and TIF Note shall no longer be in force and shall be considered "terminated". • In 1998, the City and Western Digital executed a Loan Agreement wherein the City provided a $500,000 grant i loan of DTED funds to Western Digital to be utilized for equipment within the new facility. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, Western Digital agreed to conduct its operations at the new facility and to repay the first $100,000 of those loan funds to the City, and the remaining $400,000 being forgivable on December 31, 2003, provided that Western Digital shall have maintained not less than 493 full-time equivalent jobs in the City since June 30, 2001. Based upon the Company's inability to comply with the terms of the Loan Agreement, Western Digital shall repay to the City the full $500,000 upon closure of its sale of the property, and the City will in turn, repay said amount to the State. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; • Request the Council to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Settlement Agreement between the City of Rochester and Western Digital Corporation. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: seed by: to: c by: eRiGuS MCRGAN Si PAUI �� 61)1 22:1 114 ti0; Settlerncut Agreement 02t02'CC 13:51, 4!23; Pjge 3;5 This Agreement is dated as of February 7, 2000; is by and between the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), and Western Digital Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"); and provides as follows Recitals (a) In 1996, the City and the Company executed and delivered a certain Loan Agreement (the "1996 Loan Agreement") respecting a loarVforgivable grant from the City to the Company in the amount of $200,000, which funds were provided to the City pursuant to a certain Grant Agreement (#CDAP-95-044-H-FY96), dated August 16, 1995 (the "1995 Grant Agreement"), between the State of Minnesota, acting through the Department of Trade and Economic Development (the "State"), and the City. Pursuant to the 1996 Loan .Agreement and the 1995 Grant .Agreement, the first $40,000 of said funds were repayable by the Company to the City with interest, and the remaining S 160,000 of funds are forgivable in $80,000 amounts on August 16, 2.000, and on August 16. 2005, respectively, if the Company shall have maintained 6-1 full-time cquivalentjohs in the City. The Company has indicated that it has complied and believes it will continue to comply with the applicable terms of the above -mentioned agreements, and the State has indicated to the City that on the basis of such indications, no acceleration by the State of the outstanding amounts of said loan/forgivable grant funds is presently anticipated Nothing in this Agreement shall amend or otherwise affect the terms of the 1996 Loan Agreement or the 1995 Grant Agreement (b) The City and the Company executed and delivered a certain Development Assistance Agreement, dated as of December 1.5, 1997 (the "TIF Agreement"), respecting tax increment assistance ftom the City to the Company for an approximately 200,000 square foot facii ity(the "Project") which the Company has constructed but has never occupied. Pursuant to the TIF Agreement, the City executed and delivered to the Company the City's Taxable Tax Increment Revenue Note of 1997 (Western Digital Project), dated as of December 15, 1997 (the "TIF Note"), to evidence the City's obligation, upon compliance with the terms of the TIF Agreement, to provide over time up to $-1,300,000 of tax increment assistance to the Company with respect to the Project. 103416.1 lent bv: BRIGGS MCRGAN S" °Ai., 6`' a7a ,^,2 C2,CC 3t_ 4,4 (c) In corutection with the Company's construction of the Project, the City and the Company executed and delivered a certain Loan Agreement, dated as of December 31, 1998 (the "1998 Loan Agreement"), pursuant to which the City provided to the Company $500,000 ot'gram/fotgivable loan funds which the State had provided to the City pursuant to Grant Agreement (#CDAP-97-0290-H-FY98), dated May 21, 1998 (the "1998 Grant Agreement") Put suant to the aforesaid Agreements, the Company agreed to conduct its operations at the Project and to repay the first $100,000 of these loan funds, with the remaining $400,000 being forgivable on December 31, 2003, provided that the Company shall have demonstrated that it had maintained since May 2I, 1999, not less than 320 full-time equivalent permanent jobs in the City and, since June 30, 2001, not less than 493 full-time equivalent permanent jobs in the City. (d) The Company acknowledges that, due to a variety of factors, including product market conditions beyond its connol, the (Company has not occupied the Project and has in fact agreed to sell the Project, which would be an action inconsistent with the terms of the TIF Agreement and the 1998 Loan Agreement. (e) The City and the Company are entering into this Agreement in orderto provide a full and final settlement of all outstanding issues and defaults under the T1F Agreement and the 1998 Loan Agreement. (f) As used in this Agreement, the: term "Effective Date" shall mean the latest of the dates upon which the Company shal l have discharged all of its obligations under paragraph 2 hereof 2. Agreements Fhc Company and the. City hereby agree as follows: (a) The Company, prior to or contemporaneously with its sale of the Project, (i) shall pay to the City the arrearages (if any) in its payment obligations under the 1996 Loan Agreement (arid related Promissory Note) and (ii) shall repay to the City the full $500,000 of grant/forgivable loan funds under the 1998 Loan Agreement (and related Promissory Note), together with any interest thereon required by the State. Upon receipt of said funds, the City will surrender to the Company the original Promissory Note executed by the Company under the 1999 Loan Agreement (b) The City and the Company agree that the 1998 Loan Agreement (and Promissory Note thereunder) shall be canceled and of no further force or effect as of the Effective Date, provided that the City shall remain entitled to any u»4is..r 2 Se^t by: 9RtCCS NCRGA.N S' =nu. FiS 773 ha 50 02 02r2^ '3:7 412:7; indemnifications running to the City thereunder from the Company with respect to any events or other occurrences prior to the Effective Date. (c) The Company shall surrender to the City the original, executed TIF Note, which the City shall cancel, and the City and the Company agree that as of the Effective Date the TIF Agreement and the TIF Note shall be of no further force and effect, except that said cancellation of the TIF Agreement shall be considered a "termination" under Sections 7.1 and 7.2 thereof and the City shall be entitled to its rights and remedies under said Sections with respect to any event or occurrence prior to the Effective Date The Company acknowledges that the purchaser of the Project will use the same for purposes inconsistent with the terms of the TIF Agreement and the Company agrees that the City may in its discretion (as the City believes it will be required by law to do) terminate the tax increment financing district which the City established for the Project, namely, the CCity's Tax Increment Financing District No. 9-1. In Witness Whereof, the City and the Company have duly executed this Agreement by their duly authorized representatives WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION By Its 103416.1 3 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor By Its City Clerk (SEAL) 31 ■rjlYR Western Digital February 2, 2000 Attn: Gary Neuman City Administrator's Office 201 4' Street SE, Room 266 Rochester, MN 55904-3781 Subject: DTED and TIF Status Western 0,91Al C01001atlon 1599 No. Broad--V Bacnester. Minnesota 55906 TO: 507 28&7500 Crary, Attached is a chart showing employment numbers for Western Digital Rochester. The first 10 months are actuals and the balance through Year End are projections. Based on our meeting from last week the following is my understand of our TIF and DTED agreement. 1) Based on past and projected employment numbers, the original DTED grant to Western Digital will continue to be in effect. A check for $15,943.03 on this agreement is being processed. 2) Due to the closing of the Rochester Western Digital site, the second DTED grant for $500,000 for the new facility will be returned to the city/state at closing. 3) The TIF agreement between the city and Western Digital will be voided both by the new facility sale and the shut down of the Rochester site. I will look to you to provide me with any requirements to close this agreement. Please get back to me if my understanding of the agreements are incorrect or subject to change. Sincerely, Mike Zell Site Director Western Digital Rochester cc: Nancy Johnson Chuck Lantz REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 33 DATE: 2 ? 00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Administrator D - I i mnt DESCRIPTION Request to set a public hearing date for the establishment of a Tax PREPARED BY: Increment Financing District on the Weatherstone Townhomes project T. Spaeth Over the past several months, the staff has been with the developer (Shelter Corporation) to facilitate the construction of a 100 unit affordable rental townhome project. As the Council is aware, the developer has requested the City to issue housing revenue bonds for this project, and in addition is requesting TIF assistance from the City. Weatherstone Townhomes is a proposed 100 unit townhome rental housing facility with 40 two bedroom townhomes and 60 three bedrom townhomes to be located along the west side of 50th Avenue NW and 61st Street NW. The project is committing to rent 75% of the units to individuals whose income is at or below 50% of the median income and by renting 25% of the units to individuals whose income is at or below 60% of the median income. The two bedroom townhome units are 1000 square feet in size and the 3 bedroom units are 1200 square feet in size. Of the 100 units in the project, 45 of the units will be further subsidized by a tax credit allocation in conjunction with the bond issuance. The monthly rents for the units are proposed to be as follows: • 50% Tax Credit Unit Rents 2 bedroom S583 • 50% Tax Credit Unit Rents 3 bedroom $666 • 50% Rents (Non Tax Credit Units) 2 bedroom $684 50% Rents (Non Tax Credit Units) 3 bedroom $789 50% Tax Credit Unit Rents 2 bedroom $712 • 60% Tax Credit Unit Rents 3 bedroom S815 As part of that process, a Tax Increment Financing District is being proposed to help write down some of the costs related to site improvements. At this time the staff would like to request that the Council set a public hearing date of March 20, 2000 to consider the establishment of a TIF District on this property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt resolution to set a public hearing date of March 20, 2000 to consider the establishment of a Tax Increment Finaning District on the Weatherstone Townhomes project. wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 3q RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION INITIATING PROCESS FOR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council (the "Council") of the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Recitals. (a) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.134, the City is authorized to exercise development district powers; and (b) It has been proposed that the City establish its Development District No. 15 (the "Development District,,); adopt the Development Program for the Development District; and establish a new Tax Increment Financing District No. 15- 1 within the Development District and approve the related tax increment financing plan (collectively, the "Plans"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law; and (c) The Council is required to hold a public hearing on the Plans, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.126, Subdivision 1, and 469.175, Subdivision 3. 2. Public Hearing. The on the Plans at a meeting of Council/Board Chambers in the 20, 2000, commencing at 7:00 hereby authorized and directe hearing which is attached to the City's official newspaper 10 days prior to the schedule Council will hold a public hearing the Council to be held in the Government Center on Monday, March p.m., Central Time. City staff is d to cause the notice of public this Resolution to be published in not more than 30 and not less than d hearing date. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 7T"] ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved this day of (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) 1132286.1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3� DATE: 2,7 00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Administration D � S i t erA DESCRIPTION: Time Square - Exclusive Negotiation Penod Extension PREPARED BY: Doug Knott :W— On December 21, 1999, the City Council extended the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement period for the Time Square project to February 21, 2000. That date is a holiday. The Council will not meet until February 23, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Extend the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement period with GAC TS (Time Square Project) through February 23, 2000. Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute any documents needed to extend the Agreement. t,wUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 01 DATE: 2,T00 CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: SKYWAY GOLF CLASSIC ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CITY ADMNISTRATOR Z), q PREPARED BY: D. KNOTT -V1-- The attached letter from PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota requests the use of a portion of the skyway system on February 26, 2000, for the Skyway Golf Classic. PossAbilities is a non-profit organization and this is a fundraising event. They have provided the City with a hold -harmless agreement and they have obtained permission from the abutting property owners. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the request of PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota to hold a skyway golf tournament on February 26, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: Modon by: second U PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota Supporting Individuals with Disabilities as Active Community Participants January 24, 2000 Doug Knott Downtown Development Rochester Government Center 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 6 �610-1 rye -161 r46110es This letter is to request permission to use a portion of the downtown skyway for the 2000 Skyway Golf Classic on February 26, 2000. This will be our fourth year of putting on this event. All event operations in the past three 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 Chafoulisas CoAanmark, S&L Services, Norwest Bank, Barnes & Noble, US Bank, I received verbal permission from Jim Ibuster from Mayo Civic Center to use up to half of the skyway distance of the Mayo Civic Center Parking Ramp and I received verbal approval from the Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau along with the Rochester Public Library. The 2000 Skyway Golf Classic will have two courses this year; one for family and one for adult competition. The skyways to be used include: Radisson Hotel to Marquette Bank; Radisson Hotel to halfway down the Mayo Civic Center Parking Ramp and skyway leading to the Rochester Library; Second Street from the Radisson Hotel to the Galleria Mall; Galleria Mall to US Bank; Galleria Mall to Norwest Bank, Galleria Mall to the Lamnark Center. 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. Sincerely, Kathy -c dson Marketing & Development Specialist Adrlbawd" sal. and llmLetlaa soaaarted rmal,rmew wort Swvkkn Seolor Phw= nl Earktoew 1808 3rd Avenue SE I808 3rd Avenue SE 829 3td Avenue SE. Suite 273 1908 3td Avenue SE 922 Nosh Broadway 1500 1 sr Avenue NE Rochester. Minnewu 55904 Rochester, !Ninnewna 55904 Rxhesw. Knnesaa 55904 Rochester. Mine w la 55904 Rochmur, Minnesota 55906 Rochester, Mnawnma 55906 Plane: (507) 281-6116 Phone: (507) 287-7100 Phone: OW) 287-7102 Plane: (507) 281-6120 Phone: (507) 280.4745 Phone: (507) 287-1557 EEOI! Pax: (507) 281-6117 Fax: (507)281.6117 F. (507)287-7103 Fax: 1507) 529�165 Fax (507) 280-4747 Fax: (507) 287-7110 'Oe fla HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of J� t -,a 2000, between PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota, a Minnesota non-profit corporation {refs to as "PossAbilhies"), and the City of Rochester, a Minnesota municipal corporation (referred to as "City"). WHEREAS, PossAbilitres seeks permission to use the Rochester skyway system on February 26, 2000, for a skyway golf tournament fundraising event, and, WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant PossAbilites permission to use that part of the skyway system identified in the attached Exhibit A, subject to the conditions identified in the Request for Council Action attached hereto and incorporated herein; and, WHEREAS, one condition requires PossAbilities to execute a hold harmless agreement in favor of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, POSSABILITIES AGREES to hold harmless and indemnify the CITY, its employees, officials, agents, successors, and assigns, from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, demands, damages, and costs arising out of PossAbilities' use Of the Rochester skyway system as the site for its February 26, 2000 golf tournament fundraising event. POSSABILITIES OF SOUTHERN MINNESOTA BY-4 y; M-- Its ecutive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) The tons ing!natrufnent was acknowledged before me this day of 2000, by _— ^ athe Executiv Director Of ssAbilities of Sou Minnesota, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, for and c� behalf of th Tporation. THIS DOCUMENT PREPARED BY: Office of the City Attorney 201 4th Street SE, Rrr'L 247 Rochester, MN 55904-3780 K\hasmless.13b.doc jdftlk KAREN M. S40 CHWINGLE Notary Public MinnesOta My Commission Exphs Jan. 31, 2W5 L Ur 7 f- O U > �••� i+ anup Jatu80 OIA 0 O /� C /� � ■ CL 3 N oV u� Q U- L •o C a� ` mm a O 0 z z 4_ Z Z a ¢ O ww J ..J m 8 N �00 L)a .� ypto • U _ W N � � ZU CL 0 u a c c c a a O C i ti n `o y` S C m U Cie �.V ell � t0 a C c� Gel` m o 0 u 9 yE cc U E CO 3SOAVisL `- N W min �E r :� aCK o fV N a; � o _ 3 u O 6 m O C Y Bcc lieMpeag � L a m m }1 e U= Y ® y C MSaAv IS s m m 0e r m m U c c Ev a` E CO b a 0 a 8 `u 0 c 0 rn� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/7/00 4GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Rochester International Airport D-I0 ITE ESCRIPTION: Agreement for General Consulting Services. PREPARED BY: Steven W. Legve [he Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: inter into an agreement for general consulting services with a team of consultants consisting of: Airport Consulting Services Group, Inc. McGhie & Betts, Inc. Yaggy Colby Associates Architectural Alliance [his team will provide professional consulting services to the Rochester International Airport on a variety of projects )ver the next several years. Fees for each project will be negotiated individually. Airport Consulting Services Group Hill be the lead consultant for the team. -10UNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: tes tion authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement. 'CIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 217100 ,GENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES D - 1+ ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on January 25, 2000 and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Hendrix for cable and conductor. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $333,382.80 and Hendrix being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Border States Electric for cable and conductor. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $359,923.96 and Border States Electric being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with RESCO for cable and conductor. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $65,570.17 and RESCO being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Graybar Electric for cable and conductor. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $56,917.37 and Graybar Electric being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Grossman Chevrolet, Inc. through the Minnesota State Contract for the purchase of five vehicles. The amount of the agreement to be $99,569.52 plus sales tax and delivery and Grossman Chevrolet, Inc. being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve payment of $40,864.00 to the Mayo Foundation for 8" water main replacement. to approve a resolution to approve a 4.5% increase in electric rates effective February 8, 2000 to the following rate classes: Residential Service (RES) Large Industrial Service (LIS) Residential Service Dual Fuel (RES-DF) Interruptible Service (INTR) Residential GeoExchange (RES-GX) Purchased Power Adjustment Clause (PPAC) General Service (GS) City Street Lighting (CSL) General Service Time -Of -Use (GS-TOU) Traffic Signals (IS) Medium General Service (MGS) Highway Lighting (HL) Medium General Service Time -Of -Use (MGS-TOU) Security Lighting (SL) Large General Service (LG/S)) Civil Defense Sirens (CDS) MANAGER: / //zel' GENERAL ;OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 4� ru- we pledpe. Ave deliver RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the Common Council of the said City is requested to approve a purchase order agreement with Graybar Electric for Cable and Conductor Item # Description 8 "Merlin", 336.4 ACSR 18/1 The amount of the purchase order agreement to be FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN AND 37/100 DOLLARS ($56,917.37) and Graybar Electric being lowest responsible bidder. Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 25th day of January, 2000. President Secretary FOR BOARD ACTION^?~�� Agendaltem# 10 Meeting Date: 1/25/2000 SUBJECT: 2000 Electric Revenue Adjustments PREPARED BY: r� I la Curt Kraf% Director of Administration 1-+" ITEM DESCRIPTION: The proposed change in the electric rate tariffs has been advertised in the local media in accordance with Board policy. As staff reviewed the current rate tariffs and their different components everything is appropriate, except for the customer charge in the Residential and Residential GeoExchange Tariffs. That customer charge does not reflect the current cost that is incurred for that component. Two options are offered to the Board for the Residential and the Residential GeoExchange Tariffs. The one staff recommends has a customer charge of $4.00, and other one reflects a 4.5% increase to the customer charge which would make the customer charge $2.95. Either of these options would have a net increase of 4.5%. Under separate cover, you received a booklet entitled "RPU 2000 Rates." This booklet contains all RPU rate schedules with appropriate rate changes to the schedules. Marked up versions of the Residential Tariff and the Residential GeoExchange Tariff showing both options for the customer charge are attached and included in the rate booklet. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Approve and recommend to the City Council a 4.5% electric rate increase to all customer classes effective February 8, 2000. 2. A motion to approve one of the versions of the Residential Tariff and the Residential GeoExchange Tariff with either the customer charge of $4.00 or the customer charge of $2.95. 3. Approve a resolution to approve the following rate schedules effective February 8, 2000. Residential Service (RES) Residential Service Dual Fuel (RES-DF) Residential GeoExchange (RES-Gx) General Service (GS) General Service Time -Of --Use (GS-TOU) Medium General Service (MGS) Medium General Service Time -Of -Use (MGS-TOU) Large General Service (LGS) Large Industrial Service (LIS) Interruptible Service (INTR) Purchased Power Adjustment Clause (PPAC) City Street Lighting (CSL) Traffic Signals (TS) Highway Lighting (HL) Security Lighting (SL) Civil Defense Sirens (CDS) Genei6l Manager 'Date r ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES RATE SCHEDULE RES (RPU) SHEET 1 OF 1 At all locations where facilities of adequate capacity and suitable voltage are adjacent to the premises to be served. Where service desired by the customer is not adjacent to the premises to be served, additional contract arrangements may be required prior to service being furnished. APPLICATION: To electric service required for residential purposes in individual private dwellings and in individually metered apartments when such service is supplied at one point of delivery and measured through one meter. Existing single metered, multi -unit dwellings having not in excess of three separate dwelling units in the same structure may be served under this rate. CHARACTER OF SERVICE: Single phase, 60 Hertz, 120/240 volts alternating current. RATE: Customer Charge: Energy Charge: Rural Customer Charge: Rural Energy Charge: Definition of Season: Non -Summer $4.00 or 7.096 or ZMO per kWh $4.40 or 7.806 or ¢ Sl]mmeS $4.00 or Im 8.574 or MO _per kWh $4.40 or 9.432 or ° ¢ Summer months are June through September. Non -summer months are January through May and October through December. PURCHASED POWER ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE: Bills computed under this rate schedule are subject to adjustment in accordance with the Purchased Power Adjustment Clause (PPAC). SURCHARGE: Customers whose service is taken outside the Rochester City limits are subject to a 10% surcharge on their bills (excluding charges computed under the Purchased Power Adjustment Clause). MINIMUM BILL: $4.00 or M per month. PAYMENT: Payments are due on or before the due date. CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY: 1. Service furnished under this rate schedule is subject to applicable provisions of RPU's published Electric Service Rules and Regulations. 2. RPU shall not be liable for any damage or loss sustained by customer resulting from interruptions, deficiencies, or imperfections of service provided under this rate. 3. Energy furnished under this rate shall not be resold. Approved by Rochester Public Utility Board: January 25, 2000 Effective Date: February 8, 2000 ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES RATE SCHEDULE GX (RPM SHEET i OF 2 AVAILABILITY: To RPU residential customers that: 1. Use a GeoExchange Heat Pump (GX) as their only source of heating and cooling in their home. 2. Use an electric water heater (usually connected to the desuperhearter of the GX) as their only source of domestic water heating. 