HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA Do (DLi
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS IIJJ
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 4
REGULAR ADJOURNED
PAGE
(1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2000
7:00 P.M.
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
(3-6) 1) Sewer and Water Extension to Serve Parts of Sections 19 & 20,
Cascade Township
(7-8) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Approval of Minutes
(9-10)
2)
Revised Request to Set Hearing Date for Establishment of TIF District
on the Weatherstone Townhomes Project
(11-12)
3)
Extension of Compliance Monitoring Agreement with Multi -Mac for
LIHTC Projects
(13-14)
4)
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
(15-16)
5)
Off Sale 3.2 Beer Application
(17-18)
6)
Approval of Accounts Payable
(19-20)
7)
Purchase of a 2000 Track Backhoe with 2-way Radio and Additional
Long Reach Dipstick
(21-22)
8)
Advertise for Bids for Hydraulic Sewer Rodding Machine
(23-34)
9)
New RPU Positions for 2000
(35-36)
10)
Department of Natural Resources Grant Application
(37-44)
11)
Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Richard Badger to Annex
Approx. 195.47 Acres South of Valleyhigh Road NW, West of West
Circle Drive, in Sections 19 and 20, Cascade Township
(45-46)
12)
STOP Violence Women Act (VAWA) Fund Grant
(47-48)
13)
Owner Contracts/Mayo Gonda Project & Rochester Overhead Doors
(49-50)
14)
Development Agreement/North Park 10w Subdivision
(51-52)
15)
Development Agreement/Wedgewood 3`d Subdivision
(53-56)
16)
Project Cost Reconciliation/48 Street NW from 3181 Avenue NW to
Approx. 1,750 Feet West
Council Agenda
Wednesday, February 23, 2000
Page 2
(57-60)
17)
Establish Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charge Rates
Pinewood Road SE
(61-62)
18)
Advertise for Bids/Trunkline Sanitary Sewer from the Willow Creek
Trunkline to Serve Marion Township
(63-64)
19)
Petition for Extension of Sanitary Sewer in Whynaught's Subdivision
(65-66)
20)
Special Assessments/Levy Watermain Assessments/11`" Avenue SW
(67-68)
21)
Ironwood Square Parking Lot Lease
(69-70)
22)
Parking Restriction Northern Valley Drive NE/Northern Heights Drive
to Viola Road
E) HEARINGS
(71-74) 1] Continued Hearing/Housing Revenue Bonds for Weatherstone
Townhomes Project
(75-86) 2) Continued Hearing/Final Plat to be Known as Wedgewood Hills Third
(87-116) 3) Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan Amendment to
PUD B-90 Fiksdal Motel to Allow for Development of New 4 Story
Hotel Facility & Assoc. Parking Located within Existing PUD District
for the Fiksdal Motel & would Extend into R-3 Zoning District
(117-124) 4) Vacation Petition by Fiksdal Motel (and Canadian Honker) to Vacate
Alley Right -of -Way and Utilities within Alley Abutting Lots 1-4 and 17-
20 of Block 5, A.W. Kutzky's Addition
(125-164) 5) Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan by Kendal
Group for Development of Two 16-Unit and One 24-Unit Multi -Family
Buildings on Property Zoned R-2/East Side of East Circle Drive, East
of 16"' Avenue NE, in the SE 1/4 of Section 24, Cascade Township
(165-180) 6) Type III, Phase II Preliminary Plat by Payne Co. to be Known as
Century Hills Fourth Subdivision
(181-182) 7) Project Hearing/Construction of 16"' Avenue NW from Civic Center
Drive NW to 70 Street NW
(183-194) 8) Assessment Hearing/Construction of 16"' Avenue NW from Civic
Center Drive NW to 7"' Street NW
(195-208) 9) Final Plat to be Known as Spruce Meadows Subdivision
(209-218) 10) Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Verna Badger Trust to Annex
Approx. 40.17 Acres South of Valleyhigh Road NW, West of West
Circle Drive, in Section 20, Cascade Township
(219-226) 11) Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Fern Meyers to Annex Approx.
40 Acres Along East Side of 40"' Avenue SE, East of Eastwood Hills
Second Subdivision
Council Agenda
Wednesday, February 23, 2000
Page 3
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(227-228) 1) City Administrator - Time Square
(229-230) 2) Police Department - City Ordinance/Prostitution & Escort Businesses
(231-232) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR
n cM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
MEETING
DATE: '_,'_ :00
IT NO.
A
S. KVEN4"v'OLD
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.
_.)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING z
DATE: '__'= 00 5
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Letters & Petitions
City Clerk
C l
-A DESCRIPTION: Sewer and Water Extension to serve Parts of Sections 19 &'_0,
PREPARED BY:
Cascade Township
Judy Scherr
A petition has been received on behalf of Hamilton Real Estate requesting a feasibility study for
City sewer and water service to the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19 and
the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20, Cascade Township.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to refer the petition from Hamilton Real Estate for sewer and water service for the
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19 and the Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 20, Cascade Township, to the Public Works Department for a
feasibility study.
v
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
February 4, 2000
:AHD E CAFE AP[H ITECTE
PLANNERS
Ms. Judy Sheer, Clerk
City of Rochester
201 SE 4 h Street, Rm. 135
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Ms. Sheer:
On the behalf of Hamilton Real Estate, we would like to request the city council initiate a
Project Feasibility Report for the extension of water and sewer to serve the Southeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19 and the Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Sections 20 of Cascade Township.
Sincerely,
YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES ROCHESTER OFFIC
1
717 Third Avenue'
William S. Anderson, PE Rochester, MN 559(.
WSA:bsd 507-288-646
YCA #6753E 1
Fax 507-288-505
cc: Richard Freese
MASON CITY OFF(
515-424-63-
Fax 515-424-03:
- rgwi Oprx numry ERlpl(
a
F-
z
Z
W
W
O
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CONSENT AGENDA
-M DESCRIPTION:
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MEETING
DATE: 2 23 00
ITEM NO.
D-1-22
T.SPAETH
BY:
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. Revised Request to Set Hearing Date for Establishment of TIF District on the Weatherstone Townhomes
Project
D-3. Extension of Compliance Monitoring Agreement with Multi -Mac for L1HTC Projects
D-4. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
D-5. Off Sale 3.2 Beer Application
D-6. Approval of Accounts Payable
D-7. Purchase of a 2000 Track Backhoe with 2-way Radio and Additional Long Reach Dipstick
D-8. Advertise for Bids for Hydraulic Sewer Rodding Machine
D-9. New RPU Positions for 2000
D-10. Department of Natural Resources Grant Application
D-11. Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Richard Badger to Annex Approx. 195.47 Acres South of
Valleyhigh Road NW, West of West Circle Drive, in Sections 19 and 20, Cascade Township
D-12. STOP Violence Women Act (VAWA) Fund Grant
D-13. Owner Contracts/Mayo Gonda Project & Rochester Overhead Doors
D-14. Development Agreement/North Park IOd' Subdivision
D-15. Development Agreement/Wed9ewood 3rd Subdivision
D-16. Project Cost Reconciliation/48 Street NW from 31'` Avenue NW to Approx. 1,750 Feet West
D-17. Establish Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charge Rates Pinewood Road SE
D-18. Advertise for Bids/Trunkline Sanitary Sewer from the Willow Creek Trunkline to Serve Marion
Township
D-19. Petition for Extension of Sanitary Sewer in Whynaught's Subdivision
D-20. Special Assessmenm(Levy Watermain Assessments/I ld' Avenue SW
D-21. Ironwood Square Parking Lot Lease
D-22. Parking Restriction Northern Valley Drive NE/Northern Heights Drive to Viola Road
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
r
Motion to approve consent. -agenda items.
IUNCIL ACTION: Mc5on by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
^.1EETING
DATE: ''i 00
Consent Agenda
City Administrator
D-021
-M DESCRIPTION Revised Request to set a public hearing date for the establishment of a PREPARE
Tax Increment Financing District on the Weatherstone Townhomes project T. Spaeth
As the Council may recall, at the last meeting on February 7, 2000 I had prepared an RCA to set a public hearing date
of March 20, 2000 for the establishment of a TIF District for the proposed Weatherstone Townhomes affordable
housing project.
Since that time, the developer has been working with the architects and engineers on the specific layout and design of
the project. They are in the process of having a specific legal description of the Townhomes portion of the project
drafted; however; that legal description has not yet been completed. Based upon that, all parties involved felt it would
be more appropriate to have the TIF hearing held on April 3, 2000 to provide an opportunity for the specific legal
description to be included in the TIF Plan, and thereby avoiding any chance that we may have to go back and amend
that in the future.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt resolution to set a public hearing date of April 3, 2000 to consider the establishment of a Tax
Increment Finning District on the Weatherstone Townhomes project.
IUNCILACTION: Mouonby: Second by:
►.
Consent Agenda
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
City Administrator
L1EET'NG
DATE: 2 _3 00
ITEM NO.
b - 3
„�M DESCRIPTION Extension of Compliance Monitoring Agreement with Multi -Mac for PREPARE
LIHTC projects T. Spaeth
The City of Rochester's Professional Services Agreement with Multi -Mac for Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Compliance Monitoring ended December 31, 1999. The Agreement contained terms that permit the Agreement
to be renewed annually by mutual agreement upon approval by the City, for a total term not exceeding 15 years.
The compensation paid to the contractor (Multi -Mac) is paid solely by the Project owners, and the City has no
liability for such payment.
The staff is recommending approval of this extension.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion by Council for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the LIHTC Compliance Monitoring Agreement
with Multi -Mac.
__)UNCILACTION: Mobon by: Second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 2. 23 00 I
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
L
_ T
:M DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNAISCHOTT
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.
ON SALE 3.2% TEMPORARY BEER
Olmsted County Fairboard
Olmsted County Fair 7/31/00 thru 8/6/00
Olmsted County Fairgrounds
Rochester Mn 55904
GAMBLING TEMPORARY
Ben Franklin PTSA
1801 9" Ave SE
Rochester Mn 55904
Raffle 5/6/00
Church of St John School
424 West Center St
Rochester Mn 55902
Raffle 5/12.-00
Rochester Hockey Club
PO Box 6701
Raffle at: 4/1/00
Rochester Graham Arena
16' St & 3rd Ave SE
Rochester Mn 55904
GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT
Bear Creek Services
620 15' St SW
Rochester Mn 55902
PREMISE AT:
All Star Billiards
275 37" St NE
Rochester Mn 55906
IUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to:
lLICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE
PAGE 2
FEBRUARY 23, 2000
HAVC
Custom Aire, Inc.
PO Box 13433
Grand Forks ND 58201
Schneider Heating
PO Box 3118 y
LaCrosse Wi54601
MASTER INSTALLER
James Komay
W5445 CTH F #35
LaCrosse Wi 54601
Scott Boettner
2144 South 38�' St.
Grand Forks ND 50201
MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE
American Legion Auxiliary 992
315 15' Ave NW
Rochester MN 55901
Annual Poppy Day Sales 5i5i00 thru 5/6i00
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING r5r
DATE:'- '3 00
A SECTION: ORIGINATING
CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK
cM DESCRIPTION: OFF SALE 3.2 BEER APPLICATION
ITEM NO.
D-T
PREPARED BY:
DONNA JSCHOTT
The new Wal-Mart store is requesting approval of their application for an Off -sale 3.2 Beer License.
They will be opening the store at 25 - 25�' St SW on March 15, 2000,
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the Off Sale 3.2 Beer License for the new Wal-Mart Store.
„JUNCILACTION: Motion by Second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEE71NG 17
DATE: 2/22/00
Consent Agenda I Finance Department
Approval of Accounts Payable
Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable
(submitted separately) in the amount of $1,034,204.64.
Less: Any exceptions
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
Dale Martinson
Consent Agenda
2M DESCRIPTION:
dipstick.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Finance Department
q�
MEETING
DATE: -' 2100 I
ITEM NO.
L -%
reach PREPAREjBY-:
Jennifer K
The City of Rochester Public Works Department requests approval to advertise for the purchase of a 2000
Track Backhoe with 2 way radio and add'llong reach dipstick to replace unit #0070. Funds for this
vehicle are available in the 2000 Equipment Revolving Budget and have been budgeted for $160,000.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
The Public Works Department allows for the advertisement for a 2000 Track Backhoe with 2 way radio
and add'llong reach dipstick.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING a 11
DATE: 2,2100
Consent Agenda
Finance Department
M
Jennifer King
The Public Works Department requests approval to advertise for one (1) Hydraulic Sewer Redding
Machine to be furnished to the City as indicated in the specifications provided by the Public Works
Department. Funding for this item has been budgeted in the 1999 and 2000 Equipment Revolving budgets
is $42,500.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids for one (1) Hydraulic Sewer Rodding
Machine.
)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
Consent
ITEM DESCRIPTION: New RPU
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Human Resources
MEETING
DATE: 223 00
L-)—q
Linda
The RPU Board of Directors has approved three additional positions for RPU staff for budget year 2000
due to the greater volume of work and the need to provide up-to-date technological services . They include:
1. Apprentice Lineworker
2. Technician Assistant
3. System Operator
These positions are included in the Utility Board's approved budget for 2000.
Resolution authorizing three additional positions for 2000
(507)280-1601
E-mail: lkoshire cr rpu.org
DATE: February 18, 2000
TO: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator
FROM: Larry Koshire, RPU General Manager
SUBJECT: RPU Personnel Requests
General Manager's Office
MEMORANDUM
Jay%t
In the Rochester Public Utilities budget, the RPU Board approved three permanent positions.