3. Receive prior approval of the equipment, e.g., equipment must be approved by the American Refrigeration Institute (ARI). APPLICATION: Electric service required for residential purposes in individual private dwellings where service is supplied at one point of delivery and measured through one meter. To GX either indirect - where polyethylene pipe is used as the energy exchanger with the earth or, direct where the refrigerant coil is used as the earth exchanger. CHARACTER OF SERVICE: Single phase, 60 hertz, 120/240 volts alternating current. RATE: Customer Charge Energy Charge Rural Customer Charge Rural Energy Charge Definition of Season: Nnn_Summer $ 4.00 or - i 7.10 orrst 600/1 wh 4.28 orover 600/kwh$ 4.40 or_7.81 orfirst 600/kwh 4.708 or over 600/kwh Summer $ 4.00 or 8.574 or two o per kwh Summer months are June through September. Non -summer months are January through May and October through December. PURCHASED POWER ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE: Bills computed under this rate schedule are subject to adjustment in accordance with the Purchased Power Adjustment Clause (PPAC) SURCHARGE: Customers whose service is taken outside the Rochester City limits are subject to a 10% surcharge on their bills (excluding changes computed under the Purchased Power Adjustment Clause). INYESTMUM BILL: $ 4.00 or AM per month ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES RATE SCHEDULE GX (RPQ SHEET 2 OF 2 PAYMENT: Payments are due on or before the due date. CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY: 1. Service under this rate is only for GeoExchange Heat Pumps. 2. Service provided under this rate is subject to applicable provisions of RPU's published Electric Service Rules and Regulations. 3. Energy provided under this rate shall not be resold 4. RPU shall not be liable for any damage or loss sustained by the customer resulting from interruptions, deficiencies, or imperfections of service provided under this rate. Approved by Rochester Public Utility Board: January 25, 2000 Effective Date: February 8, 2000 rpw.- _ we nleate, we seliar RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the Common Council of the said City is requested to approve a purchase order agreement with Grossman Chevrolet Inc through Minnesota State Contract Release #'s T-175(5), T-642(5), and T- 643(5)for 1 2000 Chevrolet 2WD Regular Cab Pickup 1 2000 Chevrolet 4WD Regular Cab Pickup 2 2000 Chevrolet 4WD Extended Cab Pickup 1 2000 Chevrolet Impala The amount of the contract agreement to be NINETY NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE AND 521100 DOLLARS ($99,569.52) plus sales tax and delivery and Grossman Chevrolet Inc being lowest responsible bidder. Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 25th day of January, 2000. sident (.4) ¢ .r ,rum Secretary . 4b TUW- we e4edge, we ielever RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to request the Common Council of the said City to approve payment of FORTY -THOUSAND -EIGHT - HUNDRED -SIXTY-FOUR AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($40,W.00) to Mayo Foundation for 8" Water Main Replacement in 4 Ave NW between Center St and 2 St NW Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 25th day of January, 2000. X; President Secretary rp-uf-�_ we d4rdp .. we leliver RESOLUTION q1 BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the Common Council of the said City is requested to approve a 4.5% increase electric rates effective February 8, 2000 to the following rate classes: Residential Service (RES) Residential Service Dual Fuel (RES-DF) Residential GeoExchange (RES-GM General Service (GS) General Service Time -Of --Use (GS-TOU) Medium General Service (MGS) Medium General Service Time -Of -Use (MGS-TOU) Large General Service (LGS) Large industrial Service (LIS) Interruptible Service (I14M) Purchased Power Adjustment Clause (PPAC) City Street Lighting (CSL) Traffic Signals (TS) Highway Lighting (HI.) Security Lighting (SL) Civil Defense Sirens (CDS) Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 25" day of January 25, 2000. Pre dent �:fA Secretary REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/7(2 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO., CONSENr AGENDA CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE D-I i i nM DESCRIPTION: Approval of Employment Agreement and Release for City PREPARED BY: Employee Richard William Peterson TE KINS i The City has agreed to an Employment Agreement and Release with city employee Richard William Peterson. This Agreement outlines the conditions by which the City and Mr. Peterson will terminate the employment relationship. I enclose a copy of the Agreement. The conditions contained in this Agreement are similar to conditions agreed to in previous cases. The City Administrator and Director of Human Resources recommend the Council approve the execution of this Agreement. Council Action Requested Motion to approve the execution of the Employment Agreement and Release concerning city employee Richard Peterson. L;uUNCIL ACTION: Motonby: Second by: to: r. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the City of Rochester ("City") and RICHARD WILLIAM PETERSON, an employee of the City ("Employee"). RECITALS: A. City employs Employee at City's Police Department in the position of Evidence Coordinator. B. The parties agree that it is in their best interests to describe the current and future employment relationship. C. The purpose of this Employment Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions governing the separation of the employment relationship. AGREEMENT: In consideration of the recitals stated above and the mutual promises made below, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City will assign Employee to administrative leave through and until February 29, 2000. During that time period, Employee will remain a city employee and receive all benefits and salary associated with his position. Employee's salary will qualify as earnings for the purpose of his PERA rights and benefits. 2. While on administrative leave, Employee will not report to work and will not contact any city employee regarding any matter relating to his city employment or those events which led to the execution of this Employment Agreement. 3. No later than January 21, 2000, at 5:00 p.m., Employee will submit a letter to the City indicating his intent and desire to resign effective March 1, 2000. Employee will withdraw any claim for unemployment benefits and will not re -file any claim for unemployment benefits. 4. Upon resignation from city employment, City will give Employee his COBRA notice for continuation of his employee benefits. City will give Employee payment for the balance of any unused and accrued vacation time or personal time off, and all other notices, benefits and compensation to which city employees are entitled at the time of job termination. 5. Until February 29, 2000, Employee's personnel file at the City will reflect his status as being on administrative leave. On and after March 1, 2000, Employee's personnel file at the City will reflect his status as being resigned. 6. The City will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 13.43 in responding to requests for personnel data concerning the Employee's employment with the City of Rochester. In addition to disclosing data which Section 13.43 requires to be disclosed to the public, the City will respond to any employment inquiries concerning the Employee by stating only the dates of his employment, the position in which he was employed, a description of the Employee's duties while employed with the City, and the Employee terminated his employment as of March 1, 2000. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 10, nothing in this agreement restricts the City's ability to discuss, publicize or comment on personnel data or information which is otherwise accessible to the public. 7. In consideration of the payments and benefits provided by City through February 29, 2000, as well as the paid administrative leave and other benefits provided in this Agreement, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Employee, for himself and his heirs, executors, and assigns, does hereby absolutely and unconditionally release and forever discharge City and any and all of its departments, divisions, directors, officers, employees and agents from any and all actions, suits, proceedings, claims (including, but not limited to, claims for attorney's fees), which Employee has ever had, presently has, or claims to have had against the City arising out of or concerning Employee's employment with the City including any events which led to the execution of this Agreement. Specifically, the Employee waives any and all claims he may have against the City pursuant to Title VII of the me Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, as well as other statutes and the laws of contract, tort, and other laws. 8. In return for the Employee's release, the City, its departments, divisions, directors, officers, employees and agents does hereby absolutely and unconditionally release and forever discharge Employee from any and all actions, suits, proceedings, claims (including, but not limited to, claims for attorney's fees) which the City has ever had, presently has, or claims to have had against the Employee arising out of or concerning Employee's employment with the City including any events which led to the execution of this Agreement. 9. Nothing in this Employment Agreement is intended to be, nor will be deemed to be, an admission of liability by the City that it has violated any state or federal statute, local ordinance, or principle of common law, or that it has engaged in any wrongdoing. Nothing in this Employment Agreement is intended to be, nor will it be deemed to be, an admission of wrongdoing of any kind on the part of the Employee. 10. The parties agree that this Employment Agreement will not be assignable by either party unless the other party agrees in writing. The Employee states that he has not assigned any claims he may have against the City to anyone else and agrees not to do so. 11. This Employment Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the termination of Employee's employment relationship with the City. The parties agree that there were no inducements or representations leading to the execution of this Employment Agreement except as stated herein. The parties agree that this Agreement supersedes all prior oral and written agreements and communications between the parties. 12. Employee acknowledges that he has had an opportunity to consult an attorney before signing this Agreement. He enters into and signs this Agreement knowingly, voluntarily, freely, of his own volition and with such consultation with counsel as he deems appropriate. Employee /11 53 acknowledges that he has read this Agreement and understands all of its terms. Employee enters into and signs this Agreement knowingly and voluntarily, with full knowledge of its significance. Employee acknowledges that, in executing this Agreement, he has not relied upon any representation or statement not set forth herein. Employee has considered this Agreement and its terms for a minimum of 21 days prior to date of execution. 13. This Agreement is made within Olmsted County, Minnesota, and shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. If one or more paragraphs of this Agreement shall be ruled unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the contract did not contain the unenforceable paragraph. This Agreement is not effective or enforceable until the 15 day revocation period, described below, has expired. 14. In connection with Employee's waiver of rights under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Employee retains the right to rescind his approval and execution of this Agreement for a 15 day period following execution of this Agreement. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota, this day of 2000. Richard William Peterson Charles J. Canfield Mayor Judy K. Scherr City Clerk �5i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) I, , a notary public, do hereby certify that Richard William Peterson, personally known to me to be the same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me in person and acknowledged that he signed and delivered the said instrument as his free and voluntary act, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Dated this day of 2000. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) On this day of , 2000, the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Charles J. Canfield and Judy Scharr, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Rochester, a Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. NOTARY PUBLIC This instrument was drafted by: Office of the City Attorney 201 4th Street S.E., Room 247 Rochester, MN 55904-3780 285-8066 e:lwpWsever.10 Consent A-enda REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING D Building Safety .. _..1 DESCRIPTION: Lease Agreement with Olmsted Co. for Storage Space MEETING DATE: 2/7/0f ITEM NO. D-I& PREPARED BY: Donald Wees The Building Safety Department has need for storage space for building plans and records, and for several months has been negotiating with Olmsted County Facilities for space in the basement level of Campus Building #6 at 2122 Campus Drive SE. Preliminary agreement was reached for approximately 421 square feet of storage cages directly under the department wing on the east side. The proposed lease prepared by Judy Ohly, County Facilities Coordinator, set a rental rate of $4/sq.ft. for $140 per month, with terms and conditions as outlined. A final lease agreement with corrections was drafted by the City Attorney's Office and is recommended for approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution to authorize Mayor and City Clerk to sign the prepared lease agreement (attached). 1NCIL ACTION: Motion Second ml- LEASE This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of by and between the County of Olmsted, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter "Lessor"), and the City of Rochester, a Minnesota municipal (hereinafter referred to as "Lessee"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Lessor owns the Human Services Campus in Rochester, Minnesota, including the structure located at 2122 Campus Drive, SE, a portion of which is occupied by Lessee under a LEASE FOR OFFICE SPACE dated August 7, 1986, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "Master Lease"); and, WHEREAS, Lessee desires to lease an additional portion of 2122 Campus Drive SE for lower level storage purposes and Lessor is willing to lease such additional space to Lessee under the terms and conditions contained herein. NOW, THEREFORE, Lessor and Lessee do hereby agree as follows: 1. Premises Leased. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee, under the terms and conditions as set forth herein, that part of the property in the City of Rochester, County of Olmsted, State of Minnesota, with a street address of 2122 Campus Drive SE, more specifically described as follows: Cages 9 and 14, consisting of 421 square feet of lower level storage space. 2. Term. The term of this lease, unless earlier terminated, shall commence upon the date this agreement is executed by the parties and shall continue to December 31, 2000. Thereafter this lease shall continue on a month to month basis unless Lessor or Lessee provides 30 days notice of intent to terminate. 3. Bant. Lessee shall pay $140 per month for the premises. The first payment shall be made on the first day of the month following execution of this agreement by the parties. To this first payment will be added $4.61 for each day that the leased area was available for use by Lessee prior to the first day of payment. Lessor may adjust the rental payment only at such time that it makes a price adjustment for all of Lessor's other storage cages at this location, and at the same percentage of adjustment. 4. Holding over. In the event Lessee remains in possession of said premises after 1 5% December 31, 2000, it shall be deemed occupying said premises as a tenant from month - to -month, subject to all conditions, provisions and obligations of this agreement. Such holdover shall be deemed to be have been approved by Lessor if no written notice has otherwise been transmitted by Lessor to Lessee and the monthly rent as agreed to herein shall continue to be paid at the beginning of each month. 5. Use of Leased Premises. Lessee shall not suffer the premises or any erection or improvements thereon to become subject to any lien, charge or encumbrance whatsoever, and shall indemnify the Lessor against all such liens, charges and encumbrances; it being expressly agreed that Lessee shall have no authority, expressed or implied, to create any lien, charge or encumbrance. Lessee shall indemnify the Lessor against all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, lawfully and reasonably incurred in or about the premises, or in the defense of any action or proceeding, or in discharging the premises from any charge, lien, or encumbrance, or in obtaining possession after default of the Lessee for the termination of this lease. 6. Duties of Lessor. Lessor shall, except a- it may otherwise be prevented from doing by any negligent acts of Lessee, its agents or employees, provide the following: a. Existing heat, electricity, sewer and water service available to the leased premises; b. Snow plowing of main streets and associated parking/access areas to the leased premises; c. Bulk trash removal; and d. Regular inspections of fire detection systems and fire extinguishers in conformance with State and local code requirements. a. Lessee agrees to take reasonable precautions to prevent waste of heat, water, electricity, or anything else furnished by Lessor for Lessee's comfortable use and occupancy of the leased premises; b. Lessee, its agents, employees, invitees or visitors, shall comply fully with all rules and regulations governing conduct and vehicular traffic on the Campus as now posted or subsequently amended; c. Lessee further agrees to maintain the premises in a neat, clean and respectable condition. All garbage or refuse of any kind shall be moved to the 2 designated holding area after being placed in proper containers at said Lessee's expense. Lessee agrees not to cause additional risk to the premises. d. Lessee acknowledges that any property insurance purchased by Lessor is not intended to cover damage or destruction to Lessee's personal property and Lessee recognizes its responsibility to obtain personal property insurance if it deems this appropriate. e. Except as otherwise provided herein, Lessee shall furnish its own supplies and services as needed. Lessee shall surrender the property at the termination of the lease in the same condition it was in at the commencement of the tenancy, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Lessee shall make no alterations or add no fixtures without Lessor's permission, and such alterations or fixtures shall become the property of Lessor unless Lessor agrees otherwise. f. In preparation of the this lease, Lessee has agreed that it will: (1) hire movers to relocate all existing furniture regarded as "surplus furniture" from the leased premises to 2116 Campus Drive SE; (2) construct three 17' x 8' cages at the opposite end of the lower level at 2122 Campus Drive SE in a style and of materials similar to those already in place; and (3) transfer all files and shelving located in storage cages 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 to the newly constructed cages. Activities identified in this subpart shall be coordinated with Judy Ohly of County Facilities. 8. Access by Lessor. Lessor, acting through its designated agents, employees or officials, shall have the right, upon notice to Lessee, to enter the leased premises at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting, maintaining, repairing, altering or improving the leased premises. 9. Assignment and Subletting. Lessee shall not assign nor in any manner transfer any rights granted by this lease to any other person without the prior written consent of Lessor. 10. Indemnification. Lessee shall defend, indemnify, and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims resulting or arising from Lessee's negligent use of the demised premises under the rights granted by this agreement. 11. Termination. This lease may not be terminated by Lessor during the year 2000 except for Lessee's material breach of the terms of this agreement. Thereafter, the month -to -month tenancy created hereby may be terminated by either party giving 30 days written notice. This lease will also terminate upon termination of the Master Lease. 3 S°� 12. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 13. Merger. Subject to the following this agreement represents the full and complete agreement between the parties and supercedes any prior written or oral agreements relative to the leased lower level storage premises identified herein. Except as modified herein, or except as the context would compel a contrary conclusion, this lease incorporates the terms of the Master Lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of this Agreement have duly executed the same as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF ROCHESTER By CHARLES J. CANFIELD MAYOR JUDY K. SCHERR CITY CLERK THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY Office of the City Attorney 201 4th Street SE, Rm. 247 Rochester, MN 55904-3780 lease%06 S—rm.be. doc By Its 0 4 COUNTY OF OLMSTED REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I DATE: 2, 7 00 ` AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA i i cM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY CLERK D-4 ACTIVITIES I 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. GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT RENEWAL Eagles Aerie #2228 409 1"Ave SW Rochester Mn 55902 Dover Fire Relief Association PO Box 65 Dover Mn 55929 Premise At: Green House Restaurant 20 2nd Ave SW Rochester Mn 55902 GAMBLING — TEMPORARY RAFFLES Chhdren's Dance Theatre PO Box 6655 Rochester Mn 55903 Raffle At: 3/19/00 John Marshall High School 1510 14' St NW Rochester Mn 55901 (Please Waive 30 Day Holding Period) Hiawatha Chapter — National Wild Turkey Federation 3117 9d' Ave NW Rochester Mn 55901 Raffle AT: 3/24/00 Radisson Hotel Centerplace 150 S Bdwy Rochester Mn 55904 %,,JUNCILACTION: Modonby: Secodby: to: LICE USES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTI UITIES AGE1 FEBRUARY 7, 2000 American Association of University Women 4319 Robinson St Duluth Mn 55804 Raffle At: 4/30/00 Kahler Grand Hotel '_0 2nd Ave SW Rochester Mn 55902 Aldrich Memorial Nursery School 855 Essex Parkway NW Rochester Mn 55901 Community Youth Mentorship Program 334 16`h Ave SE Rochester Mn 55904 Raffle At: 3/11/00 Rochester Golf & Country Club 3100 Country Club Rd NW Rochester Mn 55901 (Please Waive 30 Day Holding Period) HEATING CONTRACTOR Joe Wrobleski Construction 1533 Camelback CT NE Rochester Mn 55906 MASTER INSTALLER Joe Wrobleski 1533 Camelback Rd NE Rochester Mn 55906 Michael Blaskowski 1601 Kings Way St Cloud Mn 56301 David Berdan 2602 Tranquility Dr St Cloud Mn 56301 MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE National Multiple Sclerosis Society Fundraiser Walk 4/9/00 Start & Finish at Soldiers Field Park Med-City Marathon & Conoco Kids Classic Road Race 5/28/00 Start & Finish Soldiers Field Park LICENSE, BONDS A,VD AIISCELLANEOS ACTIVITIES PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 7, 2000 Epilepsy Foundation of Mn. Annual Walk to Benefit Epilepsy 6/3/00 Mayo high School - Bear Creek Route COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses and miscellaneous street use. �3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE. 2/7/00 AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA FINANCE DEPARTMENT _... DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $2,628,447.86. Less: Any exceptions _ _ - !NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ITEM NO. 1J PREPARED BY: Martinson Consent REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Human Resources MEETING (,* DATE: 2/ 7/00 PREPARED BY: Linda Gilsrud The IRS has increased the allowable deduction for reimbursable mileage from $.31/mile to $.32/mile. In order to provide the IRS -approved rate to City employees who drive their own vehicles for work -related purposes, we recommend an increase in the City's mileage reimbursement rate from $.31/mile to $.32/mile effective 1/1/00. Resolution authorizing an increase in the mileage reimbursement rate from $.31 /mile to $.32/mile COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEF Organizational / Consent Human Resources ITEM DESCRIPTION: Promotional Appointments - MEETING DATE: 217 00 D-1#7 PREPARED BY: L Gilsrud The retirement of Police Captain Richard Dale effective January 31, 2000 created a vacancy for the position of Police Captain. Section 9.00 of the Rochester Home Rules Charter states that the Mayor appoints all members of the Rochester Police Department. Pursuant to that authority, the Mayor has promoted effective February 1, 2000 Lieutenant Brian Winters to the position of Police Captain Sergeant Kenneth Reed to the position of Police Lieutenant Police Officer John Laivell to the position of Police Sergeant This information is given to the Council so that Council members are aware of the appointments. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: i a�1� • yv' .:'o �R�Tto: +uaus�~: s • � Slavor Chuck Canfield 201 4th Sneer SE - Rtx>m 281 Rochester, NIN 55904-3782 Phone: 1507) 28.5-8080 Fax: 1 i07) 287-7979 TO: City Administrator RE: Promotional Appointment - Police Department Based on the Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates for the position of Police Captain , I am appointing __Brian winters to the positionof Police Captain effective 2/1/00 Mayor Charles Canfie City of Rochester Cc: Director of Human Resources 1/24/00 Date - V A g� r i y Mawr Chuck Canfield 201 4th Street SE - Room 281 Rochester, NIN• 55904-3782 Phone: (507) 285-8080 Fax: 1507) 287-7979 TO: City Administrator RE: Promotional Appointment - Police Department Based on the Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates for the position of Police Lieutenant , I am appointing Kenneth Reed to the positionof Police Lieutenant Mayor Charles Canfiel City of Rochester Cc: Director of Human Resources effective 2 / 1 / 0 0 1/24/00 Date TO: 11"I Mayor Chuck Canfield 201 !th Street SE - Room 281 Rochester, %IN 55904 5782 Phone: (507)2858080 Fax: 1507)287-7979 City Administrator Promotional Appointment - Police Department Based on the Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates for the position of Police Sergeant I am appointing John Laivell to the positionof Police Sergeant effective 2/1/00 Mayor Charles field City of Roche er Cc: Director of Human Resources 1/24/00 Date 13' ROCHESTER ✓%�i�r�e�c��a POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DON DEALING BOB MOORE JOY FOGARTY January 24, 2000 Honorable Mayor Canfield City Hall Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Dear Mayor Canfield, The retirement of Police Captain Richard Dale effective January 31, 2000 created a vacancy for the position Police Captain. We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment to the position of Police Captain, Police Lieutenant, and Police Sergeant from the following lists of three (3) names which stand highest on the Police Captain, Police Lieutenant, and Police Sergeant Eligibility Rosters of qualified candidates: 1. Brian Winters 2. Mike Stellenberg 3. John O'Neill 1. Kenneth Reed 2. Al Kuehl 3. Pat Donnelly 1. John Laivell 2. Thomas Pingel 3, Elisa Umpierre Police Chief Roger Peterson requests that the appointments be effective February 1, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, Bob Moore Secretary Police Civil Service Commission An E4wi Oppomwty EAp(oyv 'A ROCHESTER /�Gl/Z/ZEJG�f2 January 20, 2000 Mr. Don Dealing, Chairman Rochester Police Civil Service Commissioners 201 SE 4th Street Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Chairman Dealing: 11 `e.