They include a First Class Lineworker, System Operator and Utility Technician Assistant. These
positions were determined to be the most vital as part of a process of permanent staffing requests
in the budgeting process that has been recently conducted.
Attached is a copy of the budget request form for each of the positions along with an explanation
and justification for each of the positions. We request approval to proceed in posting and filling
these positions as part of our year 2000 work plan.
Attachments
LJK: kaw
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813
telephone 507.280.1540 ) facsimile 507.280.1542
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES DI 5
2000 PERSONNEL BUDGET
Permanent Staff Per Customer Served
And Dollars of Retail Sales
Year
Total
Customers
Retail
Sales
Vs
Number
Utility
Employees
# Customers
Served Per _
Employee
S's of Retail
Sales Per
Employee
1988
51,743
50,126,950
180
287
278,483
1989
53,228
54,352,586
184
289
295,394
1990
53,759
55,526,094
185
291
300,141
1991
55,317
62,362,280
184
300
338,925
1992
56,622
62,810,343
183
309
343,226
1993
57,427
68,042,544
182
316
373,860
1994
59,458
70,338,000
181
328
388,608
1995
60,397
71,481,990
179
337
399,340
1996
61,299
67,865,350
177
346
383,420
1997
62,660
65,296,000
178
352
366,831
1998
64,271
68,230,251
180
357
379,057
1999*
65,900
71,160,000
182
362
390,989
2000*
67,200
77,890,000
185
363
421,027
* Estimated Values
Note:
1. Numbers include combined water and electric utilities.
2. in the Operations Department, three new positions are proposed for 2000. They include
one Lineworker, one System Operator, and one Technical Assistant in Engineering
RE
K:ARPU0000 Budgets12000PERBUD.DOC
ROCIIESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES
"Permanent Staffing"
Budget Request Form
(Year 2000)
Division/Section: MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
Date Submitted: September 9, 1999
Position Title: 1ST CLASS LINEWORKER
Division: MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
Section: T & D
Job Family and/or: ST
Union Classification I CLASS LINEWORKER (A)
Pay Range: $26.338 / HR
Current Authorization Level: 28
Requested Authorization Level: 30
Proposed Staffing Date: MARCH 12000
Reason(s) for Requesting Position: (Attach business -case analysis as appropriate)
Approved by:
Gene al Manager
/w /�,, l il5
Date Approved
a?
�I1111111111111111
�l �,. � S !1 m O�
h N 1
m • N N
r
�
�p�bm�o�Om
�NNlnoj'0N
pp
A f0 y N C A O A A
O_ 4p a lil m e IO O�
e
O ,n F
O e
N m a 0
ae a e m o
1
pOp
0-�$�-F�
M t7 b OI 0 O O
ry
e
-
811111111111111111
SIEMENS
=
alllllllllllllllll
�
811111111111011111
::
4
�o
0
wo
zo
•
In
z
.a
N o
x 4
•
W
• x
0
W
x
0 '
F .4
0 Co
•
• W
W •
2 S
N m
•
z
z
ul
2
W
W
O
4
O
W
ic
m
m
• 3 3
;\
)/552§e);;}
!�!■
„
|f;l2|e\km
§m5
!.7
||■2§§■j)^
|�®G|;�§)�
■;!
nk�■§§!\\�
��m
■R�;l�a®®
!,!
\\
!�,■\§;\\;
\\
§0
z�
oG
■k!!;!
|§&
-a
\
}rc/
�ca
�
r
kKk\
&e5
CC'
S!
z®
LU
Ic
§�\§\w§}§\
uj
.2al222«;2
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES
"Permanent Staffing"
Budget Request Form
(Year2000)
Division/Section: Operations/Engineering/Technical Services
Date Submitted: 9/10/99
Position Title: Technician Assistant
Division: Operations
Section: Engineering - Technical Services
Job Family and/or.
Union Classification Technician Assistant — Not currently in the union contract
Pay Range: roughly S41,000 per year
Current Authorization Level: 0
Requested Authorization Level: +1
Proposed Staffing Date: First quarter - 2000
Reason(s) for Requesting Position: (Attach business -case analysis as appropriate)
See memo
Approved by: twr.-1
General�ager
Date Approved
G.
WA
DATE: September 10, 1999
TO: Walt Lorber
FROM: Greg Woodworth
SUBJECT: 2000 PERSONNEL BUDGET SUBMITTAL
The last additional people that were added to Engineering were added 10 and 12 years ago. One
was added to perform meter maintenance and the other was added when the Load Management
program was started.
In 1990, engineering had 21 people in the department. We now have 17, but two of the 17 are
waterside people that brought their own additional workload with them that wasn't in
Engineering in 1990. Some other basic comparisons are as follows:
1990
1999
% Increase
Meters on the system
31,139
36,967 (1998)
18.7%
System Peak Demand (MW)
177.8
230.2.
29.5%
Capacitance on the system (MVar)
43.2
60.0
38.9%
ASAI (five year moving average)
99.9715
99.9772
57.0%,
1 57.0% of possible increase
Distribution Systeem Miles
344.3
522.6
51.8%
LMT's on the system
1,940
7,294 (1998)
376%
The following items of work have been added since 1990.
1. All Water Electrician maintenance and Water SCADA installation and
maintenance
2. Transmission substation additions and conversion system design
3. Transmission substation additions and conversion system construction
4. Automated Meter Reading system installation and maintenance
5. Customer facility oil testing
6. Customer in -facility power quality issues
7. Multiple telecomm providers being on our facilities
8. Communications providers on our water facilities
9. Marketing group requiring all technical assistance
10. Billable customer projects (outsourcing of people in general)
11. Billable projects for other utilities
12, Updating and maintaining the accuracy of the facilities database
13. Key account dial -up metering for key account customers
-S/
Work not being done or being done on an emergencv-only basis
1. Transmission relaying needs to be coordinated completely due to system changes.
2. Distribution system relaying and fusing needs to be coordinated again
I Maintenance on LMT's
4. Substation Equipment maintenance with the exception of batteries
5. Outsourcing for billable jobs
Missed Opportunities
With the advancement of deregulation we are currently living the greatest opportunity to increase
revenues since the advent of electricity created the second industrial revolution. We can't take
advantage of the opportunity without people to perform the billable work that currently falls into
our laps. While there is some risk associated with what would be a new venture, this submittal
covers only staffing to perform the existing currently regulated workload. To go beyond that
point and actually seek to actively increase revenues in a different area from our core business
goes beyond this submittal. I do not believe, however, that we can be successful without
seriously attempting to enter the technical energy services arena and staff it to be successful. We
need to look at the initial investment and plan a strategy to enter the market. We currently are
not equipped to realistically evaluate the opportunity and prepare a strategy to take advantage of
the opportunity.
2
K: VZPU2000 Budgets12000PERBMDOC
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES
"Permanent Staffing"
Budget Request Form
(Year 2000)
Division/Section: Oj 6441 i pr! 4/5y6 e -�
Date Submitted:
Position Title: Sys7-v� Ofle-eA"ort C �>
Division: 6109 4A-MdMS
Section: Sysrm 01 iA*TreHS
Job Family and/or: T-0 S6 Df-AIr;;NZO
Union Classification
Pay Range: �a T3� I7Erkxr�r,.£D
Current Authorization Level: O
Requested Authorization Level:
Proposed Staffing Date: V 1�/00
Reason(s) for Requesting Position: (Attach business -case analysis as appropriate)
WITH Ki 4 BELor7: rL4 A -, RIZ7-At- X61&U :Z,4e-4;ffr,
IJAIpP, AND �dYENl/AC CON7-LG%
"G
T%46 VA y r, aqy' 5 yST¢• a adrN!
TO arinr✓�E ,p o f rc r�,ssE .
- .'r5 PoSr TJsN !✓icy~ ycuw f4F.�cr6 rtr�Y Td 1xfiC�w R'^'O AOW,-
General anager
Ali
Date Approved
i,-
September 9, 1999 33
POSITION REQUEST: System Operator
The System Operations Center is a twenty-four (24) hour per day, 365 days per year operation.
We currently staff the center with five System Operators.
This request is to add one additional position to create a schedule that will allow the System
Operators to receive training necessary to comply with the changing needs of the RPU and
the industry. Present staffing levels (5) require overtime and supervision to fill in for
vacations, sick leave, and training.
RPU Issues:
The uniqueness of the position makes it impossible to fill a vacant position without specialized
training. In the event of retirements, terminations, or serious illnesses, the remaining operators
are forced to cover the vacant position until the vacancy is filled. Just learning the RPU
requirements of the position requires three to five months. This position will eliminate the
scheduled overtime hours, the equivalent of 20 % of one full-time person, plus allow
additional duties to be accomplished.
Our becoming a partial requirements member of SMMPA will increase the required job
activities by adding load forecasting and energy acquisition duties to the System Operator
position.
OSHA requirements will also increase the need for safety training
MAPP Issues:
The MAPP pool has specific training requirements for all System Operators in the pool and
is constantly adding training to meet industry changes.
NERC Issues:
As deregulation becomes more imminent, federal laws and agencies are requiring more training
for the System Operators. The initial step is already System Operator certification with
mandatory annual training to maintain certification.
SUMMARY
There are many factors that justify the need for an additional System Operator position. The
additional position will reduce overtime now required, and allow necessary training. New
power supply duties will be the System Operator's responsibility starting in the summer of
2000, and potentially will have a significant economic impact on RPU. Addutional duties of
energy forecasting, matching generation to load, and energy supply management will require
the addition of a new System Operator.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 57�'
DATE: 2!23M 0
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Park and Rec
D � to
M DESCRIPTION:
Department of Natural Resources Grant Application
PREPARED BY:
D Stotz z�")
The Rochester Park Department will be submitting an application for a grant for the purpose of acquiring land adjacent
to Quarry Hill Park. The location of the land is identified as the "Postier land" on the attached map.
A resolution from the local government unit authorizing and supporting the application is a requirement of the
application process.
uncil Action Requested:
Council resolution authorizing the land acquisition grant application to the Department of Natural Resources.
UNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
c
°Ip
_I SI
North Broad�o
V
rd' (7 =
l
�
0
•
Q ^
K
D (n
A CD
_$ D
i
§ N,
-
a
p
�
a
z
09
�
o
y
C
o
1
r I 1
' < w
♦♦♦ %
♦�
Q1
I
1
i
Postier Land
si
q7.1� Poi
�Wa
fig
��
tt
k
i
- '��♦
i
�o
Is
a
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION `JEE-iNG /_')�
CATE: 03-' ,-00
AGENDA SECTION:
I CONSENT AGENDA
PL. N\-ING
EM DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00.01 by Richard Badger to annex PREPARED BY:
approximately 195.47 acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, west of West i Theresa Fogarty.Circle Drive, in Section 19 and Section 20, Cascade Township. Planner
February 16, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on February 9, 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.
Ms. McGowen moved to approve Annexation Petition #00-01 by Richard Badger, with the
property being designated "H" (Holding Zone). Mr. Staver seconded the motion, which
carried 7-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated January 31, 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
$549.52.
Council Action Needed.
1. If the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance to be adopted according to MS 414.033, Subdivision 5 and transmit
to the MN Planning /Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. The motion shall also
include that the property be placed in H-Holding Zone, upon annexation to the City.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report, dated January 31, 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 Wednesday
the Rochester! Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
%'OU NCI L ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
February 23; 2000 in the Council Chambers at
3U
p
�I
_Z
Z
O
N
o
U
p
L;
o
FEE
F4 C
µvt HE 1TFR•IgY 1
�R7 iE0.�1;GL�(•�
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPNGESSING/ 5071285.8232
HOUSINGIHRA 507/285.8224
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213
WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
DATE: January 31, 2000 FAX 507/287.2275
RE: Annexation Petition #00-01 by Richard Badger to annex approximately
195.47 acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, west of Circle
Drive, in Section 19 and Section 20, Cascade Township.
Planning Department Review:
ApplicantslOwners: Richard E. Badger
6004 Valleyhigh Drive NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Location of Property: The property is located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, and
west of West Circle Drive NW.
Existing Land Use:
This property is currently farmland, with suspended
agricultural production activities. There exists two single
family structures and approximately 20 agricultural
outbuildings.
Size:
The property proposed for annexation is approximately
195.47 acres of unplatted land.
Existing Zoning:
The property is zoned A4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion)
District and A-2 (Agricultural Protection) District on the
Olmsted County zoning map.
Future Zoning:
Upon annexation, the property should be place in a
"Holding" Zone. The applicant has filed a Zoning District
Amendment. The rezoning is for M-1 and R-2.
Land Use Plan:
According to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan, approximately 19 acres in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of West Circle Drive (CR 22) and Valleyhigh Road
NW (CSAH 4) is shown as being designated for "Commercial"
and approximately 9 acres for "Medium Density Residential".
The rest of the land is identified for "Low Density Residential'
types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
OAnnexation #00-01
February 2. 2000
Land Use Plan (Continued): Plan Map. The westerly most 80 acres is beyond the
boundaries of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan. It is however, within the 25-year Urban Service Area for
the City of Rochester on the Olmsted County Future Land Use
Plan Map, which was adopted in 1995. Land Use
Designations within this area are considered to be "Low
Density Residential".
Adjacency to the Municipal The property is adjacent to the city limits along its east
Limits: boundary and a portion of its southern boundary.
Sewer & Water: The Northwest High Level Water System service is available
to this property.
Municipal sewer and water will need to be extended to serve
this area.
Fire Protection: The entire area is outside of the six minute response area of
the Rochester Fire Department thereby making fire protection
issues in this area of critical concern.