µaaa Nt ali A. y/, ,Qp,A�rED.tl G l if.a•�• ROGER PETERSON Chief of Police Rochester Police Department 101 4th St. S.E. Rochester, MN 55904-3761 We are requesting that the Civil Service Commision submit to Mayor Canfield the top three candidates from the certified eligibility rosters for Captain, Lieutenant, and Sergeant with the recommendation to approve the promotion of: Lt. Brian Winters to Captain to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Captain Dale, January 31, 2000 Sgt. Kenneth Reed to Lieutenant to fill the vacancy left by the promotion of Lt. Winters to Captain Officer John Laivell to Sergeant to fill the vacancy left by the promotion of Sgt. Reed to Lieutenant It is our desire that these appointments be effective February 1, 2000. Thank you for your prompt assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Roger Peterson, Chief 7, 1q, ji Opponumoy t.pa,yrr REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETiNG 75 DATE: 9?-07-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. tsent :agenda PLAINN-ING J— /6 cM DESCRIPTION: Amend Ordinance 3304 regarding the Annexation by Ordinance PREPARED BY: Petition #99.23 by Western Wails, Inc. to annex approximately 10.84 acres of land located Theresa Fogarty, in Rose Harbor Subdivision. The petition is to annex 20 lots legally described as Lot 1, Block Planner 2, Rose Harbor 2n0; Lots 5, 6 & 7, Rose Harbor 3m; Lot 7, Block 2; Lots 1, 2, 3, 8, 9,10 11, 12, 13 & 14, Block 8, Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7, Block 10, Rose Harbor 40. The lots are located south of Eastwood Road SE (CR144) and north of 1V Street. January 27, 2000 The Minnesota Planning Office has requested the legal description for this annexation to include the right-of-way of adjacent roadways. Planning Staff has revised the legal description to include one-half of the public right-of-way abutting each lot. The public right-of-way for the roadways affected in the revised legal description are: Rose Height Drive SE, Sunrise Avenue SE, Sunset Avenue SE, Rose Drive SE, Park Street SE, Knollwood Drive SE and Eastwood Road SE. Council Action Needed: 1. Approve the amended Ordinance, suspend the rules and allow the amended ordinance its second reading. Attachments: 1. Revised legal description Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attomey: Legal Description Attached 4. Planning Department File COUNCIL ACTION: Mohan by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 11 . 217/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. D -(q i i aFJ DESCRIPTION: Amendment to Southern Woods Development Agreement and PREPARED BY: City/Owner Contract R. Freese i The City Council approved a Development Agreement with Jerry Schultz and Randy Reynolds for the Southern Woods Development Final Plat 97-16 on 12/21/99. The City Council approved a City/Owner contract for Project J-9430, Basic Construction in Southern Woods 1' and 201 Subdivision on 11/2/99. The City/Owner Contract included requirements for payment of Airport Water Tower special assessments. The Development Agreement was to include, and did not, provisions for payment of Water Availability Charges. The developers have filed a written request to amend the two agreements to correct this issue. The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council 1. amend the Development Agreement to include a requirement for the payment of Water Availability Charges in affect at the time of platting each Southern Woods Subdivision, and 2. amend the City/Owner Contract to delete the requirement for the payment of Airport Water Tower assessments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Amendment #1 to each of the following documents: 1. the Development Agreement to include a requirement for the payment of Water Availability Charges at the time of platting each Southern Woods Subdivision, and 2. the City/Owner Contract to delete the requirement for the payment of Airport Water Tower assessments. .. JNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION %1EE7NG DATE: 2/ 7100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D -4RO _M DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — White Oaks 4" Subdivision. PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur The Developers of the White Oaks 4" Subdivision and City Staff have had discussions relating to construction of the subdivision and impacts on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following: • Construction of pedestrian facilities. • Dedication of right of way. • Payment of the substandard roadway charges and Traffic Improvement District charges for 50" Avenue NW • Payment of other development related charges. • The City has the responsibility for designing and constructing the improvements for 50'" Avenue NW. Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have executed the agreement. 3 I ' i COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Dakota of Rochester for the White Oaks 41" Subdivision. "UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 81 DATE: 2/07100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works b— al QM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Land donated to the City by the IBM PREPARED BY: Corporation/Ryan Companies. r M. Nigbur IBM Corporation currently owns a parcel of land that is proposed to be used as part of a roadway network adjacent to 37t' Street NW. This parcel of land will specifically be used for a ramp linking 37" Street to the new frontage roadway to serve the new Ryan Development lying between 37" Street and 41" Street NW. City Staff have reviewed plans for the Ryan Development, which includes the proposed ramp, and would recommend the City accept the property from IBM Corporation/Ryan Companies. L��—J Fror� a Road Area be dedicated SS COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of a resolution accepting the donated parcel from IBM Corporation/Ryan Companies �wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE ?31-� 02/07/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D _M DESCRIPTION: Property Addressing — Initiate change to Rochester Code of PREPARED BY: Ordinance Chapter 74 M. Nigbur J Currently the Rochester Olmsted Consolidated Planning Department is in charge of the County addressing and the City Public Works Department is in charge of the City property addressing. There is also an addressing task force made up from these two departments as well as emergency services (police and fire). While the Planning Department and the Public Works Department perform the day to day functions of addressing, the task force reviews street names and other planning issues surrounding addressing and the tracking of addresses in the GIS system. To become more efficient at providing these services Staff have recently been working on modifying the procedures and authority of property addressing. One of significant changes recommended by staff .includes changing the responsible department for addressing from the Public Works Department to the Rochester Olmsted Consolidated Planning Department. This change will centralize the function of addressing for the County within the Planning Department, and allow consistent methods for addressing of properties. As part the discussions it has been determined that a change in the Rochester Code of Ordinances Chapter 74 must occur to correctly reflect the responsible entity for designating property addresses. The current Chapter 74 language, which was last changed in 1887, currently references the City Surveyor and the City Engineer as being the responsible people to determine property addresses. However, the position of City Surveyor does not exist in the City's staffing structure. Because this position does not exist the responsibilities for property addressing, by default, reverts back to the City Engineer. Staff would recommend that the City initiate an ordinance change that modifies the responsible party for determining property addressing and street names from the City Surveyor and City Engineer to the Rochester Olmsted Consolidated Planning Department. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Initiate a modification to the Rochester Code of Ordinances Chapter 74 bhanging the responsible department for property addressing to the Rochester Olmsted Consolidated PlAning Department. —JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ROCHESTER CCCE OF CRD.NANCES -� 74. HOUSE NUMBERING AND STREET SIGNS 74.01. System of Numberin . All houses and buildings on al streets and avenues in the city, running north and south and lying south of Center Street shall be numbered, commencing at Center Street and extending south, in the following manner: The houses and buildings in the blocks adjoining Center Street on the south, shall be numbered with numbers beginning with one at Center Street, and the houses and buildings in the black south of and adjoining First Street shall be numbered from 100 commencing at First Street, and all houses and buildings in blacks to the south thereof to the city limits shall be numbered in like manner, allowing 100 numbers to each block. All houses and buildings an all streets and avenues running north and south and lying north of Center Street shall also be numbered in the same manner as herein before provided, commencing at Center Street and extending north to the city limits, allowing 100 numbers to each black and the lowest number being at the south side of each block. all houses ^� and buildings on all streets and avenues running east and west and lying west of Broadway shall also be numbered in the same manner as herainbefore provided, commencing at Broadway and extending west to the city limits, allowing 100 numbers to each block and the lowest number being at the east side of each block. All houses and buildings on all streets and avenues running east and west and lying east of Broadway shall also be numbered in the same manner as hereinbefore provided, commencing at Broadway and extending east to the city limits, allowing 100 numbers to each block and the lowest number to be on the west side of each hlack. 74.02. Size of Lots. Each 22 front feet or fractional part thereof shall be allowed a number, and in determining the number to be given to any house or building in the computation shall be made from the place of beginning, exclusive of alleys, in said blocks, and Cin case of a disput or number to be assigned any house or building, th city surveyor upon application of any person interested, shall irect the number to be employed in numbering any house or building. The odd numbers shall be placed on all houses and buildings on the north side of all streets and avenues running east and west, and the even numbers on the south side thereof. Also, the add numbers shall be placed an all houses and buildings on the west side of all streets and avenues running north and south, and even numbers on the east side thereof. September 30, 1990 158 U� CHAPTER 74. HOUSE NUMBERING AND STREET SIGNS 74.03. w n i ill . All owners and occupants of houses or buildings shall obtain from th city engineer a correct number for their respective buildings and place or cause to be p ect number in a conspicuous position near or over the front entrance to their said houses or buildings, respectively, and said number shall be kept in said conspicuous position by owner or occupant. The owner or occupant of all houses or buildings, shall within 60 days after the erection thereof, obtain the correct number and place and keep the same in some conspicuous position near or over the front entrance thereof. 74.04. Street Sians. The council shall procure suitable signs giving the names of the streets and shall place said signs in some conspicuous position at or near the street comers or upon buildings located near such street comers, and any person who shall willfully tear down, deface or destroy any of such signs shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (89, 6/10/1887) September 30, 1990 159 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 81 DATE: 2107/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works . M DESCRIPTION: Street Name Changes — Southern Woods First & Second PREPARED BY: Subdivisions F M. Nigbur ^A Addressing staff have been reviewing street names in recently approved and recorded plats. As part of their review several issues surfaces with the street naming in the Southern Woods Development Specifically, staff suggests two modifications to the street names in the Southern Woods area: The roadway designated as Southern Woods Place SW currently does not end in a logical location. The terminus of this roadway is located within a curve of a roadway. It appears a more logical ending location for this roadway is at an intersection rather than within a roadway curve. Staff would suggest roadway terminus point be modified to the intersection of Southern Woods Circle SW. This roadway change would affect two plats of record. The Southern Woods First also indicates a roadway designated as Southern Way Place SW. The use of "Way" within the roadway designation is in conflict with our current naming practices and could lead to potential confusion that may arise out of using a roadway designation as part of the roadway name. It is staffs recommended that the word "Way" be removed from the designation and the street name be officially modified to Southern Place SW. .--j- d �J/ --- TOWWW changed from Sadhem Woods Place to sanrhtxn wood arse. Rzadaey di from scuf,em Way aceto Southem Plece COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of an ordinance changing the above referenced street names within Southern Woods First and Second Subdivisions and record the documentation in the Olmsted County Recorder's Office. --UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 02/67/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. I)-;?q ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate - Declaration of Restriction and Covenants for Replacement Wetland - 60th Avenue & HWY 14 West PREPARED BY: F M. Nigbur4 The City purchased property for the construction of a wetlands bank funded through the Board of Soil and Water Resources (BSWR). As part of the grant requirements the City is to record documentation that the property is used for the construction and use as wetlands. Based on the Contract language with BSWR we cannot receive the grant until the necessary documentation is recorded. Staff would request authorization to allow the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary documents to meet the City's obligations outlined in the Wetland Banking Contract with BSWR. 1 r�1",• aty of Rochester 113W vuedards Be* I I I I I COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary document for the recordation of the covenants and restrictions required for the BSWR Wetlands Banking Project. VVUNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 2/07/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. / CONSENTAGENDA Public Works � "a7 i i cM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Acquisition of needed Right of Way for 41" Street PREPARED BY: $7'�- ~ NW & West Frontage Road for HWY 52 M. Nigbur,'k As part of the Ryan Companies development, located between 370 Street & 41" Street NW, and due to increased traffic demands on 41" Street NW, the City , MnDot, and the Developer will be modifying portions of 41" Street NW and the West Frontage Road of HWY 52. Modification will include realignment of the frontage road, widening of 411 Street NW and signalization of the intersection. Part of the roadway modifications proposed will impact private property and will require acquisition of temporary and permanent land rights. However, the exact needs are not yet known for this project at this time. To keep the project moving forward staff would request authorization to acquire the needed property through negotiation and, if needed, through the use of the 90 Day Quick Take condemnation procedure. „Si IN NS Relignmeint of _ Frontage Road Ryan Development New Frorta e Roadw COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize staff to acquire the needed land rights, for the 41" Street NW & West Frontage Road improvements, through negotiations and, if needed, through the use of the 90 Day Quick Take Condemnation process. Staff would request authorization to acquire the needed property at a value not to exceed 10% above the appraised value and to retain the needed consultants on the project. . JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: q3 2/7/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works :M DESCRIPTION: Revised Feasibility Report: "Public Improvements to Sunset Dr, PREPARED BY: Rose Ave, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor" D. Nelson The Public Works Department has been requested to analyze the feasibility to construct portions of Sunset Drive, Rose Ave and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor and to extend utility services to those undeveloped areas. Utilities include sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer improvements. Public Works has determined that it is feasible to Construct Public Improvements to these street segments in Rose Harbor and recommend its construction. The estimated costs for this project are: Street $126,600 Sanitary Sewer 137,712 Watermain 64,680 Storm sewer & Subdrain 172,098 Service Connections 26,400 Engineering, Interest & Contingency $158,247 TOTAL: $685,737 For the project to move forward, we are recommending the abutting property owners be assessed the street improvement and utility costs. There are approximately 2840 feet of assessable frontage. This is a revised Feasibility Report from the report submitted to the Council on Jan 19, 2000; four parcels included in the project are lying outside the city. As such, they can not be assessed the street portion of this project, but will instead be charged a substandard street costs when they are annexed into the City. For this reason, the remaining street construction costs are spread among the remaining parcels; thus raising their assessment rate to $239.91 per front foot. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution: a. Accepting the attached revised Feasibility Report b. Order a Project Hearing for March 20, 2000. c. Order an Assessment Hearing for March 20, 2000. 1UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 0 REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN AND ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION TO SERVE VACANT LANDS LYING IN ROSE HARBOR February 3, 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing the following project: Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, and Roadway to serve vacant lands within Rose Harbor. A petition has been filed with the City Clerk and approved by the City Council on January 3, 2000, Feasibilitv Report We report that this project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of this project is within an area proposed for residential development. Development of the area has been very slow due to ' number of different owners of land within the project area. This project would allow the vacant properties to develop on public sewer, watermain and a new roadway. This project has not been budgeted for in the City's Capital Improvement Program. The costs of this project should be paid from assessments collected from the benefiting properties. The project consists of the construction of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, subdrain and an urban bituminous roadway with concrete curb & gutter to serve the vacant lots within a portion of Rose Harbor. As part of the cost estimates we have anticipated the presence of subsurface rock, which may increase the cost of construction. _7_ FEBRUARY 3, _-CC 4,50 The estimated costs of the project were developed without the benefit of construction plans. topographic survey, soil borings or other engineering information. The estimated costs are outlined as follows: Street Construction Street Construction 1700 $74.47 $126.600.00 Sanitary Sewer 1700 $81.01 $137,712.00 Watermain 1845 $35.06 $64,680.00 Storm Sewer & Subdrain 1760 $97.78 $172,098.00 Service Connections 33 800 $26,400.00 Sub Total Engineering/Contingency/Interest 30% TOTAL Total less service connections $527,490.00 $158,247.00 $685,737.00 $659,337.00 The total assessable frontage for the project is estimated at 2840 front feet. We recommend that the necessary costs to be collected for this project be done so in accordance with the existing assessment and connection charge policies. There is not any City share for this project. This project is well short of the desired 60% guideline the Council desires for an economically feasible project. However, considering the number of different land owners in the area and the amount of construction needed, a City assessment project is the logical method to construct the needed infrastructure. For this project to proceed the petitioner should enter into an agreement for the proportionate share of the costs applicable for their property. Staff would recommend that the petitioner's costs be assessed over a 2 year period. The assessment term for the remaining parcels should be consistent with the current policies in effect. Submitted for your consideration: Michael igbur Land Development Manager Douglas Nelson, PE Engineering Manager 10 - 3 - FEBRUARY 3, 20CC BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: Date (Orig.) J No: Description: Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer, Subdrain and Roadway to serve vacant lots within Rose Harbor. Proieet Cost Summary Roadway Sanitary Sewer Water Main Storm Sewer Services Subtotal Engineering/Cont./ Interest Total Construction & Expense Contract Project Budget Cost Final Cost $126.600.00 $137,712.00 $64,680.00 $172,098.00 $26,400.00 $527,490,00 $158,247.00 $659,337.00 Total Assessable Frontage Undeveloped Property 2838.24 Non Asseasablarrosdway 39tt,j Total 2447.07 Project Assessment Rate Distribution To be presently collected To be deferred/postponed City's Share Tax Increment Financing Municipal State Aid Total Revenue Sources Connection/Assessment Charge Water Availability Charge Sewer Availability Charge Tax Increment Financing City Share TOTAL 5awer a water• Roadway $239.91 s71.00m $16e.91 $587.078 $39XI $0.00 $3T760:06 $0.00 $659,337.00 Total Revenue $659,337.00 r, El REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE g00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. Public Works ttcM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report: 'Reconstruct 7" Street NW from 46" Avenue PREPARED BY: NW west approximately 1250 feet' (J9594). D. Nelson This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project: Project No. 6207-4-00 J —9594 `Reconstruct 7`" St NW from 46' Avenue NW west approximately 1250 feet' The estimated costs are: Street Grading & paving $212,500 Curb & gutter 25,000 Storm sewer, subdrain 31,250 Sanitary sewer 26,400 Watermain 50,000 Sub -total $345,150 Engineering, Interest & Contingency 103,545 Total $448,695 This project has been requested by the developers of Diamond Ridge and Manorwood West. This project is proposed to be funded with Developer Contribution, Utility Funds and Tax Levy. The Department of Public Works has requested a proposal from McGhie & Betts, Inc. to design this project. McGhie & Betts, Inc. provided a proposal for engineering design services in the amount of $19,800.00 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution could be adopted: a. Ordering the Feasibility Report b. Accept the attached Feasibility Report c. Ordering a Project Hearing to be held March 20, 2000 d. Authorize the execution of Engineering Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. to provide design services for $19,800.00. Attch: Feasibility Report Budget & Assessment Schedule Map GUUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Project No. 62074-00 J No. 9594 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing the following project 'Reconstruct 7'" Street NW from 46' Avenue NW west approximately 1250 feet' Public Works prepared the Engineers Feasibility Report. Feasibility Report We report the project is technically feasible and recommend it be constructed contingent on participation by the requesting developers. Property in the vicinity of this section of 7"' St NW is being developed. Diamond Ridge development lies to the north and Manorwoods West to the south. In addition, there are three properties that contain a single-family dwellings with a combined 903 feet of street frontage along this section that currently lie outside the corporate limits of the city. The project would upgrade a narrow road with a poor pavement section in an area where traffic volumes are increasing due to development. The Project as proposed would involve the construction of a 36-foot wide urban bituminous street (concrete curb & gutter and storm drainage) with a structural design thickness adequate for the existing soils and projected traffic volumes. Construction would also include sanitary sewer and watermain. Sewer and water services will be stubbed to future parcels to the extent that the locations can be determined. The three existing residential dwellings would be eligible for connection consistent with the Water Quality Protection Program. The estimated costs of the Project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Street grading & paving $212,500 Conc. Curb & Gutter 25,000 Storm sewer, subdrain 31,250 Sanitary sewer 26,400 Watermain 50,000 Sub -total $345,150 Engineering, Interest & Contingency 103,545 Total $448,695 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ''tEE- ti' DATE 191 00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works I i EM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report: "Reconstruct 7" Street NW from 46" Avenue PREPARED BY: J� NW west approximately 1250 feet" (J9594). D. Nelson Vol This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project: Project No. 62074-00 J —9594 "Reconstruct r St NW from 46" Avenue NW west approximately 1250 feet" r h t� The estimated costs are: 1 5 .Street Grading & paving $212,500 Ike v, 5 '✓ Curb & gutter 25,000 } u� Storm sewer, subdrain. 31,250 Sanitary sewer 26,400 CIDV, !u Watennain 50,000 C° I c u Sub -total $345,150 Engineering, Interest & Contingency 103,545 Total $448,695 This project has been requested by the developers of Diamond Ridge and Manorwood West. This project is proposed to be funded with Developer Contribution, Utility Funds and Tax Levy. The Department of Public Works has requested a proposal from McGhie & Betts, Inc. to design this project. McGhie & Betts, Inc. provided a proposal for engineering design services in the amount of $19,800.00 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution could be adopted: a. Ordering the Feasibility Report b. Accept the attached Feasibility Report c. Ordering a Project Hearing to be held March 20, 2000 d. Authorize the execution of Engineering Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. to provide design services for $19,800.00. Attch: Feasibility Report Budget & Assessment Schedule Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 1140 REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Project No. 6207-4-00 J No. 9594 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing the following project : 'Reconstruct 7' Street NW from 46" Avenue NW west approximately 1250 feet' Public Works prepared the Engineers Feasibility Report. Feasibility Report We report the project is technically feasible and recommend it be constructed contingent on participation by the requesting developers. Property in the vicinity of this section of 7'hSt NW is being developed. Diamond Ridge development lies to the north and Manorwoods West to the south. In addition, there are three properties that contain a single-family dwellings with a combined 903 feet of street frontage along this section that currently lie outside the corporate limits of the city. The project would upgrade a narrow road with a poor pavement section in an area where traffic volumes are increasing due to development. The Project as proposed would involve the construction of a 36-foot wide urban bituminous street (concrete curb & gutter and storm drainage) with a structural design thickness adequate for the existing soils and projected traffic volumes. Construction would also include sanitary sewer and watermain. Sewer and water services will be stubbed to future parcels to the extent that the locations can be determined. The three existing residential dwellings would be eligible for connection consistent with the Water Quality Protection Program. The estimated costs of the Project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Street grading & paving $212,500 Conc. Curb & Gutter 25,000 Storm sewer, subdrain 31,250 Sanitary sewer 26,400 Watermain 50,000 . Sub -total $345,150 Engineering, Interest & Contingency 103,545 Total $448,695 /0 / The estimated revenues of the Project are as follows: (1) Street Reconstruction: a. City Share: 50% of street costs Street 212,500 C&G 25,000 Storm & subdrain 31,250 Subtotal: 268,750 Engr, Cont, Int. 80,625 Total: 349,375 b. Street rate for developing properties: X .50 = $174,687.50 $174,687.50 / 2515.80 ft (total front footage of project) = $69.44 per foot Forbrook - Bigelow: $69.44 / ft X 745.02 ft = $51,734.19 Western Walls: $69.44 / ft X 867.16 ft = $60,215.59 Total: $111,949.78 c. Future substandard street charge: 903.62 ft X $30 = $27,108.60 (2) Water -- watermain will run entire length of project. Developers to pay cost for their frontages. Potential Water connection charges for remaining properties for the remaining 903.62 ft could be realized in the future. Forbrook-Bigelow: 745.02 ft X $20 / ft = $14,900.40 Western Walls: 867.1,6 ft X $201 ft = $17,343.20 Total: $32,243.60 (3) Sanitary Sewer — Sewer will run from terminus MH near 46" Ave, 660 ft west to Manorwoods West connector street. Developers to pay cost for their frontages: Potenital Sewer connection charges for remaining properties for the remaining 903.62 ft could be realized in the future. Forbrook-Bigelow: 280 ft X $20 = $5,600 Western Walls: 360 ft X $20 = $7,200 Total: $12,800 /oL (4) Revenue Summary: Forbrook Bigelow: Western Walls: City Street Share: $51,734.19 + $14,900.40 $60,215.78 + $17,343.2C Total: * $5,600 = $72,234.19 + $7,200 = $84,758.98 $174,687.50 $331,680,67 This amount is 74% of the total project cost. This meets the City's policy of initially receiving at least 60% of the costs. The Public Works Department reports that the project is feasible contingent on the developers entering into contribution agreements for the costs outlined above. If the Council wishes to proceed, the Developers of Diamond Ridge and Manorwoods West are required to execute Contribution Agreements for the stated costs prior to the City Council authorization to schedule a Project Hearing for March 20, 2000 for the construction of this public improvement project. Doug Nelson Manager of Engineering 103 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: 6207-4-00 J No: 9594 Date: February 3, 2000 Description: "Reconstruct Vh Street NW from 460 Avenue west approximately 1250 feet' Construction Street Grading & Paving Curb & Gutter, Storm Drainage & Subdrain system Sanitary Sewer Watermain Engineering, Interest & Contingency Total Construction & Expense Distribution Street Construction contribution (Developers) San. Sewer & Watermain (Developers) Potential Sewer / Water Connection Charges City Share Street Costs City Share Sewer & Water TOTAL Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund Project Contract Final Budget Cost Cost 212.500 $25,000 $31,250 $26,400 $50,000 $103,545 $448,695 $111,949.78 $45,043.60 $64,157.02 $174,687.50 $52 857.10 $448,695 to 1 The estimated revenues of the Project are as follows: (1) Street Reconstruction: a. City Share: 50% of street costs Street 212,500 C&G 25,000 Storm & subdrain 31,250 Subtotal: 268,750 Engr, Cont, Int. 80.625 Total: 349,375 b. Street rate for developing properties: X .50 = $174,687.50 $174,687.50 / 2484.32 ft (total front footage of project) = $70.32 per foot Forbrook - Bigelow: $70.32 / ft X 745.02 ft = $52,389.81 Western Walls: $70.321 ft X 887.16 ft = $60,978.69 Total: $113,368.50 c. Future substandard street charge: 903.62 ft X $30 = $27,108.60 (2) Water — watermain will run entire length of project. Developers to pay cost for their frontages. Potential Water connection charges for remaining properties for the remaining 903.62 ft could be realized in the future. Forbrook-Bigelow: 745.02 ft X $20 / ft = $14,900.40 Western Walls: 867.16 ft X $201 ft = $17,343.20 Total: $32,243.60 (3) Sanitary Sewer -- Sewer will run from terminus MH near 46" Ave, 660 ft west to Manorwoods West connector street. Developers to pay cost for their frontages: Potenital Sewer connection charges for remaining properties for the remaining 903.62 ft could be realized in the future. Forbrook-Bigelow: 280 ft X $20 = $5,600 Western Walls: 360 ft X $20 = $7,200 Total: $12,800 (4) Revenue Summary: Forbrook Bigelow: $52,389.81 + $14,900.40 + $5,600 = $72,890.21 Western Walls: $60,978.69 + $17,343.20 + $7,200 = $85,521.89 City Street Share: $174,687.50 Total: $333,099,60 This amount is 74% of the total project cost. This meets the City's policy of initially receiving at least 60% of the costs. The Public Works Department reports that the project is feasible contingent on the developers entering into contribution agreements for the costs outlined above. If the Council wishes to proceed, the Developers of Diamond Ridge and Manorwoods West are required to execute Contribution Agreements for the stated costs prior to the City Council authorization to schedule a Project Hearing for MJrch 20, 2000 for the construction of this public improvement project. of Engineering 165 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: 6207-4-00 J No: 9594 Date: February 3, 2000 Description: "Reconstruct 7'" Street NW from 461" Avenue west approximately 1250 feet' Construction Street Grading & Paving Curb & Gutter, Storm Drainage & Subdrain system Sanitary Sewer Watermain Engineering, Interest & Contingency Total Construction & Expense Distribution Street Construction contribution (Developers) San. Sewer & Watermain (Developers) Potential Sewer / Water Connection Charges City Share Street Costs City Share Sewer & Water TOTAL Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund Project Contract Final Budget Cost Cost 212.500 $25,000 $31,250 $26,400 $50,000 $103,545 $448, 695 $113,368.50 $46,043.60 $64,157.02 $174,687.50 $51 A38.38 $448, 695 lob Parcel and Market Informatio 0.1 I 0.1 Text Street Ted 0 City Limit 0 Parcels 0.2 Niles W 11 .1, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING IL) ' DATE: 2-07-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, CONSENT AGENDA Public Works V-aQ ..-.A DESCRIPTION: Parking Petition 2"d Street NW / 700 block PREPARED BY: ,� ,D. Rossman The City has received a petition from the residents of this neighborhood to control all day parking on their street. The petition is for "Residential Permit Parkina on both side of 2"" Street," 1700 Block. between the hours of 7:00am to 5:00pm, Monday thru Friday. The petition Has been analyzed in the following 4 areas: 1) Is this area residential in nature? Yes 2) Is the zone requested at least 32 dwelling unit in size? Yes, this is part on the Kutzky zone, which is bounded by 6' Avenue on the east, First Street on the south, 11" Avenue on the west, and Cascade Creek on the north. Two other streets in the zone presently have Permit Parking. Others are expected to be submitted petitions very soon. 3) Is the street congested with parking from an outside source? Yes, the street is congested with cars parking on both sides of the streets on weekdays, and is mainly students from Lourdes High School and employees from the medical center. 4) Is the petition signed by 60% of the residents or landowners? Yes. 10 of 11 residents (90%). Additional information: 2n° Street /700 block is 35 feet wide on a 75 foot R/W. It is a one-way west bound street. Average traffic volumes are around 1,300 vehicles per day. There are two existing restrictions on the block. One can be removed and replaced with the new permit parking. That is the one side restriction from 3pmMonday to 7pm Tuesday. The other is a Passenger Loading Zone for a daycare at 711 2n0 Street. This will be still be needed when the permit parking signs are installed. The petition has been discussed with the City Police Department and they have no objection as long as the existing 3pm to 7pm restriction is removed. This has proved to be very confusing in other areas of the City and they are wishing to have it removed here. Staff recommends to approve the request and recommends that a public hearing be scheduled for March 6, 2000 to consider adopting the requested parking COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution calling for a public hearing on March 6, 2000 to consider expanding Residential Permit Parking Zone 48 (Kutzky's Addition) on the following streets, to be effective between the hours of 7:00am to 5:00pm, Monday thru Friday. 2nd Street NW on both sides from Th Avenue to 8'" Avenue. __UNCIL ACTION: Motion Second to: - - _ ( I I I I to i _ TI 11 E♦ EMEN _ _—'-_.11 - 1 91 9i I I J v aC4TE0 17 NOV. 1942 --'--j -7 i-Z-r--_' 0 -- "---- 4 M AY 63 'I I 3 ST. IV. W. I � I ? I - I � I 3 Z I I I I 2 ST. N. W.' ®mm ®mom �s W . C¢,nio, . %'l i 4f slr.++ SLJ mmapArommmm ssris CITY OF ROCHESTER, MN. . PERMIT PARKING ZONE #---- 8 K�taKy NG.g4ba•6� 4 =7 -T —T— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION b1EE71NG 02-07-00 DATE : f An i AGENDA I AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC WORKS I D -6Z :M AWARD OF BIDS FOR ZIPS BUSES / FEDERAL PROJECT # PREPARED BY: \IN-90-X106 AND MNDOT PROJECT;# 77835 A KNAUER Ai On November 30, 1999 bids were opened for the purchase of up to six (6) buses for the cities o Rochester and Mankato. (Two plus two option buses for Rochester and two buses for Mankato. Orion Bus Industries was the single bidder at the following amounts. Orion Bus Industries Rochester buses $210.000 w/ tires Mankato buses $209,000 w/o tires Optional electronic destination sign $7,796 Since this was a single bid response the City is required to conduct an analysis of its specification for any restrictive/ unjustifiable items and as to the fairness and reasonableness of the price. Suc an analysis was completed and is attached. In addition the award is subject to a waiver from the State Motor Carrier regarding rollover testing. The vehicle was tested in 1983. However, the vehicle weight has increased due to changes in the engine and drive train. Orion has provided engineering details in support of a request for waiver for a new test. This test is a federal requirement for school buses and applied to transit vehicles only in Minnesota. Funding for this project is shown below. Buses ($210,000 x 2) $420,000 State $179,760 State Sales Tax 29,400 Federal $152,000 Total $449,400 City $117,640 Total $449,400 Staff is recommending award of the bid for two buses at this time pending FTA concurrence and issue of the waiver from Motor Carrier. The option buses are subject to obtaining additional federal funding in 2000. The option is good for a period of 1 year after award of the first two buses. These buses will replace 1989 models with 400,000 miles. These buses will be held in reserve and only used on a back up basis for the time being. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution awarding a contract to Orion Bus Industries for the purchase of tv buses at a cost of $210,000 per unit pending approval of the bid from the FTA and granting of waiver from The Mihnesota Department of Transportation/ Division of Motor Carrier. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: January21, 2000 109 RE: SINGLE BID ANALYSIS/ PURCHASE OF UP TO 6 LOW FLOOR BUSES BY: TONY KNALTER BACKGROUND On 11/30/99 the City of Rochester in a combined bid solicitation with the City Mankato opened bids for the purchase of up to 6 low floor 25' buses. Orion Bus was the single bid responder. Following is a discussion of this bid in regards to its reasonableness and whether the contract should be awarded. Under a single bid situation the Federal Transit Administration sites three criteria ( Circular 4220.1b) that are to be considered. 1. A statement that the City has analyzed the specification and concludes that there are no items that would inhibit or restrict competition or if such items are identified an explanatiotvjustification that the item is needed. 2. Evidence of the City's request to all vendors expected to compete to submit their reasons for not competing and the vendors responses 3. A statement that the price is fair and reasonable and the basis for that determination. ANALYSIS Analvsis of Specifications The vehicles being purchased under this project are to be used in a paratransit operation requiring door to door transportation for persons with disabilities. Accessibility in terms of serving persons using wheelchairs and other ambulatory devices such as walkers, canes and crutches is of primary importance. The bus must be fully wheelchair accessible and maneuverable into neighborhood settings including trailer parks and apartment complexes. In the case of Rochester's system 34% of the 815 registered riders use wheelchairs. Another 33% use some other type of mobility device. Drivers are also in and out of their seats to assist passengers in boarding and securing wheelchairs. The above operational characteristics have a direct relationship to the vehicle specifications. The specifications require a low floor design throughout the vehicle without steps. The specifications also emphasized heavy duty long life (minimum of 10 years). Size was limited to 25' to 28' to meet maneuverability needs. The attributes of low floor throughout, size and long life may be considered restrictive in a combined sense. (Some models had some but not all of the attributes.) However, based on over 20 years of operating experience and service demands these requirements are considered essential. Other basic vehicle components were not considered as a problem for most manufacturers. Going into the bid there was not complete knowledge of how many manufacturers could comply with all of the specifications. Requests were received from 20 interested parties for copies of specifications which included; 11 bus manufacturers, 4 seating material suppliers, 1 engine manufacturer and 3 bus sales distributors. It was speculated that at least five could possibly compete or would at least participate through the approved equals process. The process provided for a pre -bid meeting and an approved equals process. Only staff attended the pre -bid meeting. Requests for approved equals were received from one bus manufacturer and one seat manufacturer. All prospective bidders had the opportunity to submit requests for approved equals. Three addendums were issued and sent to all spec holders based on requests from these two manufacturers. Post Bid Inquiries 101 Eleven of the specification holders were contacted by telephone or gave their reasons for not bidding in a letter after the bid opening. (The single bidder was not contacted for a post bid discussion.) Attachment 1. `BID ANALYSIS" lists all of spec holders and their status in regards to participation in the approved equals process, bidding etc. and responses as to why the manufacturer did not participate in the bidding. Not all bus sales/ distributors were contacted since the manufacturer would have more input on the specification. Following is a summary of these comments. Some manufacturers conveyed more than one reason. 1. Do not offer low floor throughout, steps in rear (4) 2. Bus they manufacture is too big (3) 3. Bus they offer is too light duty (3) 4. Delivery, testing and/ or final development is still underway (3) 5. Cannot meet wheelchair seating capacity (2) 6. Do not offer the specified power package (2) Again as stated under the "Analysis of Specifications" most of the features which manufacturers could not meet were considered essential such as low floor throughout, size and maneuverability and heavy duty. Required wheelchair capacity was based on current loads. The two vendors that could not meet power train requirements offered hybred electric powered vehicles. The most promising in terms of a non -bidder meeting the specification was one manufacturer who is still in the testing and final development stages. After consideration of these responses the City still prefers its original specification based on the performance criteria noted. Fair and Reasonable Cost Comparisons of cost were provided from two sources; recently bid/ negotiated contracts with Orion II and price ranges provided from other manufacturers. Attachment 2. Provides an analysis of procurements prices on Orion II buses from November, 1998 through November, 1999. The Cleveland and Fort Worth prices were the results of a competitive negotiation. All other comparisons were single bid situations. An adjusted price was calculated to make the comparisons equal by deducting or adding for the various options. (The total price and adjustments are provided in Appendix "A".) The Rochester price is 3.9% over the Cleveland price which was negotiated in November, 1998 or 13 months prior to Rochester. The Fort Worth which was negotiated 10 months prior is 2.46 % less than the Rochester price. The producer price index for this same period (Refer to Attachment 3) increased by 4.1%. The only exception to the percentage trend was the Erie bid. The manufacturer pointed out in discussion that the difference was due to three factors; later delivery for Rochester, the Erie bid was a repeat order with negligible changes and that the Rochester buses will require engineering because of State rules regarding securement devices. Price ranges were obtained on other make buses from manufacturer who had requested specifications. Only full air ride purpose built buses were considered. Obviously ranges were provided to protect future bidding opportunities. EZ Rider by Eldorado (a 30' low floor) ranges from $210,000 to $220,000. New Flyer's 30' low floor ranges from $230,000 to $240,000. Recommendation It is recommended that the bid be awarded to Orion Bus Industries based on the responsiveness to bid specification and fair and reasonable price. ATTACHMENT £ (3 PAGES) }{ 7 E ., 2■®k ! ))§| ` $0. {k\ k z � - a 72 ! : !!•� ;|§! -- § } ! f !/\§ k) z CL \L u \ z z = z _\ 2 _ 2 z w = z �■ ! § z z z z z z z �{ z 2 z q z z z cc z Wj ,j wz wz »} =j \� k\ Q3 @! w e ! 2z k 0 ! § 2 - ow % ;! ! _ _» - ? c ! )§ /§ !2m < 2, ) ZK< w _ ` ®0 2l kLU ;uxc (u © Ex §�`z ! \ § u !+ . wee 5 !/§{ @o[f a�� 21 k �� \ow \k� (§j2 §`!( < z ` }/§6 2)\§\ ) $kk\ |��z Cc §@2 !i\° §:CL! )) Co x ?| -: ),umoz !!q! $a2 K)!! §)qK \�\[ |k§'§ (�)� „ e » | 2 ; . 2 , §e m m Q a N E N r y `y _mma m m N m m v O O'Q mO LLmS m LO O9 a. m c o m m m N o 'u E N m L g S 0 0 0 0 O m m u m N m m c m a Y O m G N FL L O ry 3 9 i. J N N m m a N m W m R O m 3 m m E Q m m m N O m L Z N .Q E u w C m w U< S H O w O n � W UW w m N J i m LL o w O W O O O w w u1 } Z Y Z Z Z m Y T a Q m W C i m o N H J Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z W C m 3 m N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 0 a i m ° z i g i i z i W 6 J W W W W W W LL � LL 4LL lG¢i Q LL LL 1G¢i Omi 7§ �i m NNNi y m m § m § m O U m m Z W m W w f o Q < 6 K ?< Z N o O Z U O O > } O W Y m Q Cl n ¢ Q m < a U W m O ] Z O Q H O O r= O_ QQO O_ w Z = p r 7 ?�? �_ Z of Z <7 2 S Y� NNZ w Q� ~aa S� 3Q ~00 �.J a m a g 1 m O O Q: IX a n Q N N y Z Z J S Q p w 2 U r 55oU mzam y gw�m aa�nw mm�a Sac >�yv o <w°c O w'm Z V1mo vI- W Q}� ZZNN_!- U W mw <�1-Q 00 pm�Za = W F N QQ > W a 7 Y of Z W$ m m Z g o Z 2 S o 7i `n m Z> 0 2 p S n W O n O ¢ w m W O r Z Y w w N S O m H p a c �Oam UagwN Q4nU m��w0 mmn� �wa� 0w�U wwaa 'j� Q m O h W d C N m 0 G m C N U U C O � � m m o 2 o m H O b omg oaz mm 9 N O P O C o' 05 Sim u N Ev J W b U N Q N m � < Z a y Z a W im m O b ¢ J N y Z Z > % W O 7 m N Z Z Z z 1G ~ W a < N¢ z Z Z z cc C U U W U a a J a r Z d Z � Z h CO Om m l O m N a y m o � m 3 4 p W a m O O a J z Q W m N ° n m r a N U z m Om O zoat O b m c z H 09 m Q: O m a Q H J W .� w r U W m N 6 m H W z O H w U Z= W J o U Jc� y W W u a N z w m z ¢ ga G O O W G z a x m Z m z w 0 0 Z z> o W w E a a E g races r IgUN� c7xa� m ram❑ ¢� o b N v�75 Its ATTACHMENT 2. w r woo M V WW O Q N 0 (D UU) M N N O N 2 W W � = U U. cr O a a. U. 41 0 O O O C 0 0 O O m E ry N ry N N N N uj a p of z wzzz r N r N N Cl) m y m a m E x � co � 9 C Z LD R(] GNo Z) 0 LLo COCO0o r N C U N aD c0 a0 Ql O 01 m� D U . N N Q W V! W Mf Vf M �� y m C C G U ~ D O Z CDO_ N e W U E g o o U m m r v c a o a Q � O 2 Z p a O c m m OUa opp rn O7 (a (v -'-v a a a d m m m E E rn rn m ; c D O C C C C U U rn U)(D U) m d as m m D cr _ W e = d axi O d a P d m c m (d a c a d 3 O m c; r x? 0 V d m N ` Z ' o M a U(i V7 d wm a -jwx c 3 ?: 01 T 01 OI W a) H d d 10 N To 01 W Q '6 d m V (n 0 Z (L m co Z Z 0 J W Q• 0 0 a, u. , N Cl) ATTACELMENT 3. 149.3 152.6` c Last Year Last Month Percentage Chance Sr. Month 0.4 167.1 163.6 M U N I C I P A L COST INDEXES 153.2 Year 2.6 167.9 Last Year Last Month This Month Percentace Chance Bv-. Month 0.5 Year 2.6 Construction Cost Index 155.7' 159.1 159.1 i Last Year Last Month This Month Percentage Change By: Month 0.0 Year 2.2 123,9 126.8 128.0 Lan Year Last Month This Month Percentage Change By: Month 0.9 Year 3.3 Most Recent Markethasket Pram Change Prom Ca mnt t ast naanth LU VsM Air Conditioning Equipment._ 135.8 .._......_. 0.1 ___.... -03 Asphalt Fels. Coatings _......... 99.8..... 0.7.._._... -05 Bail. Rollw Searings_..._...... 167.0 0.1 ........ 0.8 01- 2.4 -3.3 ........ .5-2 Communication Equipment._. 7127 .__„_... -03 -... .0.8 Comae Produce _ _ 144 t ._ _. 03._.__.. 15 Construction Machinery...„...... 1475 ............. 03.__.... 15 Crude Petroleum......„„..„.„„„.. 85.4._.._.»._ 143 - 81.7 Oksel Fuel No, 21 _....„,.......„.„ 575 ._...__.. .35 __.. 402 Electronic Carnpulen............... 93.1 ....._....„ -05.._..... .21.4 FebricatW MOW Produces- 143.3 w.__ 0.1- 0.1 Floor Cowinga..„ 1Z7.1 -- 0.0-- -0.7 Foundry, Forgs Shop Produce 135.1-_ 0.0._ 0.1 Fuel 00 (No. 2) 89.4 - 8.0- 44.6 GssoOne 77.7 ____... 21- 524 Giese Comelnen _ 1259-- 4.4- -0.2 Gypsum Products. 125.7..__ -02- -0.2 Hardvrare ..... 149.7.._..._.„. -0.1...._..... 1.8 Hardwood Lumber 177.2 ..._.._._. 0.6 _....._. -0.5 Heating Equipment 154.8._._... 0.1_.._..._ 1.0 Heavy Motor Tucks 147.8 .____ 03 _._.„ 2.0 Internal Comhrs0on Engines _ 143.1 _.._- -0.1 __„_. 15 Iron Om.-- 94.8 -.__. 0.0..„...._. -0.8 Inn. Steel So-.- 145.4 ._.-_ 1.4._...._ .1.4 Mitlad Ries .13 Mixod FortiDrisrs ._.._.- 113.4.„ -... -0.4........ -1.4 Perci m Change From Current Last Month La Veu Motor. Generators ....__.__..__. 145.4 ..._..._ -0.1..__., -03 Namnl Gas._.........._....„.._„....... 1133 ..._..._. 13.3..___. 623 Offla, Stars Machines ........... .. 112.4._._._ 0.1....„... 0.1 Paper...�_......._.._.__..__...__.... 1413..__.... 0.4....„... -2.0 Passenger Cars ...... ._..._......... 126.4......... 20......... -0.5 Plumbing Fixtures, Bros rtdngs 178.7 ._.._. 0.5......... 12 Prepared Paint.__..__....._...._.... 157.5 .„_- 0.0......... 1.4 Pumps. Compnoon.__..._...„... 7515 ........... 0.1._...._ 1.7 Residential EleeMe Power..„...... 114.2 --- --- 0.8__._. 0.0 Sand, Gravel. CmshW Stone._„ 1575 .._.....„ 0.0 ........ 25 Sanitary Paper. Hesbh Produces 143.8 ....„„„. 0.4...._... -1.0 Sporting, Athletic, Goods .„.......„ 1252 ....„..... 0.4.._..„ 0.0 Steel Mfll Produce_..........„-.- 104.8 ........... -0.4..„„.„ -7.7 Switehgeer......_.......„.._.............. 1505 .._....... 111- . 1.3 Synthetic Rners--- 1027._.._ 0.0_- -42 Tires. Tubes. Tread eta - 929 ._.._ 0.1- -1.2 Tools. Dies. Jlgs. Fixtures ._.__ 140.1 .._..... 0.0 ....... 0.9 131.4 _ 02..__. -03 Transmission Equipmem.___._. 1615 .____ 02...__. 2.3 Truck Tellers.__.-_..._._._. 1373 ._----- 0.8.__.. 1.8 Wiring Derive ._._.__.__.r 1523 -- -0.1.-_ 45 • The mrrares and procurer pier tad. w PubdW d monthly by the U5. 0unnnan of Labees Sunsu of Labor Statsha The Pre egtes used a the numew for Ad osmmosws. The CM snd Pre Beres, iwwwrud m this iwue re Prom aepbnh. INS. The ea struos n tat idu Is PubWPW moeWy br the U.S. MprmrrR a Cammrra The t ..gcWW one Index inwrPemee Nees th w indexer. Pea tr bu ldng raei Index, pubxMod .d* in Eniposring News Recpd. • America's Crown Communities Awards • Government Outsourcing • Local Leaders Look at the New Millennium 98 November 1999 AbmERICAN CITY & COUNTY § � | §�■ lq ■ �§ go' |■��||�� , , ARM |. |.| § ,.-:,,.a. �|- - " ■■ ■ | ■ ,�, E-„!•■ ■■ | ■■ ■ |||- ����� | ,\ ,,,l•�e 2■ | §. |. it !'�§|||| - § ■■�N �■- �■|_■,||,� ,|• |■ 1145� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION VIEETLtiG tt? DATE : 2/7/2000 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO: D _ 30 WATER RECLAMATION PLANT tiEM DESCRIPTION: Lease of the Rochester Airport Agricultural Land PREPARED BY: LYLE J. ZEVIMEW The City of Rochester leases land from the Rochester Airport Company for the Water Reclamation Plant's land application of biosolids program. The WRP then subleases this land to a farmer. There are approximately 1025.76 acres of land available for subleasing. The Airport Company has set the lease price for the year 2000 at $100, for a total lease price of $102,576. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approval of a lease agreement between the City of Rochester and the Rochester Airport Company for land at Rochester Airport for a total of $102,576 in the year 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING J DATE : 2/7/200 :ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO: CONSENT AGENDA I Water Reclamation Plant , ITEM DESCRIPTION: Consulting Services Contract PREPARED BY: Aaronomv Services Plus, Inc. Lyle J. Zimmerman.' / The City of Rochester has contracted with Agronomy Services Plus, Inc. since 1993 to provide consulting services required for the proper management of the land application of biosolids from the Water Reclamation Plant. This consulting service will be required on a continuing basis. It is recommended that the current agreement with Agronomy Services Plus, Inc. be extend for another year and be amended as follows: 1. Extend the agreement through December 31, 2000 2. The hourly rate for the principal consultant to remain at the 1999 rate of $40 per hour. 3. The total maximum amount for billable time is to remain at $30,000 and will not be exceeded without prior approval by the City COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approval of a contract between the City and Agronomy Services Plus, Inc. to continue consulting service through December 31, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ME-=71NG DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational Business Mayor's Office D_ 32. ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Appointment to Housing Authority Mayor Canfie I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority: George Wilson 515E Nicklaus Drive NW Mr. Wilson will fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Michael Gerber. The unexpired term runs to December 31, 2001. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion br SOMW br. A�HFSTEII M/4,Y NLmn Chu<kCantirld 201 Ith Stiect tiE - Rown °HI " Ruihr,wi ll\ 554D4.i7S2 ,�,I,T,Y �OFI, ROCHESrT9ER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION =uE : .D:JREJ �N' SS9ay g r,S.7(-3fi3¢ HOME DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LTMT-_'S? 'ES ✓NC OF EMPLOYMENT �N f�2D�BNC ..=NG T A% SEEviNG ` IT ivTAR`: HER i+ liil{{EIIt EVCr2 G4A/ Q4T l/5�D BECAUSE: S +S�AVX .9Lw.W< �A2riciP GN Cs ----- QS A&Z Are zAn&zjUA ;.y,,r o ruArrricrs T 'ear: o®S',972v; e- ?LEAS RO-,I"DE 2ACKCROON� - .IT RES7 S, yr MENTS, PRF ICJE EMPLOYM...NT, _ CetiiL GL'. siivice- /97/ �.�• d_� • .� vt ric3 . �r , Iq��'cs-S� _ Y.fs7 fjo.¢/l n �11d71'1/f1,72 t1't �' /�t�hNMrGF.4 (+f1�D5 +iD»1e� Qac�. ew C(+fi�Kf�[ 6G CTonrMlc-uc� duz �AS1A+�Ia 23 Lv zs�e�lz,Iry G}f�geµ CDU�crtL_ p Ce.i2��T Bo.R2 e Yr«CA�!p,4/6ANS r- J�,¢fi1aT 5"Z- 2AN �+P /,¢rrt,4GL671/ namg crraprrmmc�. i GL. CL /L12CN7 Gov U� Return to: Cffice of the 'mayor ClFs}r�C. 201 4th Street SS Rochester, MN 55904-3782 /-%Sr To S�vEsrLAc *r�ctfiln�6�SMs cart ce APPOINTMENT: -- TERM EXPIRATION: PCO PLC% bFOr�fE�l COvAiT2/t5 OTHER. DATA: SAv'r&7ZE3re-6 ,Al C-vllfvfvvl-ry �Fr¢r12S ZG7VEC>V&S7/4NS / is0-A#eS2-eX iXA4$1JSV C04MIJVrC% �cvCzof'nl�N� 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/7/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONCENT AGENDA Public Works D- 33 EM DESCRIPTION: Third Street Parking Ramp Lease PREPARED BY: Rossman This is a recommendation to provide notice to Mayo Foundation of the City's intent to reduce the number of leased stalls by one level of the 3`d Street Ramp. This notice is required by Section 3 of the 3-3-98 Agreement between the City and Mayo. The reason for this recommendation is that all available monthly parking spaces in the City of Rochester's five city owned ramps are issued, and there is a standing waiting list of 275 customers. The list is growing at a rate of 30 customers/ month. In addition to the waiting list issue, the City ramps are experiencing higher levels of hourly customers, especially in the Center Street and First Street Ramps. For the month of December, Center Street Ramp averaged 620 customers / day in the 230 spaces available for hourly customers. The "FULL" sign came on every day. First Street Ramp averages 500 hourly customers in the 300 spaces available for hourly customers. Presently, Mayo Foundation leases 330 spaces in this ramp at the current monthly rate. The lease started December 1998. The lease requires the City to give Mayo a six-month notice prior to any change affecting the lease, and the City must bear the expense of moving the gates. The City has the right to reduce the number of leased stalls at a rate of one level per year. Each level represents approximately 85 spaces. One additional level converted from Maya Lease to Monthly City Ramp Customers would allow room to relocate some of the present Center Street Monthly Customers, thus freeing up additional spaces for the hourly customers, and to serve some of the customers on the waiting list. This issue has been discussed with staff from the Mayo Foundation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution giving notice to the Mayo Foundation of the City of Rochester's intent to reduce the number of leased stalls by one level at the 3rd Street Parking Ramp effective August 1, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION %1EETIP G i DATE 2- -00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONTINITE) - PUBLIC HEAR. NGS PLANNING e%- ( oiUl DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-44 to be known as'Wimbledon Hills Third Subdivision 1 PREPARED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner February 2, 2000 Staff has been working with the applicant to resolve concerns related to the long term maintenance.of a storm water pond located within this plat. At this time, staff recommends that the Plat be approved subject to one condition as included in the attached staff report. i jCouncil Action Needed: If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution approving this plat should be adopted. Attachment: 1. Staff report. Distribution: 1, City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday February 7, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. Land Consultants 6. Paul Only, Only Law Office COUNCIL ACTION: rmeonby: sewridby. to: '' ''~ ' _-- ' �, /, / ._ � -~ K���v�/� �` ,`� �vr �','<~' ``�'^'/^ ``� / ` ^ ' ``-- (n REVISED TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: February 2, 2000 R IT£D• UG��� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507i285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507I285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING,HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507f285-8213 WELLSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Final Plat #99-44 to be known as Wimbledon Hills Third Subdivision Plannino Devartment Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Plat Data: Location of Property: Zoning: Kenneth Kinseth 1102 Division Street Decorah,lA 52101 Land Consultants 1418 First Ave. NE Rochester, MN 55906 1. RPU Water Division (see attached) 1. Referral Comments (1 Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat This plat is located along Wimbledon Hills Drive, south of Country Club Road. This property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) and R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district in the City of Rochester. AN EQUAL OP NITY/AFFIRMATWE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Wimbeldon Hills Third Subdivision February 2, 2000 Proposed Development: Streets: Drainage: This development consists of 7.55 acres to be subdivided into 5 Outlots. Outlot "C" is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and could be developed with single family detached homes at a later date. There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. If development is proposed on any of the lots, a grading plan may be required. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils within this Plat. Public Utilities: Spillover Parking: Parkland Dedication: General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat: Utilities are available within Wimbledon Hills Drive SW, adjacent to this Plat. Utilities are not available to serve Outlots A & B. The spillover parking requirements will be evaluated upon a development proposal, if any of the Outlots are developed. No dedication is required for this plat. The property is within an approved PUD that includes townhomes and condominiums. The portion of the property labeled "Outlot C" was removed from the PUD within the last few years and is zoned R-1(Mixed Single Family) district. This Plat proposes to re -subdivide already platted land and no right-of-way is being dedicated with this Plat. Therefore, a preliminary plat was not required. Planninq Staff and Recommendation: Staff has been working with the applicant to address concerns related to a storm water pond located within this Plat. Long term maintenance agreements and easement documents will need to be executed prior to recording the Final Plat documents. Staff recommends approval of this Final Plat subject to the following condition: i. Documents assigning longterm maintenance of the storm water pond on Outlot B, of this Plat, and associated easement documents must be executed with the City prior to recording the Final Plat documents. P++u we pledge, we deliver October 22, 1999 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase I, Final Plat #99-44 to be known as Wimbledon Hills Third Subdivision. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. Water service is not currently available to serve Outlots A & B. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, Q4w Donn Richardson (ny(� —A:� Water y C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Lyle Felsch, Fire Prevention Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507.280-1542 4 4 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETNG It? .7 DATE -'-"-)p AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, PUBLIC HEARINGS PLAN-Q N`G 6 �� EM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #99-50 by Leslie Lurken to be known as North Park I PREPARED BY:enth Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide 12.23 acres of land into 41 single Brent Svenby,mily residential lots. The Plat also dedicated right of way for four new public roads. The Pla erroperty is located east of 61" Street NW, northwest of Fairway Drive NW and north of � North Park Fourth and Sixth Subdivisions. January 28, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 12, 2000 to consider :his preliminary plat fo the property. The proposed subdivision consists,of 12.23 acres G) be subdivided into 41 lots for single family development. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual and recommends approval of this preliminary plat with the following modifications or conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement in which the City outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but are not limited to, storm water management, cash dedication in lieu of land for parkland, pedestrian facilities, traffic improvements ($40 per lot for implementing a neighborhood traffic management program (NTMP), etc.) and contributions for public infrastructure (SACIWAC, connection charges, etc.). 2. A temporary turnaround is required at the northern end of Portsmouth Drive NW. Easements for this turnaround, as well as for any utilities located outside of the plat boundary must be provided with the: final plat. . The 20' utility easement for the 8" watermain loop between Lots 7 and 8, Block 4 must be relocated to between Lots 8 and 9, Block 4 to provide for better water system networking of this area. 4. The roadway designated as "61" Street NW" be renamed to "Savannah Drive NW" Motion by Petersson to approve Preliminary Plat #99-50 to be known as North Park 10t° Subdivision, with the staff suggested conditions as modified; seconded by Slaver. The motion carried 8.0. i Council Action Needed., 1 1) The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion ithat at least one of the fifteen findings for denial in Paragraph 61.225 can be made. Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated January 7, 2000 fly 2. Minutes of the January 12, 2000 CPZC Meeting OUNCIL ACTION: Motien by: Secandby: to: 0 13o REDUCED COPY NOT TO SCAM I. TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: January 7, 2000 tlLn rFR•p/t, 3( 9k I TFD•ALGJS[' . ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285.8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit #99-50 (Preliminary Plat) to be known as North Park Tenth Subdivision. Planning Department Review: ApplicanUOwner: Leslie Lurken 1027 7`" Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 SurveyorslEnginsers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3r° Avenue SE Rochester, MN 5504 Referral Comments: RPU Water Division RPU Operations Division Fire Department Park and Rec. Dept. Planning Dept. — Transportation Staff Planning Dept. — John Hanford Planning Dept. — Addressing Staff Rochester Public Works Department MnDOT Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (6 letters) 3. Location Map 4. Copy of GDP 5. Copy of Preliminary Plat 6. Neighborhood Traffic Management Study in North Park area. Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located east of 61"Street NW, AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATNE ACTION EMPLOYER 2� Page 2 'J North Park Tenth Subdivision January 7,2000 northwest of Fairway Drive NW and north of North Park Fourth and Sixth Subdivisions. Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: This development consists of 12.23 acres of land to be subdivided into 41 lots for single family residential use. Streets: This plat dedicates right-of-way for four roadways. The first roadway is the continuation of 61" Street NW to Fairway Drive NW. This roadway is designed with a 32' wide surface on 56' right-of-way. The second roadway is the continuation of Fairway Drive NW. This roadway is designed with a 44' wide surface on 70' right-of-way. This street will continue to the north when the adjacent property is developed. The third roadway, Portsmouth Drive NW, is a north/south roadway and is shown to continue to the north once the adjacent land is developed. The roadway is designed with a 32' wide surface on 56' right-of-way. The fourth roadway, Knotting Hill Lane NW, is a cul-de- sac off of Portsmouth Drive NW. This roadway is designed with a 28' wide surface on 50' right-of-way. The proposed streets meet the minimum standards as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Development Manual. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all of the new streets in the subdivision. Drainage: The elevations of this site range from 1,090' in the southeast corner of the plat to 1,140' in the northwest corner of the plat. The property generally drains to the southeast. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The applicant received a Wetland Exemption in 1993 for the North Park Development. Public Utilities: Water and sewer can be extended from their present ends to serve this property. There is a 12" watermain already in place within the right-of-way being dedicated as "61" Street NW" and "Fairway Drive NW". A 10- foot utility easement is shown on the front of each lot on the plat. J Page 3 North Park Tenth Subdivision January 7, 2000 (33 Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors at a rate of 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit, in addition to the required off-street parking. This additional parking may be provided either off-street or on -street. This development requires 50 spillover parking spaces. The right-of-way and road widths appear adequate to meet this requirement. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland included within the boundaries of this plat. The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommend that the parkland dedication requirement for this plat be satisfied by cash in lieu of land. General Development Plan: In 1990, the city approved an amended general development plan, which included this property. The proposed plat is generally consistent with the approved General Development Plan. Staff Review: Staff has met with a committee of the Northwest Neighbors Neighborhood Association to explore options for mitigating the impact of higher levels of traffic that will result from the buildout of remainder of the North Park General Development Plan and the adjacent properties. The attached staff memorandum on the Neighborhood Traffic Management Study for North Park reviews the information that has been developed to date on this issue. Figure 4 in the memorandum illustrates a number of conceptual traffic calming devices for area. Staff is working on a citywide Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy Guide that would establish the basic guidelines, which the city would use in responding to requests from neighborhoods for traffic management measures. This Policy Guide will establish goals and objectives for the program, will identify the process to be followed for implementing a neighborhood traffic management program (NTMP), will identify acceptable traffic calming measures, and will discuss the level of neighborhood support and financial contribution that will be expected. The Council at the Committee of the Whole meeting was clear in their intention that any costs associated with implementing a NTMP will largely need to be borne by the residents of the area. Not only will new developments in North Park be required to contribute funds for implementing a neighborhood traffic management program, but existing residents also. The Board of Directors of the Neighborhood Association has agreed in principle that the existing residents will need to contribute to the funding of these improvements, and has indicated a willingness to work on raising funds to assist in implementing the NTMP; thus the burden for this work is not solely on developers of new lots but also the existing North Park community. The proposed roadway designated as "61" Street NW" is one segment of a roadway that will start at 50'" Avenue NW and go to Fairway Drive NW. The segment of this roadway in White Oaks 4'" Subdivision will be proposed to be designated as "Savannah Drive NW". The segment in North Park Ninth Subdivision is platted as W Street NW. Having this segment of roadway in North Park 10t' Subdivision designated something different would be confusing. The roadway does not Page 4 North Park Tenth Subdivision January 7, 2000 align with the addressing grid for 61" Street. Also, where the proposed roadway connects with Fairway Drive NW, the property addresses on Fairway Drive are in the 6200 range. Confusion for drivers and emergency responders could happen if the designation is 61" Street because of the addressing on Fairway Drive NW. The ideal situation is to have the roadway designated by one name from 50" Avenue NW to Fair Way Drive NW. The necessary documentation to change the roadway designation in North Park Ninth will be created and presented to the Rochester City Council. Staff Recommendation: Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the criteria which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. In addition, Section 61.226 lists the findings which must be made for the denial of a land subdivision permit. These sections are attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Sections 61.225 and 61.226. The staff recommends that the following modifications or conditions be imposed on this preliminary plat in order to insure that the above -mentioned criteria are met: The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City the outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but are not limited to, storm water management, cash dedication in lieu of land for parkland, pedestrian facilities, traffic improvements ($40 per lot for implementing a neighborhood traffic management program (NTMP), etc.) and contributions for public infrastructure (SACIWAC, connection charges, etc.). 2. A temporary turnaround is required at the northern end of Portsmouth Drive NW. Easements for this turnaround, as well as for any utilities located outside of the plat boundary must be provided with the final plat. 3. The 20' utility easement for the 8" watermain loop between Lots 7 and 8, Block 4 must be relocated to between Lots 8 and 9, Block 4 to provide for better water system networking of this area. 4. The roadway designated as "61" Street NW" as renamed to "Savannah Drive NW" i CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Findings for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. C. That the plan for soil erosion and stanTwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are -provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. t. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development In an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands; aNctfve May 15, 1999 M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. O. That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposec subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, or any other fioodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. 61.226 Conditions on Approvals. In considering an application for a development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225. aiii Nve May 15, 1999 / (� kOCHESTER f'CLf Li26ddLCL' 1 r'?7/99 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4' Street SE Room 108 TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740 2122 Campus Drive SE 507-287-7800 Rochester, MN 55904 FAX - 507-281-6216 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for a Preliminary Plat 9950 on North Park Tenth Subdivision (Leslie Lurken property). The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Storm Water Management must be addressed for this development. 2. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure to serve this subdivision. No request for a City / Owner Contract will be processed until the final plat has been approved by Council, as well as, Public Works approval of the construction and grading plans. 3. Easements for off site utilities will be required prior to final plat approval. 4. A temporary turn -around, and associated easement will be required at the northern end Portsmouth Drive NW. 5. Pedestrian facilities shall be located along all public roadways, within the plat consistent with City standards. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: •:• Trunkline Sanitary Sewer (J9173) = $392.54 per acre plus interest @ 7.5% from May 16, 1994. •S N.W. Water Tower (J9265) = $1154.67 per acre plus interest @ 7.5% from April 16, 1996 ❖ Stormwater Management if applicable ❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. N:PUBWORKSVCOMMON%ROWWIanninglP1an99WP9950.doc V TRANSPORTATION STA DEVELOPMENT APPLICAI IONS REVIEW DATABASE - i993 Jurisdiction :application Comments with the future installation of a signal that adequate gaps w ill be created in the j mrougn tramc now to allow the meouan opening on U)AH 11 to remain to serve I the Woodland Drive traffic. If operational problems did occur in the future, however, consideration to closing the median or limiting it to inbound left turns only would need to be considered, since the location would be toaclose to the future signal at Bamber Valley Drive, and the approach %plumes would be too low, to warrant installation of the signal. Under this scenario, more traffic would'' need to be routed down the frontage road to the signalized intersection at Fox Valley Drive in order to access CSAH 22. Our estimate of the resultant traffic on ! I the frontage road under this scenario is a total volume of approximately 1100 vehicles per day, which would be within the range of acceptable traffic flow on a local residential street. / City Annex 99-25 55 St is a designated collector street orythe Thoroughfare Plan and will need to Rarzloff upgraded to meet collector road standards. Until a financing plan for upgrading Bigelow the ad is established, consideran should be given to limiting the total amount Kresbach of traf generated west of 50'" ve to approximately 3000 trips per day, which is the a uiv nt of 300 homes. ; City Annex 99-26 The level o velopment north of 55 St along 50' Ave will require upgrading of Graves the road to coil for or arterial street standards in order to accommodate the projected level of affic that will originate in this area. Until a financing plan for upgrading 50" Ave stablished, consideration should be given to limiting the total amount of ffic erated west of 50t° Ave to approximately 3000 trips per day, which is t e uivale of 300 homes. County Final Plat 99-5 At the preli ry plat stage a transportation staff commented on the need for Coventry Hills the follow' g three items: • Es lish access control alon he frontage on TH 52 • ntnbution toward the constru ion of a right turn lane off of southbound 52 at 55"St SE Accommodate extension of one of th cut -de -sacs to the south property line to allow for future interconnection of s ets it the area south and west of this plat should ever be developed. It appears from review of the final plat and inforrna[r submitted that these three conditions have been satisfied. A street easement has b n shown between lots 4 and 5 in Block 1 that provides the ability to construct a sit t at a future date should the desire anse to do so. (It should be noted that this ould only happen at the initiative of the township and most likely at township expe if it was to be done at some time in the future). From a review of the topograph nd wet areas within the plat and on surrounding lands it appears that the more logs 1 connection would be to the west rather than to the south as had been su ested at the preliminary plat stage. C Rest Dev 98-6 No comment Fiksdahl Motel City Prel Plat 99-50 In response to concerns over traffic impact within the North Park neighborhood North Park 10 that arose during consideration of the Orchard Ridge development in 1998-99, L. Lurkin staff met with a committee of the Northwest Neighbors Neighborhood Association to explore options for mitigating the impact of higher levels of traffic that will result from the buildout of not only Orchard Ridge but the remainder of the North Park General Development Plan. A preliminary plan was developed and presented at a Committee of the Whole meeting to the Council for review. The attached staff memorandum dated July 15, 1999, on the Neighborhood Traffic Management Study for North Park reviews the information that has been developed to date on this issue. Currently the staff is working on a citywide Neighborhood Traffic Management TRANSPORTATION STA DEVELOPMENT APPLICA LIONS REVIEW DATABASE - 1998 13q Policy Guide that would establish the basic guidelines which the city would use in responding to requests tiom neighborhoods for traffic management measures. This Policy Guide will establish goals and objectives for the program. will identify the process to be followed for implementing a neighborhood traffic management program (NTMP), will identify acceptable traffic calming measures, and will discuss the level of neighborhood support and financial contribution that will be expected. The Council at the Committee of the Whole meeting was clear in then intention that any costs associated with implementing a NTMP will largely need to be borne by the residents of the area. It is our recommendation that a dedicated fund account be established at this time for the North Park NTMP and that all new developments impacting the North Park travel shed (particularly Fairway Drive and 44'" Ave) contribute $40 per lot to this account to be used to support the future implementation of the of North Park NTMP. The $40 contribution is derived from an estimated need of approximately $30,000 to implement the improvements included in the proposed North Park NTMP, and the eventual presence of approximately 750 homes (existing and new) within the travel shed. It should be noted that to raise the necessary funds will require not only new developments in the North Park area to contnbute funds, but existing residents also. The Board of Directors of the Neighborhood Association has agreed in principle that the existing residents will need to contribute to the funding of these improvements, and has indicated a willingness to work on raising funds to assist in implementing the NTMP; thus the burden for this work is not solely on developers of new lots but also the existing North Park community. Staff would recommend that consideration be given to establishing a time limit for this account (possibly 5 years after buildout of the North Park GDP) after which the dollars would be returned to the developer if the NTMP is not implemented due to the inability of the Neighborhood Association to raise the necessary funds. IqD PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: 1-6-2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: RE: NORTH PARK TENTH SUBDIVISION A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following address related issues: Roadway designation: 61 Street NW: The use of this numeric designation is in doubt due to the conflict with sequential house numbering on cross streets? Addressing issues were investigated and discussions held with the various concerned parties, the result is outlined below. RECOMMENDATION: It has been agreed that the designation for the roadway should be Savannah Drive NW. This designation will be applied to the portion of roadway in North Park Tenth and to the connecting roadway in North Park Ninth as well as the connecting roadway in White Oaks Fourth. The necessary documentation to change the roadway designation in North Park Ninth will be created and presented to the Rochester City Council. The change to White Oaks Fourth will be handled by McGhie and Betts prior to submittal of the final plat. rpu we oledyt, we deliver December 21, 1999 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #99-50 by Leslie Lurkin to be known as as North Park Tenth Subdivision. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. The 20' utility easement for the 8" water main loop depicted between Lots 7 and 8, Block 4 should be relocated to between Lots 8 and 9, Block 4 to provide for better water system networking of this area. We have provided the applicant's engineering firm with comments on the proposed water system layout. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours,rsLOL "MA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Leslie Lurkin McGhie & Betts, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 ROCHESTER PARK AND f W,REATION DEPARTMENT rochester ' 201 FOURTH STREET SE UA) ROCHETER MINNESOTA 65904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 TW FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 23, 1999 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: North Park 10`' Preliminary Plat #99-50 Acreage of plat ................. .......... .....1.......... I..'' .......... 12.23 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 41 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 3.35 units/a Density factor.. ....................................... ......... .0244 Dedication............................................................... 1.00 acres Fair market value of land...... ............... ........................ $15,000 The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land \\=. Oc' ROCHE3TER\ci-y iIi:.\PARK" DZTOT.".\i399\DED:Cn-,:',NW 2332\KORTH PARK 10:H.DOC ROCHESTER - OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS i + 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN.55904-7996 PHONE (507) 285-8232 FAX (507) 287-2275 MEMORANDUM TO: Committee of the Whole FROM: Charles Reiter Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department DATE: July 15, 1999 RE: Neighborhood Traffic Management Study in North Park area Background A Neighborhood Traffic Management Study was initiated at the request of the Northwest Neighbors Neighborhood Association in response to concerns with the impact of continued residential growth in the area. The most recent proposal which has served to bring these concerns to light is the Orchard Ridge development, which will result in an additional 227 lots being platted in the area. In addition to Orchard Ridge, there are approximately 200 additional lots remaining to be developed within the area encompassed by the North Park General Development Plan, and 260 acres of other land in the area south of Wh St that will likely be developed. All together, there are potentially an additional 1100 lots still to be developed in area, as illustrated in Figure 1. Currently there are an estimated 625 homes developed in North Park, White Oaks and 551" St Estates Subdivisions combined At the time the GDP for Orchard Ridge was presented, staff suggested that consideration should be given to developing a rrafflc Wming Plan for the neighborhood. TRAFFIC CALMING is a term commonly used to refer to a wide range of measures or actions that communities utilize to manage the speed, volume and flow of traffic in neighborhood areas, and to improve the safety of the street environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Figures 2-1 & 2-2 Illustrate the types of measures that have been used In different communities in an attempt to achieve traffic calming goals. Traffic calming is based on the premise that motorists respond to the street environment they are driving through in ways that are better or worse for the neighborhood; for example, motorists driving on a wide street or a street with little on -street parking or only limited landscaping (so that it conveys an open feeling) will tend to drive faster, often at speeds above those felt desirable in a residential area. The objective of installing traffic calming measures is to create changes in the street environment that will lead to changes in motorist behavior, and that these behavioral changes will be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. An added benefit of this kind of improvement is that by encouraging motorist behavior that is more compatible with the area, other public policy goals, such as providing connections between adjacent development areas, can be achieved while still maintaining a safe and high quality residential environment. Traffic Calming as an approach to dealing with traffic management issues in neighborhood areas is being used in an ever increasing number of cities as a means to respond to the growth In traffic that accompanies continued development. In Rochester, measures have been used on an isolated basis in the past for purposes primarily oriented to limiting cut - through traffic, such as on 12v' Ave SE south of 4"' St and 16"' Ave NW north of 11th Ave. Two recent examples of where the traffic calming NA concept was applied along a street corridor are 1) East Center Street east of 11`" Ave, and 2) 6'h St SE between 4' Ave and 13'" Ave. in both Projects the use of pavement striping, curb extensions and all -way stop sign installation Study Progress to date The Neighborhood Association Board of Directors, following the initial presentation of the Orchard Ridge General Development Plan to the Planning Commission, indicated a desire to initiate a dialogue regarding the use of traffic calming measures to address traffic concerns in the area. A committee composed of the Association Board of Directors and the Association's Development Subcommittee was convened to meet with staff to discuss options with the goal of developing a preliminary plan that would respond to issues identified by the neighborhood. Results from the Study to Date illustrate popular traffic calming features that were used as part of design package in an effort to manage the behavior of motorists and to make busier street corridors more compatible with the neighborhood they are located in. Staff met on three occasions with the subcommittee and on July 81" the Association sponsored a Neighborhood Meeting to provide the residents of the area an opportunity to comment and critique a preliminary plan that has been prepared for consideration. The committee feels they have progressed to the point where the next step is to get input and feedback from the Common Council and public agencies on the viability of the concept plan. In particular, there are some public policy questions on which the benefit of the Council's input would be valuable at this point in the process. The first order of business the committee undertook was to document the issues of concern. The following list summarizes the key traffic related neighborhood issues that were identified: 1. There is a safety concern at the intersection of Fairway Drive and 55'" St resulting from the design of the free -flow right turn lane from westbound Circle Drive to westbound SSO St; 2. There are conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the Neighborhood Park entrance; 3. There is growing concern with travel speeds on primary neighborhood streets, including Fairway Drive, 44" Ave, Villa Road, 56'" and 571° Streets, which affects pedestrians and bicyclists and is a safety concern. 4. At some of the busier intersections (44`" Ave and 571h St was mentioned as an example) there are problems with driver's understanding of who is responsible for yielding the right of way when vehicles meet at these intersections; S. In regards to items 1-4, there is a concern that the problems will worsen in the future as a result of added traffic that will be added to the streets from new development areas. Current traffic counts were collected and future traffic projections completed for the primary streets in the neighborhood. This information is illustrated in Figure 3. The North Park development represents a style of development very popular with home buyer's, in that it features many lots on cvl-de-sacs or short cross streets that have limited traffic. However, the result of this style is that there will be a couple of streets that receive a high proportion of traffic, in this case those being Fairway Drive and 441h Ave. The analysis of projected traffic shows that at full build -out volumes, however, Fairway Or and 441` Ave are expected to be consistent with guidance contained in the Thoroughfare Plan for primary residential streets, with volumes on the order of 3000-3500 vehicles per day. As can be seen in Figure 3, these volumes are also consistent with traffic levels found on other primary residential streets such as Northern Heights Drive and 9"' Ave NW. Street design is another factor that was reviewed. Past practice in street design has typically related street width to the function of the roadway and expected volumes. As a result, streets such as Fairway Drive, wnich serve a residential collector function, typically have green built at widths similar to collector streets in non- residential areas, with pavements of 40' or 44' common. Given the relatively low volume of traffic typically found on these streets, an unfortunate outcome of this practice has been Preliminary Plan 14 to create, from the motorists perspective, a street that appears to lend itself to higher speed travel. One priority in committee discussions was to look at options for "narrowing" the feel of Fairway Drive and 441h Ave through the incorporation of design features. Figure 4 illustrates a conceptual traffic calming plan for the area which the committee has developed for consideration, This plan illustrates what would be the ultimate plan, which includes a combination of low cost measures, such as striping and all -way stop sign installations, and higher cost measures, such as curb extensions and textured crosswalks. Each of these features is described in more detail in Figures 5-1 through 5-3. The committee has identified the following principles which would guide the implementation of the plan if this project was to move forward: 1. The plan would be implemented in phases; 2. The first phase of the project would involve the installation of low cost measures such as striping; 3. Improvements such as the curb extensions should be tested first on a temporary basis for a period of six to 12 months to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures. The phases that are envisioned in the preliminary plan are as follows: PHASE IMPROVEMENT COST I Striping of travel and parking lanes on Fairway and W Ave, installation of all -way stops at key intersections; temporary installation of curb extensions at the intersection of Fairway Drive and 44' Ave. These are low cost Improvements that would provide the following benefits: • Striping — visually narrows the roadway; has been found in research to positively affect travel speeds • All Way Stops — helps in intersection traffic flow management; slows speeds in vicinity of signed intersection • Curb Extensions — the high level of pedestrian activity at the park entrance would benefit from narrowing of crossing distance (44' to 26'); also effective at narrowing the street II Permanent installation of curb extensions would occur if deemed effective at $5000-$7000 the park entrance III A decision regarding the desirability of gateways would be made by the $5000-$20,000 neighborhood. If the neighborhood favors installation, the project would be each considered. The prime benefit of gateway treatments is the message it sends to motorists that they are leaving the primary street system and entering a neighborhood area where different motorist behavior is expected. The committee felt that a decision on gateways should await the traffic signal installation project at 55t6 St and West Circle Drive intersection to see how that project will effect safety at the intersection of 55°i St and Fairway Drive. The committee is concerned that installation of a gateway may in fad exacerbate current safety problems related sight distance, speed and turn signal confusion that now exists with traffic using the free flow right turn lane off of westbound arde Drive IV Installation of textured crosswalks to further emphasize speed reduction $1500 per through a "rumble stri "effect at selected locations. I crosswalk i Public Policy Issues This neighborhood traffic management study represents the first attempt to undertake an area - wide, proactive approach to the development of traffic improvements for the purpose of addressing anticipated traffic impacts of new development in an area. If it is successful it may become a prototype for similar efforts elsewhere in the city. There are a couple of public policy issues which have been identified in the committee's discussions to date which are matters that would benefit from the Council's input at this time before the study moves ahead. These issues include: Financing: Improvements in phases 2, 3 and 4 of the preliminary plan involve projects that may involve the expenditure of $5000 to $20,000 each. The obvious question that arises is how to fund such projects. The committee recognizes that since existing residents will benefit from the improvements, they need to be part of the financing equation. They also feel that since future development will be contributing additional traffic to the affected streets, those future development areas logically should also contribute towards the cost of any improvements. In programs from other communities that where reviewed it was found that many typically have some level of public participation also in funding of such improvements. The range of participation varied widely, from 70- 80% in some areas to levels of 5-10% in other communities. From a policy perspective, it would be useful for the committee to get an indication whether the Council feels cost participation in traffic calming projects 1) on the part of the public, and 2) on the part of future developments in the area, are matters that the Council could support, or whether funding needs come primarily from the existing residents of the area. All -Way Stop Sign Installation The plan proposes consideration of all -way stop sign installation at selected locations throughout the neighborhood for the purpose of traffic management. Current warrants for all -way stops are not likely to be met at some of these locations because of the lower traffic volumes involved. What the committee has tried to do in the plan is approach stop sign installation on an area -wide perspective so as to limit their overall use but still provide benefit to the neighborh000. Staff has a concern that approving the use of all -way stop installations at lower volume intersections will set a precedent that may lead to an increasing number of requests for such installations in the future. In my research on this issue I have found that some communities have begun to respond to this concern by developing a separate set of warrants regarding the use of all -way stops within neighborhoods areas, recognizing that these streets environments warrant a different set of considerations At the bottom of page 5-1 are five bullets that reflect the type of supplemental considerations some communities have begun to use to support the installation of all -way stops in residential areas. Staff can provide further information on this to the Council if there is a desire to provide for the opportunity for the use of ail -way stops as a traffic management measure in residential areas in the future. Neighborhood Support In some of the more established traffic calming programs in localities such as Madison (Wisconsin) and Cambridge (Mass) the volume of requests for traffic calming improvements has led to formal processes being established that require neighborhoods to demonstrate a minimum level of support for improvements before they will be installed. This is done through either a petition or a survey, with a typical threshold of support being 70%. The question of neighborhood support comes into play in these communities for two main reasons: because they will consider assessing the cost of improvements as part of a local improvement district, plans may involve improvements that will shift traffic or will use features such as traffic circles that people tend to have strong opinions about. While a financing plan has not been developed for this plan yet, it would be helpful for the committee to know whether the Council may expect that some level of neighborhood support be demonstrated before a decision is made to move ahead, particularly where some or all of funding would be contributed by existing residents of the area. NCD r77-7-n 1 1 50th Ave NW I: i C +� i wI ash Mi Common Types of Traffic Calming .Nlethods Drawing Technique Description Traffic Circles Circular raised islands centerea within intersections. Circles can be landscaped or surfaced with special paving. Landscaping can be maintained by the local jurisdiction or by neighborhood volunteers. Chicanes Alternately placed curb extensions into the street that force motorists to drive in a serpentine pattern. Chicanes are offset from each other in mid -block locations and can be used to keep through -trucks versus local delivery off residential streets. Curb Bulb -Outs. Curb extensions placed at mid -black locations or Chokersi intersections which narrow the street to provide AP Neckdowns visual distinction and reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Bulb -outs help to provide a clear visual signal to drivers that a crossing is approaching and makes waiting pedestrians more visible. Neckdowns are often longer than bulb -outs and often line up with and help to define parallel street parking areas. They narrow the appearance of the street and can be attractive, especially when landscaped. Signs and Signs such as 'Residential Street." Local Neighborhood Access Only', or monuments that identify Gateways neighborhood districts can be effective, especially when used conjunction with other techniques. including those listed above and others. such as pavement markings and textured warning strips. Special Paving Alternative road surfaces, such as brick. colored concrete or special pavers, can be used at crossings, intersections, or along the sides of the street to break up the visual expanse of pavement and define areas of pedestrian travel. Speed Watch Programs Citizens and organizations can utilize a radar device and electronic sign board to measure speeds of passing vehicles in their neighborhoods. Letters of warning can be sent to the registered owners of offending vehicles. These programs promote neighborhood i Common Types of Traffic Calming Methods (Continued) Drawing Technique Description Diagonal Eliminates through traffic while providing Dlverters partial access in opposite directions: island can become amenity and provide refuge for pedestrians. Forced Turns Truncated diagonal diverters lone end remains and Partial open) and other types of partial diverters Dlverters discourage commuter traffic by forcing turns. r but provides local access opportunities Street is closed and turned into a cul-de-sac. Cul-de-saciStreet end of street becomes a neighborhood amenity Closures and focal point (landscaped mini park): the ongoing provision of pedestrian and bicycle access is Important. Curb bulbs/extensions are used to close one One -Way Entry lane of traffic at intersections: stops through and Exit traffic but allows ingress or egress depending on the direction and location of the closure. Narrower streets limit the expanse of Narrower Streets pavement visible to the driver and can be :C effective in slowing traffic. especially when lined with trees or on -street parking. . aa�e as ic.orrunucai A speed hump is wider and smoother than a Speed Humps/ speed bump• and effective in slowing cars as Tables they approach pedestrian =ties. These are most appropriately used on neighborhood streets. • .: � ....,, Figure Z�Z r v cc 0 a^y 409 i M L r r 1� Ov' O O O O l�! � M NU) Ln N fr1 O O� > 45 C N U CM lu o= N ,=, �.u@,n Ot O Lu u V A .c cu N c oQ >z > ZED (M M N LALn O O O C W L U f V N M Q' a a a s�L>.J 0 Ln O M a`L 7� LL �n>_3 ^L u aP5v� �° LZ 160"k Recommended Traffic Calming Techniques - Phase I Pavement Striping - Use of pavement marking is a low cost, simple way To create the impression of a narrowed roadway. Research conducted by the Upper Midwest Institute of Transportation Engineers organization fauna that striping does appear to affect drivers in a manner that tends to stow them down, not dramatically, but noticeably. It also tends to discourage motorists from driving in or along the parking lane, and from passing on the right, Depending on the density of on -start parking, the striped parking lane will double as an identified area that bicyclists may find more comfortable using. It is a low cost, easy to do project. Drawback is that it Increases regular maintenance Right of W av = 66 feet 44th Ave Striping --- - Roadway___3k.feet Proposal 9auleeaN • 15 1 !t Win• Travel TriYel parkins Itaul•YW • S 1 R art IL0R l a 10 Ion sort aR art _--_ Aight-of Way = 75-fcet Fairway Drive �_goadway=415 feet Striping —` Proposal ----, I �— RoWev.m . i s s n vvtine Tra.ae TraM aart,M noWe.w - � s s n aprt IEfl IiR v1R All Way Stop Sign Installations Caution is advised in use of stop signs for traffic calming purposes. While the short term effects are Positive, communities have found that overtime where stop signs are not warranted by traffic volumes drivers tend to get into habit of rolling stops or, in the worst case, largely ignoring the stop sign control. This feature works best where there are relatively equal volumes on cross streets (as opposed to one heavy volume and one light volume). Positive impact has been noted in studies by residents in the immediate vicinity of the intersection, attributed to speed reduction near the intersection and the additional benefits for pedestrians and bicyclists, who tend to use these locations for crossing. In identifying possible all -way locations for the plan the following parameters were used as a guide: • Identify the minimum number of stop signs needed to accomplish the purpose of the neighborhood plan, • Avoid installation at adjacent intersections, • Maintain a spacing of approximately 1200 feet • Avoid installation where one or more legs of the intersection will likely have low volumes • Install only where the intersecting street legs continue for some distance (800') beyond the intersect'as Recommended Traffic Calming Techniques —,Phase it urb Extensions and Bulb -outs: These can be designed in a variety of ways, and used at intersections as well as mid -block locations. In the preliminary plan they are proposed for use at the neighborhood park entrance off Fairway Drive. They can very basic in design, or can be landscaped to enhance the street comdor. Advantages of the use of Curb Extensions include: • They reduce the crossing width for pedestrians • They make pedestrians more visible to motorists • Prevent vehicles from passing vehicles that are turning • Can be landscaped to improve aesthetics of corridor • Do not impact emergency response or transit vehicles • Help to slow traffic by narrowing the street Disadvantages • Increased maintenance if landscaped that would be a responsibility of the neighborhood to maintain • Require some parking removal 163 / Typical Curb Extension Design �I . = ©TE=T urge of cost for a typical permanent installation will be $7,000 to $10,000. Temporary installations can be created mrough use of paint and flexible delineator tubes or guardrail and and barrels for about $1000 or with temporary curbing for about $3000. Gateways Can encompass a variety of features that provide for neighborhood identification, such as signs, monuments, landscaping or special paving. The gateway acts as sort of welcome mat for residents but has been found to deter other drivers because they may feel the community is self contained (with no through streets) and it suggests a feeling that they are guests on the street. Benefits of establishing a Gateway: • Creates an identify for the neighborhood • Provides a positive indication that the street environment is changing from an arterial to a residential street • Reduces entry speeds • Can reduce pedestrian crossing distance Drawbacks of a Gateway include • May impede truck movements • Increased maintenance costs Low turn speeds may affect traffic on arterial road Costs: Cost can range from $5000 to $20,000 depending on treatment (9 Recommended Traffic Calming Techniques — Phase if / III Modified T Intersection: Involves the use of curbing and channelization to modify travel path of drivers so that they are not traveling in a straight path, thus forcing vehicles to stow down. Benefits of Installation • Reduces vehicle speed No significant impact on bus or emergency vehicle traffic Disadvantages • Can be hazardous for vehicles and cause confusion regarding priority if incorrectly or inadequately designed • May create a change in priority for vehicles traveling through the intersection which may be a hazard, particularly during familiarization stage Landscaping and signing/striping maintenance will be required Costs • $2500 - $3000 Textured Crosswalk Through the use of special paving techniques a crosswalk area can be created at an intersections across I or more of the legs of the intersection with a different pavement texture. The change in texture will increase motorist's awareness through visibility. vibration and noise. The treatment will in effect create sort of a rumble strip effect that will tend to slow driver's Benefits • Indicates to pedestrians and motorists alike preferred crossing locations • Effective for speed control Disadvantages • Will require more maintenance than traditional striped crosswalk • Noise in the vicinity of the installation will increase due to the texturing Costs • Costs are anticipate to be approximately $5000 for ail four legs of an intersection IMmIr i Page 2 s City Planning and Zoning Comrrussion Minutes Hearing Date: January 12, 2000 ANNEXATIONS: Ms. Petersson maka motion to approve Annexation Petition #99- y RatzlofflBigelow and C. Fred Krebsbak. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion a motion carried 7-0. Mr. Svenby noted that gener evelopment p applications have been received for the property contained in th nnexation and in anne tion #99-25. These GDPs will be reviewed by the Planning C ission at the February9, 200 eeting. Mr. Stav oved to approve Annexation Petition #99-2 Roland and Marilyn Graves. MsMdGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 7- . PUBLIC HEARINGS: Type III, Phase 11 Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #99-50 by Leslie Lurkin to be known as North Park Tenth Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide 12.23 acres of land into 41 single family residential lots. The Plat also dedicated right of way for four new public roads. The property is located east of 61" Street NW, northwest of Fairway Drive NW and north of North Park Fourth and Sixth Subdivisions. Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated January 7, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Schultze entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Svenby explained the property location and stated it consists of 12.23 acres to be developed into 41 lots for single family residential uses. He noted the proposed plat is consistent with the approved North Park GDP. Mr. Svenby explained drainage and the proposed streets. He pointed out that a Neighborhood Traffic Management Study is being conducted for the North Park neighborhood and that the Planning Department Transportation Division is working on a city-wide Neighborhood Traffic Management Policy Guide that would establish the basic guidelines the City would use in responding to requests from neighborhoods for traffic management measures. Mr. Svenby stated that the City Council has made it clear that it is their intention that the costs involved with implementing this policy will be largely borne by the residents of the area, along with a portion by the developers. 11 Pace 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission.Minutes Hearing Date: January 12, 2000 Mr. Svenby explained that the roadway labeled "61" Street NW" does not fit the addressing grid and that the roadway should be designated by one name from 50" Avenue to Fairway Drive NW. He noted that the roadway will be proposed as "Savannah Drive NW" in White Oaks 4`" Subdivision, and that this segment name should be the same as the rest of the roadway. The segment of this roadway in North Park 91" Subdivision is already platted as "615' Street NW," and that designation will need to be changed. He stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed plat with four conditions. He pointed out that condition number 4 should state, "The roadway designated as '61" Street NW' be renamed to'Savannah Drive NW. - Representing the applicant, Bill Tointon, McGhie & Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. He explained that this area is part of the GDP for North Park that was amended In 1990. Mr. Tointon stated there is a wetland exemption for this project and that stormwater detention capacity is available in ponds to the southeast. He explained that wet sedimentation control will be dealt with during the construction plan stage. He noted that construction plans for the streets, utilities, and grading have been completed and were submitted to Public Works on December 20, 1999. He commented that they have no problems with the conditions, but they request that their client and/or themselves be involved with the neighborhood traffic management project. He noted he spoke with Mr. Svenby about that and he is confident they will be invited to be involved in the process. Mr. Tointon made himself available for questions. Discussion ensued as to whether applicant involvement in the traffic management project should be added as a condition. Mr. Svenby stated he spoke with Charlie Reiter who assured him that, in the future, applicants and neighboring property owners will be invited to be part of the process. Ms. Schultze made a recommendation that the property owners and consultants be invited to any meetings regarding traffic management for North Park. Mary St. Marie, 6208 Fairway Drive NW, President of the Northwest Neighbors Association, addressed the Commission. She welcomes the property owners' and consultant's involvement in the meetings on traffic management. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Sulk closed the public hearing. Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve Preliminary Plat #99-50, to be known as North Park 10'h, with the four conditions recommended by staff. She pointed out a correction to condition number one where the word "with" should be changed to "which," and condition number 4 should state, "The roadway designated as '61" Street NW' be renamed to 'Savannah Drive NW."' Mr. Staver seconded the motion. Mr. Werven asked how common it is to have the neighborhoods pay for the improvements determined necessary -by the traffic management study. Mr. Svenby stated he would pose that question to Mr. Reiter. Mr. Werven commented that he would contact Mr. Reiter. Page 4 City Planning and Zonin¢ Commission Minuces Hearing Date: January 12, _000 l57 Ms. Schultze noted that, in the future, rather than these improvements being add -on fees, perhaps streets could be designed more effectively. She went on record that a recommendation be made that the issue of street design for subdivisions be looked at in light of this application, and that the motion be amended to add this recommendation. Ms. Petersson agreed to the amended motion, and Mr. Staver seconded the amending of the motion. c ne motion carried a -a. Conditions: I. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement in which the City outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, storm water management, cash dedication in lieu of land for parkland, pedestrian facilities, traffic improvements ($40 per lot for implementing a neighborhood traffic management program (NTMP], etc.), and contributions for public infrastructure (SAC/WAC, connection charges, etc.). 2. A temporary turnaround is required at the northern end of Portsmouth Drive NW. Easements for this turnaround, as well as for any utilities located outside of the plat boundary, must be provided with the final plat. 3. The 20' utility easement for the 8" watermain loop between Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, must be relocated to between Lots 8 and 9, Block 4, to provide for better water system networking of this area. 4. The crated as "61" Street NW" be renamed to "Savannah Drive NW." Mr. Svenby presented the staff repdX dayd January 6, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-OlmIlLfRanning Department. Mr. Svenby explained that the propo d en, 61.148, 62.707, and 62.709. He re ewe os recommended by the City Attome . Mr. 5 b revisions to anything not fisted i ems a thr through the same process far t original con there is a development agree ent, staff cannot the agreement, unless it goe back through the Ms. Schultze asked if the Mr. Svenby answered conditional use permit fence. He stated that lent affects three sections of the Ordinance, changes, including the language noted that if the developer wants to make f of Section 61.148, they must go back nal use permit. He also pointed out that if Nhorize changes that to items stipulated in c hearing process. on 2nd Street SW is Acause of this amendment. and explained that was thetairfield Suites which went through a it was approved with a brick Bade, pedestrian benches, and an iron i the project came through the office for a permit, a number of REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1IC DATE 7-0i AGtNUA atc I wrv: PUBLIC HEARINGS TING DEPT: ITEM NO. PLA-N-.\�NG i i 6 -3 EM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-33 to be known as White Oaks Fourth Subdivision Mitzi A. Baker, February 2, 2000 Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution approving this plat should be adopted. Attachment: 1. Staff report. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department, GIS Division 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday February 7 Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 6, McGhie 8 Betts, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Mona, by: second by to: 2000, in the 'ill i T ` u I IN a•r KAIM Am r qat stu•, a ►F�.i� n f r Q C it mq y laws of loll Y G r ;IN f( x t i� • ! n � 1� i AS WO Aamr;VW yr n ♦ _ �y — •-r h 4ON l •.rsr r 1/ LM o 3 'I mi 1 of 'AN r/r//• r►/P s y 'A'x Za/aer3 . ---t --- __- ___---- ON fill 3{ [_sirvM1NN r h a a a {6� iS 9 �• a 1 Sul l t�— F �1� • ---� ,�VKAIFr _ a �t - -- P I cif I t� wo y c2; CL 1 VIP { yIr r � � Y 00 T Oma � e•3 9 ��i LL e o� p• RVA (A TO: FROM DATE: RE: C 0 U 4I YOFF Rochester Common Council Mitzi A. Baker, Planner February 2, 2000 t� 'knOq � rEll. �l6\ pf •'•�� � ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATIOW 507,285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSwcr 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING,HRA 507/285.8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 WELL5EPTIC 507/285-8345 rAx 507/287-2275 Final Plat #99-33 to be known as White Oaks Fourth Subdivision Planning Department Review: Applicant)Owner: SurveyorslEngineers: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Plat Data: Location of Property: Zoning: Proposed Development: Streets: White Oaks Development of Rochester, Inc. 1201 Meadowlark Ct, SW Rochester. MN 55902 McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester. MN 55904 1. Rochester Park & Recreation (see attached) 2. Rochester Public Works 1. Referral Comments (2 Letters) 2, Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat This plat is located east of 501" Ave. NW, north of 571" St. NW and White Oaks Second and Third Subdivision. This property is R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district in the City of Rochester. This development consists of 16.93 acres to be subdivided into 53 lots for single family development and one Outlot (Wetland area). Right-of-way for four (4) new roadways will be dedicated with this Plat, including one cul-de-sac. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 :2 Nh�te Oaks Fourth Subdiw/4 s�on ((JJ J February 2. 2000 Drainage: Grading and drainage plans have been approved for this Plat. Wetlands: Wetlands have been delineated within this Plat. Lots along the west side of Redbud Lane NW will impact the Wetlands. A replacement plan has been approved for that impact. About two thirds of Outlot A includes Wetlands that will not be impacted. Public Utilities: Utilities will be extended from White Oaks Second and Third Subdivisions to serve this development. Spillover Parking: This development requires 64 spillover parking stalls. Roadways should be adequate to accommodate the spillover parking. Individual driveways may also accommodate spillover parking in this development. Parkland Dedication: Dedication requirements for this Plat should be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $19,995. General Development Plan: This Plat is included within the approved General Development Plan for White Oaks. The configuration of the cul-de-sac differs from the approved GDP, to minimize impact on the Wetlands. This deviation did not require a formal amendment to the GDP since it did not impact neighborhood connections, results in fewer lots and minimized impacts on the Wetlands. Preliminary Plat: A Preliminary Plat for this property was approved by the Rochester City Council on September 20, 1999 with the following 9 conditions: 1. The grading and drainage plans for this phase must be completed and approved prior to plat recording. 2. Based on current design speed, a right turn lane on 50`4 Ave. NW north -bound at 615, Street NW must be constructed. 3. The ownership and maintenance of Outiot A must be documented. A drainage easement should be provided over all of Outlot A. 4. A 10-foot wide bike path, in lieu of a 5- foot wide concrete walk shall be provided along the entire east side of 50v' Ave. NW, including Outlot A, consistent with the City sidewalk standards. 5. The applicant, addressing task force, and City Public Works department will need to come to an agreement on the final naming designation of roadways. 6. The Rochester Fire Department requires that the hydrant shown at the end of Red Oaks Lane NW cul-de-sac be relocated to the neck of the bulb. Page 3 / ll White Oaks Fcurth Subdivision February 2, 2000 7. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant must submit a wetland delineation and a no loss, exemption, or replacement plan application to address impacts on the wetlands and secure the appropriate permits from the Wetlands LGU to allow for this development to proceed. 8. The applicant shall provide a temporary turn -a -round at the north end of "47f° Ave. NW" and easement documents for the turn -a -round must be executed with the City Public Works Department. 9. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash payment in lieu of land in the amount of $19,995 as specified in the attached memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department dated August 3, 1999. Planning Staff and Recommendation: Since the property owner intends to record the Final Plat documents prior to completing infrastructure improvement, the owner will enter into a Development Agreement with the City. The Development Agreement is scheduled for action by the City Council at the same meeting that the Final Plat will be heard (February 7, 2000). The proposed Agreement will address condition #4 from the Preliminary Plat. Staff has reviewed the proposed Final Plat and recommends approval subject to the following conditions/modifications: 1. Based on current design speed, a right turn lane on 50'h Ave. NW north -bound at 615' Street NW must be constructed. 2. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash payment in lieu of land in the amount of $19,995 as specified in the attached memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department dated January 5, 2000. 3. Documents assigning responsibility for long-term maintenance of Outlot A shall be provided to staff, reviewed by the City Attorney and recorded concurrent with the Final Plat documents. The applicant shall be responsible for the additional fees for recording said document. 4. The applicant shall provide a temporary turn -a -round at the north end of "471b Ave. NW" and easement documents for the turn -a -round must be executed with the City Public Works Department prior to recording the Final Plat documents. Reminder to the Applicant: Parkland dedication fees must be paid prior to recording Final Plat documents. ROCHESTER PARK AND i CREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE I �S ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: White Oaks 4"' Final Plat # 99-33 Acreageof plat.......................................................... Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density ................................................... Densityfactor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 16.93 acres 53 lots 3.13 units/acre .0244 1.29 acres $15, 500/acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $19,995 (1.29 a x $15,500/acre) Payment to be made prior to recording of final plat. Applicant White Oaks Development of Rochester 1201 Meadowlark court SW Rochester MN 55902 N:\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\NW 2898\WHITE OAKS 4TH.DOC V` ROCHESTER Minnesota t 3 100 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INORKS 201 41" Street SE Room 108 Rochester. MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281.6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #99-33 on the White Oaks Fourth Subdivision. The following are Public Works comments on this proposal: 1. The grading plan for this proposal has been approved. 2. Stormwater management is addressed for this phase by stormwater management facilities that were previously constructed to serve the entire White Oaks GDP. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, and contributions for public infrastructure. Based on current design speed a right turn lane on 501h Avenue northbound at 61s` street must be constructed. 5. The ownership and maintenance of Outlot A needs to be addressed. A 10 feet wide bike path, in lieu of a 5 feet concrete walk shall be provided along the entire east side of 50`h Avenue including Outlot A, consistent with the City Sidewalk Standards. A 10 foot pedestrian facilities easement shall be dedicated to the City, along the westerly 10 feet of this development (including Outlot A) 7. A temporary turn around shall be provided for the northerly extent of 471h Avenue. FA CATEMP1FP9933.D0C ROCHESTER Minnesota 1 31;'00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur /W DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4'0 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904.3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: J9173 'Trunkline Sanitary Sewer in 55" St NW" @ $392.54 per acre plus 7.5 % interest from 5/16/94. •:• J9377 `Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Serve White Oaks" @ $152.67 per acre plus 7.5% interest from 9/16196. •:• J9265 "High Level Water Tower in NW Area" @ $1,154.67 plus 7.5% interest from 4/15/96. Substandard Street Fee for 50'h Avenue NW @ 30.00 per foot of frontage. :• Traffic Signs as determined by the Traffic Division; :• 3 — Stop Signs 8 — Street Name Signs :• 3 Street Ends Signs 1 Speed Limit Sign C:%TEMP�FP9933.000 AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION PUBLIC HEARINGS ING DEPT: PLANNLNG ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #9945 to be known as Wedgewood Hills Third MEETING'6 DATE 2-7-00 ITEM NO. PREPARED 8Y: Brent SvenbvA February 3, 2000 NOTE: If the development agreement for this plat is NOT acted on prior to the public hearing for this plat, staff recommends that this final plat be continued until February 23, 2000. Planning Department Review: See attached Staff Report dated February 3, 2000. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes, a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. EnCIOsures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording Statement 3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 4. Recording Fee 5. Title Opinion 6. 1 Original Plat Mylar 7. 3 Mylar Copies of Plat Attachment: Staff Report dated February 3, 2000. Distribution: 1. City Clerk lX 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 7, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. McGhie 8 Betts, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by < Z uj -'sso SUR TrAT7-:t DURHAM LN NW Final Plat #99-45 Wedgewood Hills 1,d 800' Notification distance Ward 3 (McConnell) 55 STI VNW /4 Wa rd c' LErNGTQ 01/25/00 77' 0 0 1 FA r� (17d-- - 1 1 1 41 TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: February 3, 2000 RE: Final Plat #99-45 to be known as Wedgewood Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Leslie Lurken 1027 7th St. NW Rochester, MN 55901 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS OR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904.4744 ADMINISTRATION! 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDREsswc/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING)HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELLSEPTIC 507/285-8345 Hills FSird 507/287.2275 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Ave SE 4DRochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. RPU Water Division 2. RPU Operations Division 3. Planning Department — Wetlands 4. Planning Department — Addressing 5. Planning Department — Transportation 6. Rochester Public Works Department 7. Park and Recreation Department Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat 4. Copy of GDP Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of 55th St. NW, west of Augusta Lane NW. Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: This development consists of 9.71 acres of land to be subdivided into 24 single-family lots and 1 outlot. • Streets: This plat dedicates right-of-way for four roadways. The first roadway is "Lexington Place NW", a north/south street, approximately 340' in length. Th's street is designed with a 28' wide surface with a 50' right -of- �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Wedgewood Hills Third February 3, 2000 way width. The second roadway is "Duvall Street NW", an east/west street, approximately 320' in length. This street is designed with a 32' wide surface with a 56' right-of-way width. The third roadway is "Pinehurst Lane I a north/south cul-de-sac street, approximately 360' in length. This street is designed with a 28' wide surface with a 50' right-of-way width. The cul-de-sac is designed with a 51' cul-de-sac bulb radius with a 40.5' radius to the back of the curb. The fourth roadway is the dedication of the 55'" Street NW right-of-way. The right-of-way is 314,53' in length and 50' in width. Drainage: Grading and drainage plans have been approved for this plat. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this property. Public Utilities: Sewer and water services can be extended to serve this area. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63,426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors at a rate of 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit, in addition to the required off-street parking. This additional parking may be provided either off-street or on -street. This development requires 29 spillover parking spaces. The right-of-way and road widths appear adequate to meet this requirement. Parkland Dedication: To meet the requirements for parkland dedication for this plat, .59 acres of land is required. Outlot A is 2.41 acres. The Park and Recreation Department recommends that the dedication requirements be met via the dedication of Outlot A. The applicant will have 1.82 acres of credit to be used for future dedication requirements. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Wedgewood Hills general development plan, which was approved in 1997. This plat is not entirely consistent with the approved GOP. The approved GDP has Lexington Street NW running east/west and ending in a cul-de- sac, while the proposed plat has Lexington St. NW taking a bend to the south. The proposed plat does Page 3 ins ' Wedgewood Hills Third February 3, 2000 eliminate a connection to 551h St. NW. The proposed modifications to the roadways will not affect the capacity of the roadways within the development. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat for this area was approved by the Council on December 20, 2000. The approval of the preliminary plat was subject to five (5) conditions. The conditions as listed below 1. The developer agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that dedication of Outiot A will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. The applicant will have 1.82 acres of dedication credits once the outlot is deeded to the City to be used for future dedication requirements. 2. A 20' utility easement be dedicated between Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 for an 8" watermain stubout toward the future cut -de -sac to the west. 3. A temporary cul-de-sac be provided at the west end of Duvall Street NW. Easements for the temporary cul-de-sac and off site utilities must be provided at the time the final plat is submitted and executed with the City Public Works Department. 4. The roadway name "Lexington Street NW" be changed to "Lexington Place NW". 5. Storm Water Management must be provided either on site or by way of an agreement with the City. Final Plat: Planning Staff Recommendation: The applicant and the City are currently working on a development agreement for this plat. There is a possibility that the development agreement will be ready for Council action Monday February 7, 2000. If the development agreement is not acted on by the Council on February 7, 2000, staff would recommend that this plat be continued until February 23, 200. If the development agreement is acted on by the Council on February 7t°, staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Easements for the temporary cul-de-sac at the west end of Duvall Street NW and off site utilities must be executed with the City Public Works Department prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. Easements indicated between Lots 1 d 2, Block 2 and on the rear of Lot 3 & 4, Block2 be revised to dedicate a utility and drainage easement. 3. The developer agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that dedication of Outtot A will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. Once the outlot is deeded to the City, the applicant will have 1.82 acres of dedication credits to be used for future dedication requirements. 4. The developer must install a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along the south side of 55`h Street NW for the entire length of the Wedgewood Hills Third Subdivision and all previous subdivisions. r 11� ROCHESTER Minnesota 1 00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC NORKS 201 41" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904.3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-251-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for a Final Plat 9945 on the Wedgewood Hills Third property area. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. 2. A temporary cul-de-sac must be provided for Duvall Street NW to serve Lot 1, Block 3. 3. Easements for the temporary cul-de-sac, and off site utilities will be required prior to recording the final plat. 4. Pedestrian facilities shall be located along all public roadways within and abutting the plat consistent with City standards. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 6. The easement indicated between Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, shall be drainage & utility. 