The Fire Department has no objection, however, city water
services must be in place prior to occupancy of residential
homes.
Thoroughfare Plan: A traffic impact study is being prepared to address future
traffic services issues associated with development of the site.
Townboard Review: The Township has reviewed this Annexation Petition and has
adopted a Resolution 001-2000, approving the Annexation.
The Township also waived the 90 day review period for an
annexation under MS414.033.5 in that same Resolution.
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
RPU Operations Division, RPU Water Division, Rochester
Public Works, Rochester Fire Department, Planning Staff -
Transportation Division
1. Annexation Map
2. Location Map
3. Referral Comments (5 letters)
4. Township Resolution 001-2000
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 5.
Staff also recommends that the property be zoned H-Holding upon annexation to the City. Land Use Plan
and Zoning District amendments are currently under consideration for this property.
1®
E 5 49 P
of
�E-xa-rss.,S az Z33= 4GeFs d
r J SbC'r,..J 2► � CA3C.OD,E.
zd��as T.f-L �r
� ♦ac�a.a-,d,,,J �,P 233� fjGeas � Sfc�rd,y��rf
i! CraSeadE T IJsbFsQ l,Jr45 Pp-&S*"Jr&4 -ro`T,4f- C4sC
+¢OZ , a•a.os�,E
I ✓�+4► T, .J(p r Fi�.�o�.i 8� Wt41 ✓E,Q ,
r .JOV I,
a� CasG,o-c� 1�.oi�s G+2�awr f�PPke�l.� �.-r�
ZG� C,45CA,DE a,��sC,��P� 4,,j0
e
E rZ`rrW,E,e. Pin Sic. ✓&D `l�dF,�r �s�£ lo..i.J 4£�A
(.a4s" 44-0-La ��+eE�s r<9,q�✓E. Tit vsu,q,� 9O
1iA.y &),41-ri,16
f'Rls5rip) o4zo�r�p
®� a.,jaauaeY I z�c,o.
r
� `
ru
qP. sr' :rrrs::r
507/280-1579
January 18, 2000
TO: louzarme LaPalm, Planning Department
Consolidated Planning Dept.
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
SUBJECT: Annexation Petition #00-01 by Richard Badger to annex approximately 195.47
acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, west of West Circle Drive, in
Section 19 and Section 20, Cascade 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 future.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Engle
ks
c: W. Lorber
T. Adkins, City Attorney
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906.2813
telephone 507.260.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542
rpu
:ve ,'e:lae, roe aeiiver
January 21, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
�f 3
REFERENCE: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00-01 by Richard Badger to annex 195.47
acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW and west of West Circle Drive NW in
Section 19 and 20, Cascade Township.
Dear Ms. LaPalm:
Our review of the referenced petition 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. Northwest High Level Water System water service is available to this property.
3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system
layout to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
00..----��__
C".R;V
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Yaggy Colby Associates
Richard Badger
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE. Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
q4 ROCHESTER
Minnesota
1, 21,00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4t° 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
ANNX00-01 on the Richard Badger property (195.47 acres). The following are
Public Works comments on the proposal:
Municipal sewer and water is available to serve this area.
C:%TEMP�ANNEXOM I .doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETNG
DATE: '_ 23 00�✓
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Police
b— f;I'
I EM DESCRIPTION: STOP Violence Women Act (VAV+A) Fund Grant
PREPARED BY:
Jim Pittenger
In November of 1997 the Police Department was asked to participate in a grant -funded multi -year project to
establish a protocol process for the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases in the State of
Minnesota. As a part of that project the Olmsted CountyiRochester community Sexual Assault Interagency
Council (SAIC) was established. The SAIC is a multi -agency group made up of representatives from the Police
Department, Olmsted County Sheriff's Department, Olmsted County Attorney's Office, Olmsted County Victim
Services, Olmsted County Adult Protection, Olmsted County Child Protection, and the Mayo Clinic.
In March, 1998, the Council granted permission for the Police Department to apply for funding for a temporary
coordinator position for the SAIC. The Police Department was subsequently awarded a grant from the
Minnesota Center for Crime Victim Services (MCCVS) to fund that position. In May, 1999, the Council
granted permission for the Police Department to apply for further funding for the coordinator position.
The protocol development process is entering its third year. MCCVS is offering funding in the amount of
$35,000 for the SAIC coordinator. The grant period is July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001. The coordinator position
will be a temporary position, and will not be continued after June 30, 2001, unless funding can be secured
through an MCCVS grant, or some other grant source.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: The Police Department requests permission to apply for MCCVS
funding for the SAIC Coordinator position.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: g�
2123/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Doors
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works b - ( 3
PREPARED BY:
M. Nigbur
• Mayo Gonda Project — Mayo Foundation (Owner) & Fraser Construction (Contractor) are requesting
a Third Amendment to City / Owner Contract J9497 "Relocation of Watermain and Storm Sewer;
Construction of Temporary Roadway in Proposed New Alignment of 1" St SW between 3'd and 41"
Ave SW", to include additional work consisting of construction of watermain, at the owner's expense,
in West Center Street between 2nd and V Avenues.
• Rochester Overhead Doors, Project — Galuska Properties LLC (Owner) & Rochester Construction
Co., Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9665 consisting of construction of
Watermain, at the owner's expense, to serve the Rochester Overhead Doors Property.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9497
Third Amendment (Mayo Gonda Project), and for J9665 (Rochester Overhead Doors)
%.OUNCIL ACTION: Motonby. second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEET NAG
DATE:
ell
33/00
1
IIG III
'
Islamone
►►►���EN •�i s+�+ •ram .,r ♦ /��'�//
�C Gr �►►►►�C i%Ii►I � r1t ti1,► A �1A ♦ ���% r'
v �. E►►111/� mill ♦ I��.�hO v�l ♦�s .terry ���M��1
�����ir■ `av�u� rwaup���4��r'''��.►����1��%��iM',�0�' � ��
'9�'�, ••�:iiiii►�f�♦I�1111� li ui��i _� ; ��►►I
I ♦ x��NC III■1I■•��'I ....0 falr
milli 1ii1�
imii
•1101011PIM", M.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE
2/23/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENTAGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM NO.
b-1
t t EM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Wedgwood 3f° Subdivision.
PREPARED BY: P
M. Nigbur'-w P
The Developers of the Wedgewood 31 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 traffic capacity improvements on area roadways.
• Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Parkland
Dedication, and participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have executed
the agreement.
COUNCIL
Authorize the
Wedgewood
I
I
for the
55
ON
ST MNLEXWUONLNN
N
4FRn
0
ALL 5T
Nf
N
ACTION
3tO
REQUESTED:
Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Leslie Lurken
Subdivision.
_OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
%1EE7ING 53 /
DATE. 2/23100
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO,
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
„EM DESCRIPTION: Project Cost Reconciliation: 48th Street N.W. from 31st Avenue
PREPARED BY
N.W. to Approximately 1750 Feet West, J9416
J. Loehr
On June 2, 1997 the City Council authorized the construction of the following loc I improvement
project:
Proiect No. 6248-4-97, J9416
"Basic Construction in 48' Street N.W. from 31" Avenue N.W. to the West Approximately 1750
Feet to the West Line of Carriage Homes Subdivision".
The City of Rochester previously entered into Assessment Agreements with the two abutting property
owners Carriage Homes, Inc. (north side of 481" Street) and Cordul Establishment, Inc. (south side of
480 Street). Cordul Established subsequently transferred the ownership of their property to Michael
Younge Development, Inc. The Agreements require that the total construction cost and expense of
project J9416 be assessed against the abutting properties.
The north and south sides of 48" Street N.W. are now developed. The property owners (developers)
made contributions to the City of Rochester in lieu of establishing Escrow Accounts as portions of their
respective property was developed. The property owners have agreed in writing to reimburse the City
for the amount of special assessments attributable to their respective property for the amount in excess
of their contributions.
The total construction cost and expense of this project is $501,471.50. The City previously received
$473,766.00 in Developer Contributions. The balance of $27,705.50 will be invoiced to the Developers
by the Public Works Department, with payment required within 30 days of the invoice.
The amount of special assessments (contributions) attributable to each property is shown on the
attached spreadsheet.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt the resolution accepting the final project costs and expense for project J9416.
Att: Location Map
Spreadsheet
Budget and Assessment Sheet
Feasibility Report
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
/
g fi 2g �5j F£Ta'6eg i iry �O In
fill
24
I N
a �. r,,+ � y .,, l ► «8
�sd // ��d• mil' xn al--i
LLI
\� ,d
_ v !< \ X
V N 111� 1880
az
NN
W S "' II 4 tiliiv� I t
I
I
q• W J T.C1-4
, (n bi
O
•
-----------
------------------
.,Lis 03,UY 6Nn
0,I
W
Zw
0 w
U-
U o
Ln
n
coo
Z O
U
w
U G
p0 c`_7
i
Project No. 6248-4-97
J9416
48th Street N.W.
Item of Work
Carriage Homes
Lincolnshire
Total Costs
Grading 3 Paving S Storm Sewer
$118,861.25
$116,861.25
$233,722.50
Sanitary Sewer in 48th Street
$26,324.20
$26,324.19
$52,648.39
Sub-Trunkline
$41,735.50
$41,735.50
Subdrain
$5,715.00
$5.715.00
Watermain
$29,460.00
$29,460.00
$58.920.00
Service Connections
$10,100,74
$4,989.26
$15,090.00
Sub -Total
$224,481.69
$183,349.70
6407,831.39
Construction Interest (7.526399574%) 1
$16,895.39
$13.799,63
$30,695.02
Engineering (15,434096428%)
834,646.72
$28,298.37
$62,945 09
_
Total
$270,023.80
$226,447.70
$501,471.50
Previous Advance Payments
Date of
Payment
Amount of
Payment
Date of
Payment
Amount of
Payment :.
11/12/971
$104.000.00
W7198l
$10,500.00 lot 9, blk 2
7/7/981
$10,500.00 lot 7, blk 2
4/8/98i
$157,213.00
7/14/981
$12,000.00 lot 6, blk 2
7/14/981
$12,000.00 lot 1, blk 1
7/17/981
$10,351.00 sot 13, blk 2
9/91981
$10,500.00 lot 3, blk 2
9/23MI
$10,500.00 lot 5, blk 2
9124/981
$10,500.00 .lot 4, blk 2
1all 3/981
$10,500.00 'lot 1, blk 2
10/23/981
$10,500.00 :lot 2. blk 2
10/23/981
$10,351.00 :'lot 14, blk 2
10J281981
$10,500.00 lot 8, blk 2
11/25MBI
$10.351.00 Ilot 10. blk 2
12/15MSI
$10,500.00 ilot 12. blk 2
12/15981
$10,500.00 lot 11, blk 2
3/19/991
$10,500.00 :lot 5, blk 1
3/24/991
$10,500.00 Jot 2, blk 1
4/14/99I
$10.500.00 lot 4, blk 1
4/14/991
$10,500.00 sot 3, blk 1
8/23/991
$10,500.00 slot 15, blk2
Total Advance Payments
$261,213.00
$212,553.00
$473,766.00
Balance Owed to City
$14,8111.80
$12,894.70
$27,705.50
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING "I
DATE: 2/23/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
M NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
7t>— j r%
i i EM DESCRIPTION: Establish Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charge
PREPARED BY:
Rates Pinewood Road S.E., J9436
J.Loehr
On February 2, 1998 the City Council authorized the construction of the following local improvement
project:
Protect No, 9714, J9436
"Extension of Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in Pinewood Road S.E. from Pinewood School to
Fairview Court S.E."
The total construction cost and expense of this project is $893,750.72. The Water Department share of
project for oversize watermain costs is $54,520.86. Contributions Agreements signed by the original
petitioners of project J9436 Ratzloff-Bigelow Development, Quinstar and Mulholland total $247,412.52
in contributions. An amount of $549,054.53 is proposed to be funded from future sanitary sewer and
watermain connection charges. The balance of $42,792.81 is proposed to be funded from previously
collected Water Availability Charges (J8201) and Sewer Availability Charges (J8202).
Assessment Rates (including expenses)
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges $ 77.2673963 per foot
Sanitary and Water Service Connection $ 1,132.64 per service connection
The Contribution Agreements signed by the original petitioners of project J9436 requires that the
petitioners pay the actual amount of special assessments attributable to their respective property based
on the actual assessment rates as calculated at the completion of the project. After the petitioners
signed their Agreement the City subsequently adopted an Alternative Connection Charge Policy that
capped the maximum connection charge rate at $65.00 per foot of chargeable frontage.
The Department of Public Works seeks City Council approval to charge the petitioners of the project a
maximum rate of $65.00 consistent with the Alternative Connection Charge Policy.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt the resolution establishing the assessment rates for project J9436 as follows:
a. sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge rates of $77.2673963 per foot.
b. sanitary sewer and water service connection charge rate of $1,132.64 per service.
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into any and all Utility Connection Agreements
associated with project J9436.
3. Authorize staff to charge the original petitioners of project J9436 at the maximum sanitary sewer
and watermain connection charge rate of $65.00 per foot.
Aft: Location Map
Budget Data Sheet
WQPP Summary of Estimated Sales Tax Revenue
Feasibility Report
—OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Pinewood Rd
Sewer &Water Extension
�Drn1H
0.3 0 0.3 0.6
N
E
0
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project No: 9714
J No: 9436
TO SERVE PINEWOOD ROAD
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Date (Orig.) 7/7/97
5 1 /
Description: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension in Pinewood Road S.E. from Pinewood School
to Fairview Court S.E.