7. The developer shall install a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along the south side of 55th St NW for the entire length of Wedgewood hills Third, and all previous additions. CATEMP%FP9945.doc ROCHESTER Minnesota ,'t 00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur III DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4'" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: •:• Sanitary Sewer Availability Charge J9173 @ $392.54 per developable acre plus interest @ 7.5% from May 6, 1994, Water Availability Charge @ $1605.50 per developable acre. e- Substandard Street charge for 55th Avenue SW @ $30.00 per foot of frontage. Stormwater Management fees = $18,545.72. Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 3 — Street Name Signs 2 — Stop Signs CaTEMPtFP9945.doc ROCHESTER PARK AND F CREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: January25, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Wedgewood Hills 3`d Final Plat #9945 Acreageof plat.......................................................... Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density ................................................... Densityfactor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 9.71 acres 24 units 2.47 units/acre 0244 .59 acres The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred dedication of the 2.41 acre Outlot A. Dedication to occur following grading and seeding of the outlot by the applicant. Dedication credits for the excess dedication should be established for the applicant once the outlot is dedicated 2.41 acres........Outlot A .59 acres... ... Dedication requirement for Wedgewood Hills 31d T. 2 acres......... Dedication credits for future dedication requirements Applicard: Leslie LLrkm 1027 7 Street NW \\CITY_OE ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\NW 2698\WEDGEWOOD HILLS JRD.DOC rpu January 31.2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2127 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase 1, Final Plat 499-45 to be known as Wedgewood Hills Third. Dear tlk1s. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced Final plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The 20' Drainage Easement in the rear of Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 will need to be revised to a Utility Easement to accommodate the water main that was installed as a part of this project. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, C" R104L Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention McGhie & Betts, Inc. Leslie Lurken Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280.1542 (qo rpu 507/280-1579 January 27, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Type III, Phase I Final Plat #99-45 to be known as Wedgewood Hills Third. The plat proposes to subdivide 9.71 acres of land into 24 lots for single family residential development and one outlot for future parkland. The plat also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for three new roadways and one existing roadway. The property is located south of 55°i Street NW, west of 52"d Avenue NW, RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this final plat and has no objection as it is outside our service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the future. Sincerely, �7 i CiC1Li� 94Q- Michael J. Engle ks c: W. Lorber T. Adkins, City Attorney Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906.2813 telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION %1EETAG f 81 ,-BLIC HEARINGS PLA:V':VTNG DEPT: DATE: ITEM NO. G -5 I I EM DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #99-27 by Payne Company to annex I PREPARED BY: approximately 10.93 acres of land located east of Century Hills Drive NE, south of Viola Theresa Foearty, Road NE, in Section 29 and Section 30, Haverhill Township. Planner February 2, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on January 26, 2000. The Commission found that this property is adjacent to the city limits and can be served by City services. The Planning Commission therefore recommends approval of this request. Motion by Petersson to approve Annexation #99-27 by Payne Company, seconded by McGowan. The motion carried 9-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated January 18, 2000. Planning Department Recommendation: Minnesota Statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the Township. For the five years following the annexation, the City must make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%. 30% and 10% of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. The Township Taxes on this property for 1999 is $29.68. Council Action Needed: Following the public hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be adopted and transmitted to the MN Planning /Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. Attachments: 1. Staff Report, dated January 18, 2000. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 4. City Finance Director. Tax Information Attached 5. Planning Department File 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 7 Rochester 1 Olmsted County Government Center. 7. McGhie & Betts. Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Molon by: Second by: 4 2000 in the Council Chambers at the I!e dVW NOUYUNNVEM ' ,f Fa � d1053NN1w M3153HX' 'I NOISIAIGens Hisnoi Slll, AIN3J Z O tJ"7 CD � =Z �O O¢ L- X LA LU —= Z —17 r I... Z W U �r r,. 9 mr ay m� .. m IS,i m - I .. b n ..................... _-... -.........._�...._..__.. N r83 ❑ Z w a Z CL O cu y v W Ol C U N Q U ❑ rN C M d ��A® r L L O a x w L a cn w IM O N cc C co m m a 7 F— qF,I TFp. AL,;"A ' ROC HESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission GIs/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING a HOUSINGHRA 507/285-8224 FROM: Theresa Fog arty, rty, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 wELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: January 18, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Annexation Petition #99-27 by Payne Company to annex approximately 10.93 acres of land located east of Century Hills Drive NE, south of Viola Road NE, in Section 29 and Section 30, Haverhill Township. Planning Department Review: Applicants/Owners: Payne Company 1700 NE Northwood Drive Rochester, MN 55906 Location of Property: The property is located east of Century Hills Drive NE and south of Viola Road NE. Existing Land Use: This property is currently vacant undeveloped land. Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately 10.93 acres of unplatted land. Existing Zoning: The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) District on the Olmsted County zoning map. Future Zoning: Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) District on the Rochester zoning map. Land Use Plan: This property is located in the 25 year Urban Service Area and is designated for "low density residential" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Annexation tt99-27 January 18,2000 Adjacency to the Municipal Limits: Sewer & Water: The property is adjacent to the city limits along its west boundary. The Northwest High Level Water System service is available to this property. Municipal sewer and water is available to serve this area. Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd. 13), a municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric utility service may change if the land is annexed to the municipality. Townboard Review: Minnesota State Statutes require that the Townboard members receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days prior to the public hearing. The City Council will hold a public hearing on this item on February 7, 2000. The City Clerk has sent the certified notice 30 days prior to the hearing date. Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Staff Recommendation: RPU Operations Division, RPU Water Division, Rochester Public Works 1. Annexation Map 2. Location Map 3. Referral Comments (3 letters) This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by city services upon extension of the sanitary sewer and water lines from their present ends. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414,033, Subdivision 2(3). 0 ROCHESTER Minnesota 1!12,'00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4f° Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for ANNX9927 on the Payne Company (proposed Century Hills Fourth) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Municipal sewer and water is available to serve this area. i C:ITEMPWNNX9927.doc rpu 507/230-1579 January 7, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities 1907 SUBJECT: Annexation Petition #99-27 by the Payne Company to annex approximately 10.93 acres of land located east of Century Hill Drive NE, south of Viola Road NE, in Section 29 and Section 30, Haverhill Township. RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this annexation petition and has no objection as it is outside our service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the fixture. Sincerely, n Michael J. Engle ks c: W. Lorber T. Adkins, City Attorney Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 "rpu ;ve pledye. ;ve detiver January 10,2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Annexation Petition 499-27 by the Payne Company to annex 10.93 acres of land located east of Century Hills Drive NE and south of Viola Rd. NE in Section 29, Haverhill Township. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property maybe subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. Northeast High Level Water System service is available to this property. 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. Very truly yours,rs. 0...L "44A Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Yaggy Colby Associates Payne Company Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 AGENDA SECTION: .BLIC HE.kRINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: PLkNNIN'G I i EM DESCRIPTION: City Initiated Text Amendment #99-9 to amend Sections 61.148, 62.707 and 62.709 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (staff authorized changes to approved conditional use permits). February 2, 2000 City Planning and Zoninq Commission Recommendation: '.IEETING DATE: C-0--00 ITEM NO. '— PREPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty Planner At the December 15, 1999, City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Ms. Petersson moved to initiate a text amendment for changes to Section 61.148, 62.707 and 62.709, related to staff -authorized changes to conditional use permits. The motion was seconded by Mr. Staver. The proposed text amendment came about because of changes made to an approved Conditional Use Permit during the final design and construction that were inconsistent with the approved plans. The proposed amendment will require a developer that wants to make revisions to anything not listed in items a through f of Section 61.148, they must go back through the same process for the original conditional use permit (go back to City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council). Furthermore, if there is a development agreement, staff cannot authorize changes to items stipulated in the agreement, unless it goes back through the public hearing process. At the January 12, 2000, City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting: Ms. McGowan moved to approve Text Amendment #99-9, subject to staff -suggested findings, and with the correction to Section 61.148. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Planning Department Review and Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated January 6, 2000. Council Action Needed: The City Council should adopt a resolution approving Text Amendment #99-9 to amend Sections 61.148, 62, 707 and 62.709 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (staff authorized changes to approved conditional use Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated January 6, 2000. / 2. Minutes from the City Planning 8 Zoning Commission meeting of January 12, 2000. {I 3. Copy of the proposed amended ordinance. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: (q o=se a r:^: Planning and Zoning Cammiston ?linuoes Hearing Dam: fanuary 12, 2000 City initiated Text Amendment #99.9 to amend sections 61,148, 62.707 and 62.709 of tt Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual The proposed amendmi is to staff authorized changes to approved condition use permits Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated January 6, 2000. to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained that the proposed amendment affects three sections of the Ordinance, 61.148, 62.707, and 62.709. He reviewed those changes, including the language recommended by the City Attorney. Mr. Svenby noted that if the developer wants to make revisions to anything not listed in items a through f of Section 61.148, they must go back through the same process for the original conditional use permit. He also pointed out that if there is a development agreement, staff cannot authorize changes that to items stipulated in the agreement, unless it goes back through the public hearing process. Ms. Schultze asked if the hotel on 2' Street SW is the cause of this amendment. Mr. Svenby answered yes, and explained that was the Fairfield Suites which went through a conditional use permit and it was approved with a brick fapade, pedestrian benches, and an iron fence. He stated that when the project came through the office for a permit, a number of changes were made, such as a vinyl fence, stucco farrade, and reduction in the pedestrian benches. Mr. Svenby noted that this amendment tightens up changes that are being allowed without a public hearing, which is why the City Attorney recommended these changes. Ms. Schultze commented that certain amenities were required for public benefit and the developer should not be able to eliminate them for cost saving reasons. Mr. Suk pointed out that one of the sections affected is listed as 62.148 on page 56 and as 61.148 in other places. Mr. Svenby stated it should be 61.148 Dave Sozikowski, 1142 Fist Street SW, addressed the Commission. He stated he lives adjacent to the Fairfield Suites. He asked for clarification on whether this amendment will make it easier for developers to make these types of changes. Mr. Suk explained that this amendment would require these types of changes to go through the public hearing process. He stated this is so a situation similar to the Fairfield Suites will not happen again. Mr. Svenby pointed out that changes would have to go back before the Planning Commission and the City Council. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. McGowan moved to approve Text Amendment #99.9, subject to staff -suggested findings, and with the correction to state section 61.148. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Findings: 1. There would appear to be a public need for this amendment requiring all changes, other than what is currently listed in 61.148 Staff Authorized Changes to Approved Conditional Use Permits, be subject to approval by the same type procedure by which the original approval was obtained. 2. The proposed amendment may serve to accomplish purposes of this ordinance in that it requires all changes, other than what is currently listed in 61.148 Staff Authorized Changes to Approved Conditional Use Permits, be subject 10 approval by the same type procedure by which the original approval was obtained. The proposed amendment still meets the intent of the Staff Authorized Changes to Approved Conditional Use Permits. 9. The proposed amendment would be lawful. r. TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner .; I - DATE: January 6, 2000 rFDy CGLST•5•t ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285.8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: City Planning and Zoning Commission Initiated Text Amendment #99-9 to amend Sections 61.148, 62.707 and 62.709 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, related to staff -authorized changes to conditional use permits. Background: The Planning Department staff, along with the City Attorney's Office has been looking into making some change to Section 61.148 of the Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance, relating to Staff Authorized Changes to Conditional Use Permits. The proposed text amendment came about because of changes made to approved Conditional Use Permits during final design and construction that were inconsistent with the approved plans. Three sections of the ordinance would need to be amended Sections 61.148, 62.707 and 62.709, in order to make approved plans go through the public review process again if the changes didn't fall under those that are permitted by staff. At the December 15, 1999, City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Ms. Peterss6n moved to initiate a text amendment for changes to Section 61.148, 62.707 and 62.709, related to staff -authorized changes to conditional use permits. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Staff Review: The City Attorney has drafted revised language to Sections 61.148, 62.707 and 62.709 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances. The proposed revisions relate to the staff authorized changes to approved conditional use permits to issues covered by a development agreement. Following is the draft of the ordinance amendment with the changes indicated in bold and italics: �a AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE AC71ON EMPLOYER Section 61.148 Staff Authorized Changes to Approved Conditional Use Permits: Subdivision 1. It is the intent to permit the zoning administrator to authorize minor, routine changes to approved conditional use permits if necessitated by engineering factors, changing economic conditions, or other circumstances unforeseen at the time the plan was approved. Such changes may include modification in building locations, building height, the amount of floor area, exterior facades, landscaping materials and placement, the design of public facilities, lot coverage, and the addition, deletion or change of accessory structures or uses, including mailboxes, storage areas and signs. Subd. 2. In making a determination to approve a change, the zoning administrator shall find that the proposed change will not adversely impact any adjacent property, will not result in the project exceeding any ordinance standards, and will not result in: a) A change in use of the property, or, in the case of residential development, an increase in the number of approved dwelling units; b) An increase in the floor area ratio which will result in more than ten (10%) percent increase in building coverage on the lot; c) Creationof potential problems associated with traffic circulation on -site and at access points; d) Potential problems in the provision of public facilities and utilities; e) A reduction in off-street parking and loading spaces, unless accompanied by concurrent reduction in dwelling units or (in the case of non-residential development) floor area; A change in building locations which would result in distance separations between structures in the development and on adjacent lots to fall below the normal separation that would be required under conventional zoning. 03 Subd. 3. All changes other than those listed above shall be subject to approval by the same type procedure by which the original approval was obtained. Staff clarification: If a developer wants to revise anything not listed on the previous page A through F, the developer must go back for approval by the same type procedure by which the original approval was obtained.. (Example: If a developer wants to increase the floor area by 15% (b, allows up to 10%), the developer must go back for a public hearing) Subd. 4. This section is not applicable to any aspect of an approved conditional use permit which is addressed in a development agreement. Staff clarification: If an item is listed in the development agreement, approved by the City Council, staff cannot approve any changes.) Example: If the City Council approved a development plan that stated the exterior finish of the building will be brick and the developer want to change it to stucco. The approved Type 1/I Restricted Development Plan must go back through a public hearing for approval. Section 62.707 Standards for Approval, Final Development Plan: The Council shall grant final approval to a Type III Restricted Development if it finds (a) the development satisfies the Preliminary Development Plan Standards for Approval listed in Section 62.706; (b) the development satisfies all the applicable criteria listed in Section 62.708(2) or a modification for any unmet criteria has been granted as provided in Section 62.712; and (c) there is an executed development agreement which identifies, and commits the developer to complete, those aspects of the site plan specified by the Council. Staff clarification: A Type !U Restricted Development must satisfy all the requirements and provide an executed development agreement as specified by the Council. i ia� Section 62.709 Status of Approved Type III Restricted Development: Following Council approval of a final development plan, the zoning administrator may issue a zoning certificate for the development consistent with the approved plan. Except for issues addressed by a development agreement, the procedure for handling changes to an approved plan shall be the same as for conditional uses which is identified in Section 61.148. Staff clarification: The Zoning Administrator may not approve any changes for issues addressed in a development agreement. The request for changes must go back to the Council. Criteria and recommended findings: In reviewing a proposed text amendment the Commission and Council must consider the provisions of Paragraph 60.338(2) as follows: Section 60.338 (2) of the zoning ordinance states that in the case of an amendment to the text of the ordinance the CPZC 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. The staff suggests the following findings: There would appear to be a public need for this amendment requiring all changes, other than what is currently listed 61.148 Staff Authorized Changes to Approved Conditional Use Permits, be subject to approval by the same type procedure by which the original approval was obtained. The proposed amendment may serve to accomplish purposes of this ordinance in that it requires all changes, other than what is currently listed in 61.148 Staff Authorized Changes to Approved Conditional Use Permit, be subject to approval by the same type procedure by which the original approval was obtained. The proposed amendment still meets the intent of the Staff Authorized Changes to Approved Conditional Use Permits, 3. The proposed amendment would be lawful. The Planning staff has reviewed this proposed amendment, as written by the City Attorneys Office, and recommend this amendment be approved as written. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING j DATE: 00 PUBLIC HEARLNGS CITY ADMINISTRATOR I 97— 1 —M DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARJNG FOR HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR PREPARED BY: WEATHERSTONE TOWNHOMES PROJECT T. SPAETH Weatherstone Townhomes is a proposed 100 unit townhome rental housing facility with 40 two bedroom townhomes and 60 three bedrom townhomes to be located along the west side of 50'h Avenue NW and 61" Street NW. The project meets the requirements for Revenue Bond assistance by committing to rent 75% of the units to individuals whose income is at or below 50% of the median income and by renting 25% of the units to individuals whose income is at or below 60% of the median income. . Weatherstone is requesting approval for the issuance of not to exceed $7,500,000 in Housing Revenue bonds for this project. The name of the City would be utilized in the issuance of the bonds. The bonds would be repayable solely from the revenues of the facility and the City will bear no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the repayment to the bonds. The City's policy with regards to revenue bonds has been to require either an "A" rated bond or that the bonds be issued in minimum denominations of $100,000. The Developer is proposing to sell 55.2 million of Series A Tax exempt bonds, $1.2 million of Taxable Series A bonds, and $800,000 of Tax exempt Series B bonds. The Council approved the preliminary bond resolution on December 6, 1999. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Hold a public hearing for the issuance of up to $7,500,000 in housing revenue bonds for the Weatherstone Townhomes project and housing program. Continue the hearing until February 23, 2000 at which time the Council may take action to adopt a Resolution accepting the Housing Program. (The reason for continuation is due to publication requirements). 60,J�'VI'�' �JUNCIL ACTION: Moton by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR QM DESCRIPTION: ESTABLISHMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: ', " 00 ITEM NO. r--- PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD The City Council, meeting as a Committee of the Whole on 2/7/00, will review the performance of the City Administrator. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Any changes in the City Administrator's compensation will need to be made by a motion. GOUNCILACTION: Moeonby: Seoondby: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION j AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATINGDEPT: REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS PLAINFNFI IG eM DESCRIPTION: .arboretum Special District — Request for Clarification February 2, 2000 MEETING DATE 2-7-00�� ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: , Mitzi A. Baker, On January 19, 2000 the City Council initiated a study of the Arboretum SO and directed staff to prepare a study and recommendations relating to the land use for the commercial area lying north of 41s` St., east of Arboretum Drive NW and south of the single family homes along the southern portion of the Arboretum. The Council first discussed this matter at the January 10'" Committee of the Whole meeting. At that meeting, the need to establish specific criteria for reviewing applications within the SO was also discussed. The Council's action to initiate the study of the commercial area did not specifically include a motion to initiate an Ordinance amendment, to establish specific criteria for reviewing projects within the SD. Staff is requesting clarification from the Council regarding the Ordinance amendment. Council Action Needed: Clarify whether the Council intended to initiate an Ordinance amendment to establish criteria for projects in the Arboretum SD on January 19, 2000. �I 1), Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by-. second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 0o' MEETING ' DATE: 2/7i2000 ';IEOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES —EM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 1 CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE I G G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES {for adoption), PREPARED BY: a) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Subdivision 2 of Section 141.23 of the Rochester Cade of Ordinances, Relating to the City Administrator's Authority to Permit Early Refuse Collection. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS —3UNCIL ACTION: Motion