Construction
Road Restoration
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
Service Connections
Enaineerina/I nterest/Continaencv
Total Construction & Expense
Cost Distribution
Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements
Developer Contributions
City's Share
Water & Sewer Availability Charges
(J8201 & J8202)
Sewer Utility
Water Utility
TOTAL
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
Project Contract Final
Budget Cost Cost
$ 128,300 wlsewer & water_
189,210
168,175
$728 088.45
35,700 61 000.00
156,415 104 662.27
$ 677,800 $893 750.72
$ 300,489
$549 024.53
210,951
247,412.52
106,360
-0-
42 792.81
40,000
-0-
20
000
54,520.86
$ 677,800
$893,750.72
Participation in Water Oualitv Protection Program
The properties benefiting from project J9436 are eligible to participate in the City of
Rochester Water Quality Protection Program. Property owners that desire to participate in
the WQPP are required to enter into a Utility Connection Agreement by August 18, 2000.
A property owner is required to connect the property to the public sewer and water
systems by August 18, 2002. The estimated sales tax revenue required if all developed
properties benefiting from project J9436 participate in the WQPP are as follows:
Estimated Allowances for City Improvements:
Rate & per Lot Caps $186,072.76
Service Connections 38 service connections x $1,132.64 43,040.32
Sewer Availability Charges 20 acres x $1.500 per acre 30,000.00
Water Availability Charges 20 acres x $2,000 per acre 40,000.00
Estimated Allowances for City Improvements $299,113.08
Allowances for work on private propertv:
Sewer Lateral $1,000
Water Lateral $1,000
Well Closure $1,000
Septic Closure $ 500
Allowances for private Work $3,500 x 38 properties $133,000.00
Estimated Sales Tax Revenue Required
$432.113.08
If a property owner fails to enter into a Utility Connection Agreement by August 18,
2000, and to connect their property to the public sewer and water system and close their
well and septic system by August 18, 2002, participation in the WQPP and the
Allowances contained therein will not be permitted.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEET NG 6 ( �
DATE: 2/23/C0
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D_ j $
i t EM DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids: Trunkline Sanitary Sewer from the Willow
PREPARED BY -
Creek Trunkline to Serve Marion Township, J9598
J. Loehr
This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids. The bids will be received until 11:00 AM at the
office of the City Clerk on March 22, 2000 and considered by the City Council on April 3, 2000 for the
following project:
Project No. M001. J9598
"Trunkline Sanitary Sewer from the Willow Creek Trunkline Sewer to Marion Road S.E. to Serve
Sewer District 16A, 16B, 16C and 16D in Marion Township"
The project involves the construction of a trunkline sanitary sewer to serve Marion Township.
The project is proposed to be funded with Sales Tax supported Sewer Availability Charges (SAC)
included in future Utility Connection Agreements, Developer agreements and/or City -Owner Contracts,
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid
opening on March 22, 2000 at 11:00 AM.
Note to City Clerk;
Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning February 25, 2000.
Att: Map
Notice of bid
—OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOT,
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
FOR
MARION ROAD TRUNK SANITARY SEWEF
FROM WILLOW CREEK TRUNK SEWER TO 22ND STREET SE
CITY PROJECT NO. M001, J9598
MCOUg1AN
' PARK j �II�� Y• •4,s Y
11 A
aiEx PROJECT LOCATION ? '1
'0d axuu ♦ a. sF
1 I i
BEAR
CREW
v
19a ST. SL
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEET 4G
DATE: t��� 2123/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
,D —1
i i EM DESCRIPTION: Petition for Extension of Sanitary Sewer in Whynaught's
PREPARED BY:I�
Subdivision, J9600
J. Loehr r
A petition has been received from an owner of property in Whynaught's Subdivision requesting the City
of Rochester to construct an extension of sanitary sewer to serve 3 properties located in Whynaught's
Subdivision.
The petition is signed by 1 of 3 owners of developed property affected by the project. The petition
contains two signatures; however, each petitioner is a joint owner of the same parcel that contains two
separate buildings, which share 1-septic system.
This petition was presented to the City subsequent to an informational meeting held on March 10,
1999. The meeting was conducted jointly by members of the Marion Town Board and City of Rochester
Department of Public Works Staff to provide information regarding the City of Rochester Water Quality
Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1999.
Whynaught's Subdivision is currently outside the City. However, an Orderly Annexation Agreement
between the City and Marion Township for this area is executed by the City and Marion Township.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. A motion referring the prepared resolution forwarding the petition from the owners of property in
Whynaught's Subdivision to the Department of Public Works for preparation of feasibility studies.
Aft: Whynaught's Subdivision Location Map
Whynaught's Subdivision Petition
.XUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to.
r
ME OSE ST SE
Vacant Lot
Whynaught's Subdivision
Petition for Sanitary Sewer
b ST SE
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEET NG
DATE: 2/23/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
5 Sao
t EM DESCRIPTION: Special Assessments: Levy Watermain Assessments for Project
REPARED BY:
J9305
J. Loehr
On January 3, 2000 the City Council authorized the execution of an Assessment Agreement between
the City of Rochester and the property owner (James D. Crawford Trustee) of Lot 1, Block 1 Airport
Industrial Park. The Assessment Agreement included special assessments for projects J9482
"Extension of Watermain in 10' Avenue S.W. in Airport Industrial Park", J9266 "Airport Water Tower"
and J9305 "Watermain in 11th Avenue S.W." The City Council adopted a resolution for the levying of
special assessments attributable to the lot for projects J9482 and J9266.
The January 3, 2000 RCA and Request for Council Action inadvertently omitted referencing the special
assessments attributable to the subject lot for project J9305. The special assessment attributable to the
subject lot for project J9305 is as follow:
J9305 Watermain in 11' Avenue S.W.
James D. Crawford Trustee Principal Interest Total
Lot 1, Block 1 Airport Industrial Park $4,336.21 + $1,121.77 = $5,457.98
Assessment Spread = 10 Years
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments for project J9305.
Aft: Assessment Agreement
_OUNCIL ACTION: Mole❑ by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEET NG (o-
DATE: 2/23/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENTAGENDA
,, EM DESCRIPTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Lot Lease
Public Works
ITEM NO.
iD -01I
PREPARED BY:
�,? D. Rossmari
This is a recommendation to renew the lease with Ironwood Square Condominium Association for the
use of their parking lot by the public during evening & weekends for Mayo Civic Events. The existing
lease has been in effect since 1986. The Condominium Association has requested that the lease be
renewed and the new lease be similar to the old lease except in the following areas:
1. Term: the new term shall be for 5 years, commencing 3-1-2000 and ending 3-1-2005, unless
extended by the mutual agreement of the parties.
2. Hours of use: add paragraph c) to read:
c) Weekdays the public may use the drive isles of the Ironwood Square Lot to access the Civic
Center South Lot.
3. Rental: Change the rental payment to read: The City agrees to provide Ironwood with 6 parking
spaces in The Civic Center South Lot. Said spaces will be located in the row north of the Ironwood
Square Building. And will be made available to Ironwood during the hours of 6:00 am to 6:00 pm
Monday thru Friday.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing City Officials to sign the new lease with Ironwood Square
Condominium Association for lease of their lot
.:OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: _ second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEE7Nc 11
DATE: /23/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
itEM DESCRIPTION:
Drive to Viola Road
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Northern Valley
Public Works
ITEM NO.
D -aa
PREPARED BY]]-(
y D. Rossmah
The City has received a request, from the residents along Northern Valley Drive NE, to restrict parking
on the south side of the street at all times for the one block approaching Viola Road NE. The reason for
this action is to provide two turning lanes, one left and one right, for turning onto Viola Road (County
Road 2). The present parking status on this street is unrestricted.
Northern Valley is designated as a collector street on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan. The pavement is
42 feet wide. Average daily traffic is 1950 vehicles.
A survey of the adjacent residents was conducted to obtain their opinion. A total of 2 surveys were sent
out. The responses were I in favor, and 0 against. Staff would recommend in favor of the request.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution adding Section (314.5) of section B "No Parking Zones" to read;
(314.5) Northern Valley Drive NE on the south side of the street, from Northern Heights Drive to Viola
Road, at all times.
—OUNCIL ACTION: Motion ou: second by to:
�Iffrffimlw�
� � \
a
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION %IEET:N0 1' i
DATE. 2 VO
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTLNLBD)
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
E �'
n EM DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING 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 6l"
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 $5.2 million of Series A Tax exempt bonds, $1.2 millsion of Taxablle Series A bonds, and $800,000 of tax
exempt Series B bonds
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion by the Council to approve the multi -family housing program of the City of Rochester for the
Weatherstone Townhomcs project. (The resolution adopting the housing program will be included as part of the
i,final bond resolution that will come to the Council in the near future.)
. OUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by to:
MOF
MULTI -FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAM OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
FOR
WEATHERSTONE TOWNHOMES PROJECT
April , 2000
Proposal; Authority. The City of Rochester, Minnesota (the
"City"), proposes to issue revenue bonds and to take other
actions in furtherance of the objective of financing the
acquisition and rehabilitation of the multi -family rental housing
project described herein (this "Program") pursuant to applicable
authority conferred upon the City by the laws of the State of
Minnesota, including without limitation Minnesota Statutes,
Chapters 462C and 462A, as the same may be amended from time to
time (collectively, the "Act").
Purposes. In creating this Program, the City is acting in
furtherance of its findings that the preservation of the quality
of life in the City is in part dependent upon the maintenance and
provision of adequate, decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable
housing stock; that accomplishing the goals of this Program is a
public purpose and will benefit the residents of the City; that
the need exists within the City to provide in a timely fashion
additional affordable rental housing to and for the benefit of
persons of low and moderate income and their families residing
and expected to reside within the City; that there exist or are
expected to exist persons and families within the City who are
and will be able to benefit from and are in need of the Program;
that the Program is necessary in view of the limited resources
that may be available to such persons relative to the expenses
involved in accomplishing the type of objectives outlined in this
Program in the absence of one or more of the forms of assistance
described herein or otherwise available pursuant to the Act; and
that the City hereby finds that such forms of assistance are
often necessary for the benefit of such persons, families, and
goals and that, furthermore, the successful implementation of the
objectives of the kind described in this Program has been found
to provide impetus for the development of other housing in the
City, as well as the general development of the City, by other
persons who are not the beneficiaries of such governmentally
sponsored or assisted activities.
Rental Housing Purposes. More particularly, the City finds
that there exists a need for multi -family rental housing, both to
provide rental housing for persons of low and moderate income and
to assist in freeing up existing owner -occupied housing for
purchase by other qualifying individuals and families, which need
1137060.1
13
is not being filled by private enterprise alone due to a variety
of factors, including that the cost of new construction of multi-
family rental units may in many cases prove economically
unfeasible, given the high costs of construction and prevailing
area rental levels, and that therefore appropriate levels of
public assistance may be helpful and necessary in bridging that
gap.
General Description of the Program. This Program consists
of the financing of the acquisition and construction of an
approximately 100-unit multi -family rental housing facility (with
approximately 40 two -bedroom townhomes and 60 three -bedroom
townhomes) and functionally related facilities, to be located at
50`h Avenue NW and 61" Street (the "Project"). The initial owner
of the Project pursuant to the financing will be weatherstone
Townhomes, LLC, or other partnership including Shelter
Corporation as a partner. The initial manager of the Project
will be Shelter Corporation.
Location. This Program is limited to the Project. The
Project is located at 50` Avenue NW and 61" Street in Rochester,
Minnesota.
Revenue Bonds. The amount of revenue bonds required to
finance this Program will not exceed $7,500,000. The City
preliminarily intends to finance the Program by issuing bonds.
The proceeds will finance the acquisition and construction of the
Project and pay costs of issuing the bonds, and may be used to
establish a reserve. The revenue bonds are expected to be issued
in early 2000, subject to final Council approval in its sole and
absolute discretion.
No Housing Plan. The Consolidated Plan dated December, 1994,
as updated or amended, is considered to be the City's housing
plan for purposes of this Program.
Monitoring. The City expects to enter into suitable
agreements with weatherstone Townhomes, LLC, the trustee for the
bonds and/or others respecting the monitoring or implementation
by participants to ensure that this Program will be consistent
with the housing plan and its objectives, which for this purpose
means providing affordable rental housing.
Meeting Needs: Methods. The Program will meet the need for
rental housing for persons and families of low and moderate
incomes by providing units at an affordable rent. The City
believes that this Program will help meet the identified needs
under this Program. The specific methods anticipated to be used
include the issuance of revenue bonds under the Act to provide
feasible financing for various aspects of the Program so
undertaken.
1137060.1 2
1q
Authorization. The Program is undertaken pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.05, Subdivision 2, for units
affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income.
Limits on Gross Income. In connection with the issuance of
the Bonds, the Company will be required to agree to limit the
gross income of occupants of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, and with the
requirements relating to tax-exempt bonds for qualified
residential rental projects.
Adopted and approved on April , 2000, by the Common
Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota.
1137060.1
3
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 1 HE 7 N,G �%�
DATE - 00 / 5
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARL\GS — Continued Item
PLA\\I\G E �Z
ENI DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99.45 to be known as Wedgewood Hills Third PREPARED BY:
Brent Scenby,
Planner
February 16, 2000
NOTE: If the development agreement for this plat is acted on prior to the public hearing, staff recommends
approval.
Planning Department Review:
See attached Staff Report dated February 16, 2000.
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes, a resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
EnCIOSUMS: (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:
1. Staff Report dated February 16, 2000.
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 Wednesday, February 23, 2000, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
5. McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Ja
2
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
4
r-_
Final Plat ..
-45
Wedgewood Hills 3rd
800' Notification distance
VwWard 3 (McConnell)
uin — F 00
JAW,. mom, A
." /
z
z
uj
F asFa
FP
s!' sr'i . rm
a6fA srerrr V. r. a--- ---
� a
co Ina
N
Y f
DDTAU i o sr. N.r. > _ —DrT4" '
sr r
MP
!.
lk
� I 1
b
• _
o
• � b
m
v ro
y
` b
f
I
I
YM
OIZ
14A
•
�.�i Hr_.rep•irr(
8(Te D•al Gl�(•^..
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
TO: Rochester Common Council
ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
MAPPING
HOUSING'HRA 507/285-8224
DATE: February 16, 2000
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287.2275
RE: Final Plat #99-45 to be known as Wedgewood Hills Third
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Leslie Lurken
1027 7th St. NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Surveyors/Engineers:
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 3rd Ave SE
Rochester, 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:
Plat Data:
1. Referral Comments
2. Location Map
3. Copy of Final Plat
4. Copy of GDP
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. This street is
designed with a 28' wide surface with a 50' right -of -
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYfAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
00 Page 2
o(� Wedgewood Hills Third
February 16. 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 NW", 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 551" 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 LDK 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 GDP. 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
Wedgewood Hills Third 8
February 16. 2000
eliminate a connection to 55'b 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 Outlot 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 cul-de-sac to the west.
J. 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:
Since the property owner intends to record the Final Plat documents prior to completing
infrastructure improvements, 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 23, 2000). If the development agreement is acted on by the
Council on February 23rd, 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 & 2, Block 2 and on the rear of Lots 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 Outlot 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.
$� RUCHESTER
Minnesota
"1 00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4'" 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 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.
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 55`t' St NW for the entire length of Wedgewood
hills Third, and all previous additions.
C:ITEMP%FP9945.doc
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
'_Ili 00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
r:
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.
ee Substandard Street charge for 55" 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
Q\TEMP\FP4945.doc
M
I
l
ZOCHESTER PARK AND F lEATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 25, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
Planning
RE: Wedgewood Hills Td
Final Plat #99-45
Acreage of plat..........................................................
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Dwelling unit density ...................................................
Density factor— ... ......... ... — .......................................
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 3rd
1.82 acres......... Dedication credits for future dedication requirements
Applicant:
Lesiie Lurken
1027 7 Street NW
\\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CI.YHALL\2ARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATICN\NW 2898\WEDGEWOOD HILLS 3RD.00C
rpu S5,
;ve ;ve zertrer
January 31, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III, Phase I, Final Plat s#99-45 to be known as Wedgewood Hills Third.
Dear M5. 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,
.
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
507/280-1579
January 21, 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 55th Street NW, west of 52nd 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,
C��
/ 77 K�
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
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
MEETING
`
DATE: '3-GU
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan »98-6, amendment PREPARED BY:
o PUD 11-10 Fiksdal Motel to allow for the development of a new four story hotel facility and Mitzi A. Baker,
associated parking that would be located within the existing PUD District for the Fiksdal Motel and Senior Planner
which would also extend into the I Zoning District. The new hotel is proposed to be located
between 20° St. SW and 1" St. SW, west of 12" Ave. SW, abutting the existing Fiksdal Hotel and
the Canadian Honker Restaurant.
February 17, 2000
".VOTE.• Please see the second page of this RCA for new information related to the project. "
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On January 26, 2000 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval
subject to the following nine conditions. The motion carried 7-2, with Mr. Werven and Ms. Schultze voting nay.
1. The applicant shall execute a development agreement with the City of Rochester that outlines the obligations of
the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, abandonment of utilities, re-routing utilities and
dedication of easements over the new utilities, and those items specified by the City Council.
2. Approval is contingent upon approval to vacate the alley and also upon an exchange of land between the
Canadian Honker and Fiksdal consistent with the development proposal.
3. The pylon sign size shall not exceed 50 square feet in area or 25 feet in height. A 16 square foot sign, of either
applied lettering or embossed into the brick, may be located on the building, above the driveway along the west
side of the building.
4. The 5' wide bufferyard along the west property line, west of the proposed new alley, shall include the 4' high
fence. All fencing along bufferyards shall be constructed of a low -maintenance, durable, permanent treatment
similar to the materials and building elevations proposed.
5. Parking lot fighting shall be revised to comply with standard "B" in Section 63.213 of the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual. (This is the same standard that applies to parking facilities in the R-3
district.)
6. Specific grading and construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any on -site
construction activities.
7. The "horseshoe" entrance drive shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane." Parking lots shall be striped and
marked with one-way directional arrows where driving lanes do not accommodate two-way traffic. The entrance
drive from god Street SIN to the alley shall be signed "No Parking." Directional signs and "DO NOT ENTER"
signs shall be provided to prevent motorists driving eastbound in the alley from accessing fd Street SW via the
hotel one-way access drive.
8. Amore thorough landscaping plan be provided detailing new and existing plantings, with the new plantings
being consistent with the existing plantings.
9. On -site snow management shall be addressed in greater detail.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to:
Page 2 �>
RCA `b
February7, 2000
i
The Planning Commission also recommends approval of the add -on option for a covered or enclosed walkway to `-
Canadian Honker, if found feasible.
The Planning Commission also recommends that the Development Agreement for this project should specify that
the exterior of the Staybridge may not be modified from that which was presented and modified by conditions,
without going through additional review by the Planning Commission and a public hearing with the City Council.
,,New Information:
Signs:
The applicant submitted revisions to the application on February 14, 2000. The applicant is requesting to amend the s',gns
j originally proposed to allow for an additional wall sign on the building (8' x 3' 3"). They are also requesting to amend the pylon
sign proposed in front of the building, along 2ntl Street, from a single pole 50 s.f. pylon to a 34 s.f. sign placed on an arched
brick pedestal with a 6' clearance under the sign. Details for each of these signs are included in your packet.
if approved, the property would have a total of three signs 1) a wall sign measuring not more than 16 s.f with the words
Staybridge" to be either applied lettering or embossed into the brick and located above the driveway along the west side of
the building; 2) a two sided free standing sign, not measuring more than 34 s.f. on either side, placed on an arched brick
pedestal with a 6' clearance under the sign; and 3) a wall sign, measuring not more than 26 s.f to be placed on the stair tower
of the south elevation, just below the gable end.
The amount of signage proposed is consistent with what would be allowed within a t3-1 (Restricted Commercial) zoning
district. Staff would like to note that the proposed free standing sign will need to be reviewed further to assure that placement
of the sign will not be within a sight triangle and that the pedestals will not adversely impact views for drivers.
Landscaping:
A revised landscaping plan was also submitted (sheet # L1.1). The Plan was revised to identify exiting vegetation, specify
plant materials appropriate for tight spaces and include typical sections of the bufferyard areas. The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended that the wood fence proposed by the applicant be changed to a fence made of permanent
materials similar to those used on the building. At this time, the applicant has not accommodated amendments to the fence
and feels that the wood fence proposed should be adequate.
The revised landscaping plan appears to identify plant materials appropriate for tight spaces but needs to be corrected to add
understory trees within the bufferyard located on the north side of the new hotel building.
Lighting:
A revised lighting plan (sheet # SA1.2) was provided that shows foot candles at the property line which comply with the
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The revised lighting plan appears to meet recommended
condition number five.
Please refer to the enclosed materials submitted by the applicant February 14, 2000. These materials include revisions to the
application as summarized above and also include responses to the conditions recommended by the Rochester Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Council Action Needed:
If the Council wishes to proceed, the Council should adopt a resolution, with findings and conditions,
approving the project. Action by the Council should address the amendments to the application dated
received February 14, 2000.
The Council will also need to take action to either approve or deny the add -on option for a covered or
enclosed walkway connection to the Canadian Honker, if found feasible.
Lastly, the Council will need to specify features which are to be included in the Development Agreement,
which cannot change without subsequent review by the Commission or Council.
��� �•�p� rw xvcraxw � 3'Jtld 3l1LL '.. to 1R
Q� 53Lf1S 3'JOItlflAtl1S
'4em � -3
9 43-0 ADend-a—
m
D
U)
0
Z
Z
s
a
w
F-
U)
w
x
U
O
w
cn
w
w
1
a
I
� C� � Gr tCiNG ANG � FAWN
5'4vBR� SUITE � 0 � -r j`� �
(� _n klN P.q._ B• J i.
�i.��u��,�a,, _
•
r
i �•
• "OE •ux,xc
I $
1 MSIgY CU,tDinG \ � -ter—'Y p I
I I
I
i
(7 °TAYBRIDGE �SU] 1
r ? UTILITY er am• ..... �I-2•`s�i•- ��
PLAN _vr nx•x.
�/ I
WRH SCHEMATIC i . . II STAYBRIDGE SURFS ,,.._
J 9Y WlIMYHN
LOWER LEVEL PLAN
„ UTILRY EASEMENT I - ,,��„ "••••• .__.I
i!
9 D {'{ ' I� I I STA`lBRIDGE SUfTES _
Ni FlRST FIOOR PLAN mx�u�wrxx i..r.r���..»�� �i �.__. I �, e v�..�
_--_ �..
0
MEW
b
m Ml B B B (] B 8
A : o
Nunn
rr
m �
�.r
t'
r
�i
Nawwr
A8
f
A A B B IN
k
m �m NIUIN
_ •1 m
� m
e�
_� Nm
i
I STAIBRIDGE SLIMES
D 2NDAN03RDFLOOR i� _ p •••'•`
PLANS V
A- B A A n A
m � n
� m
� 61 61 BI
m p B A A B A
Mm vvv
m d
�m
n
N
4
b
STAYBRIDGE SURES
A1 OTH PLANSDROOFmxx =aw—O ;,;�.•
pr;; jus III ,= limp
11,90 INUN
I'm
i
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
J
I' ', STAYBRxannrrxU� 5e--
9 , �
-751,T-
Exterior Finishes
StayBridge Hotel, Rochester, MN
The exterior walls of the hotel will have five types of finishes. It will have brick, EIFS
dark, EIFS light, grooved ENS and trim. The decision was to go with brick instead of the
stone because of the surrounding buildings. Across Second Street is. St. Mary's Hospital,
which has a traditional use of brick on a large scale, and next to the hotel is the Canadian
Honker restaurant, which uses brick along with other storefronts on Second Street. Brick
will be located at the lower two levels at gables. Brick will also be located at the entrance
,gable.and the. court gable upper two floors and around the. poolroom for the first two
levels. Third level will be the dark EIFS and the fourth level will be the light EIFS. The
remaining gables on third and fourth levels will be grooved EIFS with the dark coloring.
All trim will be an off white. The roof will have asphalt shingles that will have a dark
neutral coloring. The color palette is a gray brown with a range toward red.
RESOLUTION
&ACOA4 r NA Rjr /RAN,
WHEREAS, Fiksdal Motel of Rochester, LLC, applied fcr a Type III, Phase Il, Restricted
Development Preliminary Plan, Amendment to PUD B-90 Fiksdal Motel and variances to allow
for the development of a new four story hotel facility and associated parking that would be
located within the existing PUD district for the Fiksdal Motel and would extend north into the R-3
(Medium Density Residential) district. The new hotel would be located between Second Street
S.W., and First Street S.W., west of 12" Avenue S.W., and the Canadian Honker and both east
and north of the existing Fiksdal Motel; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §§ 62.708 (Criteria for Type III Developments) and 62.712 provide
the relevant criteria for the review of this restricted development application; and,
WHEREAS, on February 10, 1999, the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission held
a public hearing on said restricted development preliminary plan, reviewed the application
according to the requirements of R.C.O. §§ 62.708 and 62.712, and recommended approval,
based upon the following conditions:
1. Access and circulation issues affecting the adjacent restaurant, resulting from this
proposed project, be resolved prior to`the final plan submittal. If modifications to
adjacent property are included in the final proposal, the boundaries of the application
will need to be extended and any other affected property owner must also sign
application.
2. The alley behind the existing Fiksdal Motel shall be modified to prevent east -bound
alley traffic from utilizing access to 2n° Street SW.
3. The applicant agrees to dedicate a subsurface utility easement to accommodate
sewer, cable and telephone utilities already within the alley and that costs associated
with relocating or modifying utilities as a result of the project will be the responsibility of
the applicant.
4. The final plan must include detailed landscaping and bufferyard plans must provide for
screening the adjacent residential properties from the parking lot and vehicle
headlights.
5. The applicant examine the possibility of providing a waiting area near the tunnel
access, which may include pedestrian benches and identify such an area on the final
plan if determined feasible. The applicant shall also address the issue of the bus stop
location.
6. The applicant coordinate with the Fire Department to address access and turning
radius needs for fire vehicles and to determine hydrant locations.
1 PR9UM►NARy PLAW
7 The applicant provide a minimum of 80% (109 spaces) of the required parking for
guests and construct all 126 spaces shown on the preliminary plan. The excess 17
spaces shall remain available to be designated for use by hotel guests in the future if
deemed necessary.
8. The issue of the common driveway on 151 Street SW be addressed and resolved prior
to the final plan submittal.
9. The applicant demonstrate that truck traffic can be adequately accommodated in the
alley and ingress and egress of the alley.
WHEREAS, the Common Council held a public hearing on the restricted development
preliminary plan request on March 15, 1999, and permitted all interested persons to be heard;
and,
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, the applicant's representative agreed with the above
conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the Council amended Condition No. 8 so that it reads as follows:
The issue of the common driveway on First Street S.W., be addressed and
resolved prior to the final plan submittal, and the issue of parking for the adjacent
property owned by Ruth Dolan shall be resolved by mutual agreement.
WHEREAS, the Common Council determined that the applicant satisfied the conditions of
Sections 62.708 and 62.712 by a preponderance of the evidence submitted at the public hearing
subject to the nine conditions as amended and identified above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester
that the Type III, Phase ll, Restricted Development Preliminary Plan, Amendment to the Fiksdal
PUD B-90, and variances is granted subject to the above nine conditions, as amended.
2 8ft7L1 1NARY P!AA1
Memo
To: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department
From: Randy S. Johnson Rr
Date: Thursday, December 23, 1999
Re: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan #98-6, amendment to PUD B-90 Fiksdal
Motel.
The above referenced plan indicates new construction that is regulated under the Building Code and
would require permits. Complete plans and specifications are required to be submitted for a building
permit prior to construction.
The drawings submitted for preliminary review appear to have a couple of items that need to be verified
and/or corrected, if needed. They are as follows:
- The site plan does not appear to indicate the existing accessible parking spaces that are currently
required in the parking lot just to the north of the Canadian Honker.
- The new proposed building will be located so as to create the potential for snow drifting on the
existing Canadian Honker building. Prior to issue of a building permit, the existing roof structure of
the Canadian Honker will need to be verified for the ability to support any required snow drift loads.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you
• Page 1
uu uoiuu 11:sr VAS 280 4721 ROCH FIRE DEPT
ROCHESTER
h 1°'�
VZ -A4zledeta,
DATE: January 5, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning
From: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
[it 02
e�DOCX[fTCl.y��Nttp
tATt D.Ati GUST•[•,
DAVID A KAPLER, chef
Radutla F" 0"sAn ed
201 4th Street SE, Roan 10
Rochester, MN 5580"728
(507) 2BS4072
FAX 0(507) 285.8258
Subj: Type III, Phase ill, Restricted Development Final Plan #9", Staybridge Suites,
located adjacent to the Fiksdal Motel and west of the Canadian Honker
restaurant, between 2nd Street SW and 1ft Street SW and east of 1 e Ave. SW
This project will add 50,572 square feet of residential units in a four story structure to
the response area of the Rochester Fire Department. With that regard, the fire
department has the following requirements as noted below and in the fire department
letter from Vance Swisher dated November 30, 1999 to Advance Architect Group:
1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants
properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water
Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction.
The existing hydrant spacing along 10 Street SW and 2n° Street SW appears to be
adequate to supply fire protection for this building.
2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance
with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual including approved cul-de-sac dimensions and street widths. All fire
department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building
construction.
The turn around at the front entrance off of 2'b Street SW, is necessary for fire
department access and as such must be posted no panting fire lane. Normal hotel
guest drop-off, pick-up is acceptable usage of this area, but no permanent parking
can be allowed if constructed as drawn.
3. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the
building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the
Property.
c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division
McGhie & Betts, 1648 3f° Avenue SE, Rochester, Mn. 55904
Attachments
ULIUDIUV Lim d! r.A LDU 4IL1
Avon rinn ucrL
w yr
J
ROCHESTER
�1.�!-rA`P-dOtfl
November 30, 1999
Cary
Advance Architectural Croup
2727 2e Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55406
Re: Staybridge Hotel
1200 BDc of god Street SW CMBIN 31 927
Dear Cary;
After reviewing the plan and conducting a site visit, the foilowmg area noted:
aaeYLLTIl.Mrryh
alArla.AYallLt•y'
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rar wwW Flee Depwirr nt
2D1 4th Street SE, Rosh 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(W7)295-W72
FAX #(507) 2854256
No additional on site fie hydrant will be required for this project Currently thcre are thme hydrants
located on god Street SW between 12" Ave SW and 13Ave SW, a hydrant located an the corner of 12* Ave
SW and 14 Street SW, and a hydrant located on the corner of 136 Ave SW and 1'° Street SW. These egg
hydrants will provide the mquimd hydrant spacing for this project.
The turning radius of the cul-de-mc looks acceptable. A Fite Use will be required to be designated on the
outside of the cui-do-sac while parking will be allowed on the inside of the cul-de-wc. This fire lnne will
ensure that &c department vehicles will be able to access the building at all times.
The issuance of this letter sbaB not be construed as a waiver of, p®it for, or an approval of, any violations
of the provisions of the rules and regulation$ enforced by this office. If you have any questions concerning
the contmis of this letter, they may be directed to this office at (507) 297-1589,
Sincerely,
.'4t"�
R. Vance Swisher
Finn Protection Specialist
assf-dop' fmrbw
kOCHESTER
12/28/99
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4tb 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 a Restricted
Development Final Plan 98-6 on the Fiksdal Motel Property. The following are the
Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. The condition of curb and sidewalk will be reviewed by Public Works staff prior
to construction, any panels/sections needing repair, or damaged during project
construction shall be replaced concurrent with the hotel project at the owner's
expense.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines
the obligations of the applicant relating to, but are not limited to, storm water
management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, and
contributions for public infrastructure.
3. The information submitted for this application shows that general drainage and
utilities appear to be adequate. However specific grading and construction plan
review and approval is required by Public Works prior to any on -site construction
activities commencing.
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property:
• Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) = $1605.50 per developable acre x approx. 1.50
acres = $2,408.25
• Water Availability Charge (WAC) = $1605.50 per developable acre x approx. 1.50
acres = $2,408.25
• Charges Associated with J9330 (Reconstruction of 151 St SW based on development
encompassing Lots 1 through Lot 6) = $7,481.66 principal + Interest from the date
the assessment is levied.
• Storm Water Management is calculated with abase rate of $1983.50 per acre, and is
increased based on the land use, as well as, the percent and area of impervious surface
associated with the project.
l
\\CITY_OF_ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PUBW ORKS\COMMOMROW\Planning\Plan99\ResDevB606Fnal.doc
rpu . --
we pledge, we delivee
December 23, 1999
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III, Phase III, Restricted Development Final Plan, Amendment to PUD B-90 Fiksdal
Motel to allow for the development of a new 4 story hotel facility and associated parking that would be
located within the existing PUD district for the Fiksdal Motel and would extend north into the R-3
district. The new hotel would be both north and east of the existing Fiksdal Motel.
Dear Ms. LaPalm:
Our review of the referenced Restricted Development Request is complete and our comments follow:
1. All the old water services that may exist to this property to either 12`h Ave. SW or 2"" St. SW will
need to be abandoned properly at the water main as part of this project and should be shown as such.
All the old water services to I" St. SW were abandoned by not being reconnected to the new water
main installed as a part of the City Public Works Department's 1999 street reconstruction project.
2. If additional on -site fire hydrant(s) are required by the Fire Prevention Bureau, water mains
connecting to and including any fire hydrant are considered public and need to be within a 20'
minimum public utility easement. The owner is required to enter into a City Owner Contract with the
City of Rochester for the installation of the public water main. Contact the Land Development
Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department for details. Final water main construction
plans will need to be prepared by a civil engineer and conform to standard City of Rochester
requirements.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours, I
"mA RLL
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Mike Glenzinski, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Advanced Architectural Group, Inc.
Fiksdal Motel of Rochester. LLC
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
rpu
507/280-1579
December 21, 1999
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
SUBJECT: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan 498-6, amendment to PUD
B-90 Fiksdal Motel to allow for the development of a new four story hotel facility
and associated parking that would be located within the existing PUD District for
the Fiksdal Motel and which would also extend into the R-3 zoning district. The
new hotel is proposed to be located between 2"d Street SW and 1st Street SW, west
of 121" Avenue SW, abutting the existing Fiksdal Hotel and the Canadian Honker
Restaurant.
RPU has a 13,800 volt aerial distribution line located in this alley. All costs associated with the
relocation of this line will have to be reimbursed by the developer.
Sincerely,
'-�2 9c4 ate a kr-b Q —
Michael J. Engle
ks
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813
telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542
LaPalm Suzanne
From: Stannard Connie
L VAsS -d ec, }�2ci��h 7Zpf
Sent:
Wednesday, December 22, 1999 4:18 PM
To:
LaPalm Suzanne
Cc:
Peter Rich; Giesen Pete
Subject:
Fiksdal Motel Plan 498-6
I received your notice to comment on the new Staybridge Suites by Holiday Inn on 2nd St. SW.
recommend the applicant review the hotel sleeping room size requirements in the state health
and safety code to be sure they can provide the number and size of sleeping rooms they want
within the space provided. Before construction begins we need to review and approve detailed
plans for the hotel including the proposed foodservice area; and the state health department
needs to review and approve detailed pool plans. Thank you, Connie Stannard, R.S.
8:24AM:rocneser engrng
:5072853559 a, 1i. 1
ROt,riESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE
ROCHESTER, MN 55904
FAX (SOT)287-2275
Date: Decemoer 17, 1999
To: Agencies Indicated Below
From: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department
Subject: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan #98-6, amendment to PUD B-90
Flksdal Motel to allow for the development of a new four story hotel facility and
associated parking that would be located within the existing PUD District for the
Fikadal Motel and which would also extend Into the R-3 Zoning District. The new hotel
Is proposed to be located between 2nd St. SW and I" St. SW, west of 12d Ave. SW,
abutting the existing Fiksdal Hotel and the Canadian Honker Restaurant.
This application Is scheduled for ccnsiderabon by the City Planning and Zoning Commission on January 12, 2000,. in
the Council Board Chambers of the Government Center,1514 h Street BE. In order for the Planning Department to
prepare a thorough review of this application, we would appreciate receiving your comments by December 30,
1999. You may also appear at the meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
If you have comments, In addition to forwarding them to the Planning Departman4 please send a copy to:
Rksdal Motel of Rochester LLC Advanced Architectural Group, Inc.
1215 2"d Street SW 2727 2e Avenue South
Rochester MN 55902 Minneapolis MN 55406
507-288-2671 612-724-5557
CltvAgencies CountvAaeneies OtherAgenclas
1. Public Works 14. Health Department 17. School Board
Richard Freese Filch Peter Earlene Wickre
2. Fire Department
Lyle Felach
3. Crime Prevention
Robert Miller, Gov.Center
4. RPU Operations Division
Mike Engle
5. RPL Water Division
Donn Richardson
6. Park & Recreation
Denny Stolz
7. Building Safety
Don Weas
B. City Attorney
Dave Gosise
9. Downtown Day. Dist
Doug Knott
10. City Administration
Terry Spaeth
11. Jerry Dooley
Neighborhood Organizer
12. Transportation Planner
13. John Harford, Planning Dept
15. Public Works 1 S. Peoples Natural Gas
16. GIS Division Paul Curry
t�i 'VE-►'Z ttiann
wiq a (d H* a v-- ib P¢ y 20. Bresnan
Communications
1! % b e-a ft o k G d b7`5 21. MN DOT
Dale Maul
i� U S Gt�G b 22. Post Office
�at✓ i /i y` r �S a ) 21Pl/9 9 Supervisor
23. MN DNR
Jam, Jim Cooper
v 24. SWCO
25. Peoples Coop
Rick Wellik
NOTE: CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY ENGINEER: PLEASE INDICATE IF THE
STREET IDENTIFICATION 1S CORRECT IF THE ATTACHED 13 A PLAT.
ADVANCE ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.
2727 26 TH. AVE. S.
WLS. MN. 55406
612-724-5557
December 15, 1999
Ms. Mitzi Baker
Planner
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Planning Criteria for Proposed Staybridge Hotel on 2°d St.
Dear Ms. Baker:
Subsequent to the Preliminary Approval, the developer has made changes to the Proposed
Development to comply with the Conditions to the Approval. The attached Criteria for
Development include the revision of our previous description of how the Proposed Development
will meet the listed Criteria for Type III Developments. This reflects the changes we have made in
the design of the building and the site plan.
In regard to the Resolution passed by the Council included several conditions. I have attached a
narrative describing the response to each condition in the design or the action being taken by the
Developer.
The shadow study and the legal description of the properties to be included in the Development
Agreement shall be found attached to the back of this submittal
If you need clarification or additional information, please contact me
Respectfully;
Daniel S. Brewer
Architect
cc Kurt Smith
0W
DES CI5FA
Criteria for Type III Developments
a) Capacity of Public Facilities:
It is anticipated the Proposed Hotel will not be an added attraction. It is only providing housing
for those who are already using Mayo Clinics or other Area Facilities.
b) Geologic Hazards:
There are not any Such hazards.
c) Natural Features:
There is no existing vegetation. However, it is the intent of the Developer and the requirement
of Holiday Inn to provide highly landscaped settings for this new Hotel. The design of the
landscaping is schematically delineated in this submittal. The slopes will generally remain the
same
d) Residential Traffic Impact:
Traffic shall be diverted from running east -west from the alley between 12d' and 13a' Avenues
to running between 13d' Ave to 1" Street mid block. 1" Street is upgraded for one or two-way
traffic with parking and will handle the additional traffic from the new Hotel. Delivery trucks
for the existing stores and restaurants will use 13d' Ave. and exit onto 1" Street or they will use
I Ave. and then continue on 13d' Ave.
e) Traffic Generation
The number of curb cuts presently on the 1" Street are reduced from what they were. Traffic
access to the site will be via 1" and 2od Streets and 130'Ave. Egress is shared by these same
streets.
Height Impacts:
The shadow cast by the new Hotel will not impact the residential buildings across the street
except for approximately a one month period both before and after December 21 and not for
more than four hours during that same period of the year.
The vistas for the residential neighbors north of 1" Street is to the South and is primarily the
back side of the commercial business along 2°d Street and some of St. Mary's Hospital beyond
that. The new Hotel will block some of this view. However, the new Hotel will improve the
character of the existing view by covering up the backside of the existing commercial buildings
with landscaping. It also will restore some of the residential character of the architecture that
was on these street. It is the Developer's belief that this improves the character of the existing
vistas to the adjacent residential area. The plaza performs a similar relief to the commercial
strip also.
Please refer to the attached Shadow Study for the North Wing of the Hotel.
g) Setbacks:
The setback for the business along 2°d Street is 0-lot line. The majority of the setbacks along 1"
Street is about 15 feet. There is one apartment building at the comer of 13`s Ave. and 1" Street
that is 0 to 5 feet from the lot line. The developers have proposed a setback of 5 feet with
2
9
landscaping. This lines up with the screening for the parking lots, with the parking east and
west of the proposed building, it is isolated spatially with openness around it. The scale of this
openness will mitigate the setback of the building from 1st Street.
Another consideration, the Developer proposes to provide underground parking for more than
half of its guests. This further aids in reducing the visual impact on the residential character of
the neighborhood.
A third consideration of this design is the ability to set the building back from 2"" Street to
create a plaza and provide a visual relief to the massing of the existing commercial strip up
against this Street.
h) Internal Site Design:
The design of the front of the building is set back from the Street to create a small public
accessible plaza. This will permit light and views to continue to be available to the Fiksdal
Hotel. There will be landscaping around all parking and around the base of the building. There
will also be adequate parking for trucks using the alley access to the existing businesses along
the alley.
i) Screening and Buffering:
The Developer intends to develop screening of the parking lot and the alley from the residential
areas via a privacy fence that is softened by landscape features. This will be designed to
conform to the schedule E for Buffer Yards except for the width of 5 feet instead of 10 feet.
The buffering shall be provided by this landscaping and the open area of parking on both sides
of the building as mentioned above.
Trash and other functions shall be blocked from view by being located in the building. In
addition to hiding the trash for the Hotel, the Developer is hiding the trash for Canadian Honker
Restaurant in its building also.
The activity of traffic coming and going from the building by both pedestrians and vehicles is
concentrated either in front of the Hotel on 2m Street or in the underground parking. Due to the
nature of extended stay hotels, this traffic is greatly reduced to that of shuttles and pedestrians.
It is the desire of the Hotel Developer to build a tunnel in concert with the Mayo Clinic. Many
people coming and going from the Fiksdal, the new Hotel, and the Canadian Honker will then
use the tunnel system connected to St. Mary's Hospital. This will further reduce the need to
drive to and from the Hospital by the guests of all three businesses.
j) Ordinance Requirements:
Combined parking for the Fiksdal and the new Hotel will provide 126 spaces. The combined
room count is planned at 136 rooms. This is a 92% ratio of parking to rooms. However, the
current parking demand by guest of the Fiksdal Hotel ranges from the 50's to 80% of
occupancy. This is due to the quests of the "targeted market" using this and the new Hotel by
medical patients and their families. Many guests arrive by means other than driving their own
car. This has been studied and recorded by the Fiksdal Hotel for two years and is addressed by
the Developer separately.
/
Loading by guest will continue under the Fiksdal Hotel. Loading for the new Hotel will occur
in front facing 2"d Street or in the underground. Deliveries to both Hotels will continue via the
driveway or the screened parking lot, or in the underground parking area.
The parking lot for the Canadian Honker is shown with a redesigned parking pattern that works
well for the new Hotel to have a Courtyard developed behind the Lobby and separating the
parking from the Hotel. It will accommodate 37 spaces. There is a development agreement that
addresses cross easements and access between the Hotel and the Canadian Honker. Therefor,
there will be additional parking available to the Restaurant if needed.
The submitted site plan indicates a site area of over 51,000 square feet. This includes the
abandoned alley right-o-way. This is reflected in the site plan. All site and building data are
included on the Site Plan.
Landscaping shall be provided in the plaza area and around the new building, the rear
courtyard, and the parking areas. The areas that can and will be landscaped add up to
approximately 7,500 square feet including the plaza area and part of the proposed vacated alley.
The proposed ratio of landscaped, green space to the total area is approximately 17%. It is also
the intent of the Developer to provide additional over and understory trees along the new 1"
Street boulevard.
k) General Compatibility:
The relationship of the proposed Hotel Development to the surrounding existing elements will
be compatible in the following ways:
The massing of the new hotel will be similar but lower in height than the existing Fiksdal Hotel.
The new Hotel design will reflect the residential character in the style of its facade and roofing
forms. This will soften the contrast between the commercial design elements of the business on
2"d Street and the residential character to the North on 1" Street. With open spaces on both sides
of the new hotel, there will be more views available to the residential area adjacent to the hotel
compared to the previous row of houses that formerly occupied the site.
The base of the new hotel building is 62 feet wide to accommodate the underground parking
with the framing above at 50 to 58 feet. This does several things.
It reduces the surface parking.
It hides trash and some of the services of the new hotel.
It hides loading, and most of the activity of people coming and going to their cars.
It provides a terraced, backdrop for landscaping the base of the building on the east, north,
and west sides of the building. Some of the landscaping will also be placed on this terrace.
This will soften the base of the new Hotel building more than if this area was only on the
same level as the parking and therefore hidden by cars.
The northern wing of the new Hotel will vary from 50 to 58 feet in width. This will articulate
the shape of the building facade. This will add to its residential scale and character.
4
Response to Resolution Conditions
Access to the restaurant remains unchanged from the existing conditions with the
exception of the trash, delivery and curb cuts:
Presently the trash is picked up in the delivery area and the parking lot. The delivery area
will continue to provide some access for trash with the trash being stored in the new trash
room located in the Hotel with its own access directly from the delivery area of the
restaurant. This now cleans up the site of trash from the street and residential views.
The two curb cuts will now be consolidated with the new parking lot design. (please see
the site plan)
Access to the restaurant remains as is presently except that the trash is now cleaned up and
the parking lot is organized and landscaped.
2. The alley shall be posted as one-way from east to west.
There is a Development Agreement drafted between the City and the affected Parties. The
present location of utilities in the alley need to be rerouted to avoid foundation conflicts for
the new structure. Included in the site plan is a suggested site plan delineating the proposed
relocation. This is also discussed and further described in the Development Agreement.
4. The landscape plan locates the placement of trees in general and specifies that it meet the
criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. The actual species selections and detailed placement shall
be submitted for review and approval as to its conformity to the Ordinance at the time of
application for building permit. This shall be completed by the Architect.
The bus stop is proposed to be located at the island of the driveway. (please see the site
plan) The location of the tunnel is not included at this time. Its location will be determined
under a separate application and may be located in the island of the driveway or between
the new Hotel and the Canadian Honker or elsewhere.
6. The site plan has been reviewed with the Fire Department.
Parking shall be provided for 126 cars. There is also space for one to two trucks to park off
of the new alley right-of-way to allow better accessibility and use of the alley.
The issue of the common driveway on 1" Street is addressed separately by the Developer.
9. The truck traffic for the alley now has adequate space for parking at the same time
allowing passthrough of other vehicles. This is not possible with the current alley.
q.yvAM MW-4.{ LI +,esn 3taoP.r�
� "• L) I br. sTAeer-
2No. 5TA=r
EK.f11Btr' �Pa"
I
A
t st ST SW
I%E l ET,
LuI
'1 N �1 1! ,• 11 IS Al qe
2nd ST SW
ST. MARY'S
i
317-E 10C.47-10n!
q0 ADVANCE ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.
2727 261h AVE. SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS. MNNESOTA. 55406
612-724-5557 Fax:612-724-5510
February 11, 2000
Ms. Mitzi Baker
Planner
Rochester -Olmstead Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FEB 14 i0011
RE: Request for change to the application: _
Staybridge Hotel, Rochester, MN
Dear Ms. Baker:
This letter is a request to change 2 signage items from the original application submittal.
1. Request that the pylon sign be reduced in sue from 50 square feet to 34 square feet in
size and placed atop an arched brick pedestal with a 6'-0" clearance beneath the arch
to reduce the obstruction of vision.
2. That an additional wall sign for 26 square feet be placed on the stair tower of the
south elevation (2nd Street SW) just below the gable end.
Respectfully submitted,
Cary Kiel I
Advanc Architectural Group
z
0
I
h--I
n
W
C4
n
0
ry
n
W
LD
z
a
z
C�
z
v;
FEB 1 4 2000
11
m
suss. suss. gg�
s
no—son suss.
nr
FAAsugar/
gau
suss. _ ......� , .::...:.
ozone
of
suss. 1 suss. Ilk
MR:
a
VANCE
2727 26n AVE. SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA. 55406
612-724-5557 Fax:612-724-5510
February 10, 2000
Ms. Mitzi Baker
Planner
Rochester -Olmstead Planning Department
2122 campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN. 55904
RE: STAYBRIDGE HOLIDAY INN RESPONSE TO C.U.D.E.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FRON
A separate landscape plan has been drawn to more fully communicate the design
intent of the Project. Also, clarifications of specific types are included. Ground
cover is to be mulch over landscape cloth. This was chosen in consideration of
the relatively small widths of the buffer yards and ease in maintaining a well-
grounded appearance around the planting and next to the fence.
2. Special attention had been paid to parking considerations and city requirements
for the number of spaces required. Extra attention has also been given to drop off
and pick-up scenarios. In addition, the Hotels offer a continuous shuttle service
for Hotel patrons. In the future, there will also be a tunnel system connecting the
Hotel(s) to St. Mary's Hospital, which will further decrease the frequency to
automobile trips. We believe that we have fine-tuned this design within the
parameters imposed on this site. This being said, we do agree that wider stall
spacing would be beneficial to patrons. This could easily be accomplished by the
City requiring fewer total spaces for this Project (4 to 6 spaces).
3, We concur.
4. All snow will be removed from the site. This had been the practice of the Fiksdal
Hotel, and will be the practice of the Staybridge Hotel as well. Falling snow on
the West Side of the Hotel would fall on the area wall between the Hotel and the
parking deck, not on the parking stalls under normal circumstances. In regards to
the Canadian Honker Restaurant, further design considerations are being
addressed in the Development Agreement being formulated between the Hotel,
the Canadian Honker Restaurant and the City of Rochester.
i
In regards to the Canadian Honker Restaurant, further design considerations are
being addressed in the Development Agreement being formulated between the
Hotel, the Canadian Honker and the City of Rochester.
b. We have designed several connection scenarios to the proposed 'Pedestrian
Subway " from the Fiksdal and Staybridge Hotels. However, since so many of
the actual details of how this system might work were not spelled out, it became
necessary to leave specific details off the submittal as we are required to strictly
follow any plans submitted.
We believe we have made the appropriate choice in the matter of fence design for
the following reasons;
a. The Hotel finds itself bounded by single family residences. It is
our endeavor to buffer this ridge with softer elements of more
residential character, thus the wood "Picket" fence design is
employed.
b. With both the quality requirements of the Holiday Inn Staybridge
Franchise and the scrutiny of the City, The Hotel is very motivated
to the keep up and appearance of its facility and grounds.
C. The Hotel has a well -budgeted and adequately scheduled
maintenance program to provide for ongoing upkeep.
d. The "slim" design of the fence leaves more space in a very tight
buffer configuration.
e. Vandalism and graffiti are easily repaired without special budgets
and/or possible delays.
8. We agree that 3-dimentional renderings would be helpful.
Respectfully submitted;
q
&COMMITTEC on uRaan enviRonmenT
TO:
Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
Rochester City Council
FROM:
Urban Design Subcommittee
CC:
Committee on Urban Design and Environment
DATE:
January 26, 2006
RE:
Staybridge Suites by Holiday Inn
The Rochester Committee on Urban Design and Environment (CUDE) has been in the process of
creating a number of subcommittees that will enable CUDE to respond in a more timely fashion to
many issues that face our city. The Urban Design subcommittee was formed to look at technical
aspects of development projects requiring interfaces, concessions, and financial support of the
public. Typically, this would involve restricted developments, incentive developments, and projects
involving public moneys or historic buildings.
This five -person subcommittee received copies of the Staybridge Suites by Holiday Inn CPZC
packet on Thursday, January 20, 2000 and was requested to formulate feedback in time for the
January W CPZC meeting. At our January 20 meeting, we examined the project and
respectfully submit the following comments. Recognizing that we are coming into this project part
way through the process, the subcommittee would be amenable to communicating our comments
directly to the developer as well as reviewing any future plan revisions.
1) A more thorough landscaping plan should be submitted. The plantings shown were not to
scale, nor were their sizes specified. The Red Osier Dogwood, for example, cannot be
planted by the sidewalk as shown because it will encroach upon the sidewalk through its
lifecycle. The Pfitzer Juniper is an obsolete species and should be substituted with another
variety. In addition, the note "sod, groundcover or landscape material" does not clearly define
the intentions of the developer, particularly in this instance where planning and zoning
concessions have been made with respect to aesthetic treatments, sunlight, sight lines, and
setbacks.
2) Parking seems to be problematic at this site. While the parking standards of the Land
Development Manual are being met, the unique characteristics of this site and the potential
clientele may hamper its efficiency. For instance, while the typical long-term parking space is
8'4", many of the people staying at this facility will have some type of physical injury or malady
hampering their freedom of movement, making it difficult for them to get in and out of an
automobile, especially when the vehicles are parked close together. In addition, some of the
turn movements appear to be very tight, especially when combined with the slope of the site,
the numerous entries and exits, and the building columns of the existing Fiksdal Hotel. We
believe that the parking design should be fine-tuned to reflect these unique characteristics.
l
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E. ROCHCUCR, MINNE50TA 55904 507 - 285 - 823:
Page 2
Staybridge Suites
January 26, 2000
3) A bus stop has been required at the entrance of the motel. Due to the high volumes of traffic
that accumulate through this corridor, we recommend that the Rochester Public Works
Department verify the adequacy of the bus stop design.
4) On -site snow management should be addressed in greater detail. The site plans were unclear
as to whether there is adequate snow storage on site that does not interfere with the parking
lot design. This can be especially troublesome for extended stay hotels where cars are often
parked for long periods of time, hampering the effectiveness of parking lot plowing. The
roofline details appear to allow the snow and water falling on the easternmost section of the
Staybridge Suites to land squarely on the top of the Canadian Honker Restaurant, potentially
on top of the kitchen equipment. Similarly, on the west side of the rear portion of the
Staybridge, it appears as though snow accumulating in the valley of the roof would fall four
stories and land on top of the handicapped parking stall.
5) The updraft grease hood exhaust fans from the Canadian Honker appear to relatively close to
the proposed Staybridge Suites that could run a grease streak up the side of the Staybridge
building.
6) We understand that a pedestrian subway is being considered for this area and see no
provision for it in these plans. We believe that it would be a wonderful amenity both in terms of
traffic considerations and toward encouraging the business developments on the north side of
Second Street SW. We believe that this is a unique opportunity to plan ahead for the subway.
7) All of the building exterior is treated with permanent material and finishes. The fence detail,
however, indicates that it will be constructed of stained wood. For this highly urban site, a low -
maintenance, durable, permanent treatment similar to the elevations would be appropriate.
8) The Staybridge Suites site comprises more than half the block directly across from St. Mary's
Hospital; this is a very intensely used area in our city. Based on the site plans and elevations
provided, the subcommittee found it very difficult to adequately determine how these new
building elements tie into the existing Fiksdal and Canadian Honker structures as well as the
neighborhood in general. Sample boards of building materials, for example, and a three-
dimensional rendering should be provided to aid in the overall site evaluation by the CPZC
and City Council.
The subcommittee is very respectful of the fact that this type of review is a relatively new venture
for CUDE; we would appreciate any feedback that would allow us to better focus and direct our
efforts. While we have no desire to impose undue hardships toward developers faced with the
economic realities of their projects, by the same token we believe that the public has a vested
interest in the development of their city; as a City -appointed committee, it is our hope that CUDE
can provide valuable assistance to the CPZC and City Council when reviewing these types of
projects.
W /
i
I
ROBERT G. SUK LAW OFFICES, P.A.
Robert G. Suit 'Merchant Exchange Building
Attorney at Law 18 Third Street S.W. - Suite 200
Rochester, MN 55902
January 20, 2000
Mitzi Baker
Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive South East
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Joe and Sandy Powers - Canadian Honker - Staybridge Suites
Dear Mitzi:
(507) 289-8051
(507) 280-4010 fax
suklawC infonet.isl.net
The undersigned is attorney for Joe and Sandy Powers and the Honker Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Canadian Honker and as such in accordance with our telephone conferences and meetings
with the Staybridge group together with their attomey, John Arnold, this letter will set forth
conceptually the agreements that have been reached between the parties as of this date. Based
upon the meetings that have taken place prior to this date and the plans and information provided
to my clients, the following sets forth, as previously indicated, what is conceptually agreed to as
of this date:
If the Staybridge project goes forward, my clients would be agreeable to and
would request vacation of the alley immediately adjacent to their properties.
The exchange of real property between Powers and Staybridge Group would
be agreeable so long as all other agreements are met.
3. Powers/Canadian Honker would be agreeable to the Staybridge Group
totally redoing its parking lot as presently planned at said group's sole
cost and expense with the express understanding that all work be completed
in approximately one week - weather permitting and my clients employees
and patrons being provided with temporary parking on the Staybridge properties.
Also with the understanding that my client would be provided certain agreed
upon permanent parking stalls for employees on the Staybridge parking lot when
completed.
The present plan for sharing trash storage would be agreeable subject to
necessary easements and agreements with respect to cost of trash removal
and with the understanding that Staybridge Group move my clients transformer
from its present location to a spot in close proximity to Staybridge's transformer.
I believe the above sets forth what has been agreed to as of this date with the further
understanding that this is conceptual at this point in time subject to final details being worked out
in writing by and between the parties prior to Council approval.
RGS:jls
cc: John Arnold
`F •xitiNH fF RBI//lt
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285.8232
PUNNING
GIS/ACORESSING/ 5071285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HPA 5071285-8224
DATE: January 21, 2000 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
TO: Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission FAX 507/287-2275
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
RE: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Plan Final Site Plan & PUD
Amendment to construct a new hotel adjacent to the existing Fiksdal
Hotel, between 2nd St. SW and 1" St. SW, west of 12'" Ave. SW.
The applicant is requesting to construct a new hotel facility that would be located
partially within the Fiksdal PUD, partially within the B-1 zoning district with a portion of
the parking facility located within the R-3 district. The Restricted Development review
process and criteria apply to this proposal. In February 1999 the Planning Commission
held a public hearing on the Restricted Development Preliminary Plan for this project,
which was later approved by the Council in March 1999. This application is for the Final
Site Plan. The Planning Commission will need to review this item (not a public hearing)
and make a recommendation to the City Council. This item will then be scheduled for a
public hearing with the City Council.
Planning Department Review
Applicant: Fiksdal Motel of Rochester, LLC
1215 2nd Street SW
Rochester, MN. 55902
Architect: Advance Architectural Group
2727 26" Ave. S.
MPLS, MN 55406
Property Location: 1215 2nd Street SW
Zoning: The existing motel and associate parking area to
the north are zoned PUD (Legally described as
Lots 3-5 and Lot 17, Block 5, Kutzky Addition).
The portion of the PUD lying north of the alley is
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
(bl
proposed for development of the rear portion of
the new hotel including underground and surface
parking. The 3 lots to the east are proposed as
the front portion of the new hotel and are zoned
B-1 (Restricted Commercial), (Legally described
as Lots 18, 19 and part of 20, Block 5, Kutzky
Addition). One additional lot is proposed to be
developed as part of the parking facility and is
zoned R-3 (Mixed Single Family) and is legally
described as Lot 6, Block 5 Kutzky Addition.
Site Size: Approximately 1.17 acres
Referral Agency Comments: 1. Rochester Building Safety (see attached)
2. Rochester Public Works (see attached)
3. US West (see attached)
4. RPU Water Division (see attached)
5. RPU Power Division (see attached)
6. Fire Department (see attached)
7. Olmsted County Health Dept. (see attached)
Background & Summary of Proposal:
A preliminary plan for this project was approved in March 1999 for a 4-story, 83-room
hotel with126 parking spaces (including existing spaces under the Fiksdal), with
bufferyards widths of 5 feet.
The Preliminary Plan approval included approval to waive certain criteria within the
Ordinance including bufferyard setbacks, parking, building height, and floor area ratio.
The Final Plan is generally consistent with the Preliminary Plan approval and the waiver
to meet these criteria.
The site access, building location, parking and setbacks on the Final Plan are very
similar to what was approved with the Preliminary Plan. Bufferyards adjacent to the
parking lot will include a 4' stained wood fence, in addition to the landscaping, to screen
headlights. The fence will not be provided adjacent to the north property line where the
building wall abuts the bufferyard however. The configuration of the lobby/building
entrance and the access road from V St. SW were changed slightly. A future tunnel
connection, included with the Preliminary Plan, was removed from the Final Plan. The
preliminary plan also included two levels of parking below ground. Only one level of
below ground parking is proposed with the Final Plan but an above ground deck is
included and the total number of parking stalls did not change.
At this time the applicant is also asking for approval for an optional add -on to allow a
connection to the Canadian Honker if determined feasible in the future. In addition, a
concept for modifications to the exterior of the existing Fiksdal building is included on the
last page of the plan sheets (along with the optional add -on). The applicant is showing
modifications to the existing Fiksdal for illustrative purposes only and has not made a
commitment to those changes at this time.
W
Criteria:
The following are recommended findings to the applicable Final Site Plan criteria found
in Section 62.708 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land Development Manual:
a) Public Facility Design: Specific utility design and construction plans will need to be
approved prior to construction. This project includes re-routing several utilities. Re-routing
utilities will be at the developer's cost. The developer and City responsibilities and
obligations will be detailed in a development agreement.
b) Geologic Hazard: There are no known geologic hazards related to this development
proposal.
C) Access Effect: An existing access to the Fiksdal hotel, on fd St. SW, will be closed.
Access to the existing hotel'will be via the new "horse shoe"shaped entrance drive. Parking
lot access will be via a one-way drive along the west side of the new building and from I" St.
SW. A new alley right-of-way will be dedicated to the City to provide for through traffic from
the exiting alley to 1s` St. SW Proper signage will be important to inform drivers traveling
east within the exiting alley that they must turn left (north) to 1" St. SW In addition to the
Fiksdal site, access to the Canadian Honker parking lot, delivery and trash storage be
modified.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: Sidewalk is present along 2"d St. SW and 1" St. SW A bus stop is
proposed in front of the building, along 2"d Street.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A detailed landscaping plan has been submitted. it
appears as though landscaping will meet or exceed Ordinance requirements. A 5' bufferyard
will be provided along 1s` St. SW and also along the west side of the new alley. The
bufferyard is proposed to include a 4' high stained wood fence, adjacent to the parking lots, to
screen headlights. The fence will not be provided where the building or parking ramp wall is
adjacent to the bufferyard, however. Absent from the site plan is a fence along the west
property line, west of the new alley. Staff has discussed this with the architect and
recommends that fence be required along within that area as well. A detailed landscaping
plan is included with the application materials. Approximately 17% of the will be maintained
as landscape area.
fi Site Status: The developer will enter into a Development Agreement with the City that
includes the developer's obligations as they relate to infrastructure improvements, in
addition, the agreement will identify additional features of the site, which must be completed
as approved (i.e. landscaping, access, circulation...) as specified by the Council.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The landscaping plan submitted shows a 5' bufferyard,
meeting standard "E", adjacent to the exterior project boundaries for that portion of the site
lying north of the alley. The landscaping plan does include a 4' high stained wood fence and
plantings (consistent with Bufferyard "E' adjacent to the parking areas, which would meet or
exceed Ordinance requirements. A fence will not be provided adjacent to the north property
line where the building or parking deck wall is adjacent to the bufferyard plantings.
h) Finai Eluiiding Design: The final building design is generally consistent with the principles
identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height Impact, Setbacks, and internal
Site Design. The exterior walls of the hotel are proposed to have five types of finishes
including brick, EiFS — dark, light and grooved and EIFS trim. A portion of the building,
adjacent to the Canadian Honker, is prohibited from having openings due to code issues.
The plans propose false windows on that wall, which may either be recessed into the EIFS or
la 3
simply outlined or framed with a different color or material. The north underground parking
area will include real windows and the north wall of the parking deck will include open grills
instead of windows.
Internal Circulation Areas: Off street parking stalls and drive isles appear to meet
Ordinance requirements.. Handicap parking will also need to meet applicable codes. When
the project is constructed, driving lanes and parking lots will need to be striped and signed to
identify one -ways, fire lanes and no -parking areas. Modifications to the existing Fiksdal
access on 20° St. SW will be necessary. The Plans include removal of the access, utilization
of the new "horse shoe" drive and the construction of curb under the existing hotel to prevent
vehicles from utilizing the existing driveway.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The Preliminary Plan was approved with waivers to parking
standards, setbacks, floor area ratio and building height. The Final Plan is consistent with the
Preliminary Plan in those respects. Preliminary Plan approval included a waiver to meet only
80% of the off street parking for the project, to allow for 5' wide bufferyards instead of 10,
and to allow the building to exceed the height and floor area ratio of the underlying zoning
districts.
Recommendation:
This project includes proposals to exchange land with the Canadian Honker and to re-
construct the restaurant's parking lot, and to modify their trash storage area. Staff
received a letter from the Canadian Honker's representative, Robert Suk, which
indicates the owners are generally in agreement with the modifications to their property
that are proposed but that additional details will need to be worked out between them
and the hotel developers.
A description of the proposed building materials is included in the applicant's submittal
information. Although staff is not making any specific recommendations regarding the
exterior of the existing Fiksdal, the Commission may want to discuss this topic to
determine if it is important to the approval of the proposed new hotel. A conceptual plan
to modify the exterior is included in the application materials for illustrative purposes
only. The applicant is neither requesting approval for those modifications nor committing
to them at this time.
A text amendment is currently in process that requires an applicant of a Restricted
Development to enter into a Development Agreement that binds the applicant to
complete certain features of the project as specified by the Council. These may include
landscaping, exterior materials and colors, signage, setbacks, access or other features.
Staff recommends that the Commission discuss the project and make a
recommendation to the Council outlining the project items which should not be
changed without subsequent review by the Commission or Council.
included in the Final Plan application is a request for approval of an optional add -on. At
this time, the hotel developers are exploring the feasibility of constructing a portal or
vestibule connection to the Canadian Honker restaurant. A doorway, adjacent to the
main hotel lobby entrance, would be connected to a future doorway along the west wall
of the Canadian Honker with a covered or enclosed walkway. Since the feasibility of the
connection has not been determined, the applicant would like approval to add it to the
project but does not wish to be bound to completing the connection if is determine not to
(04
be feasible. Staff recommends that the add -on option to provide a covered or
enclosed walkway to the Canadian Honker be approved with the understanding
that it will only be completed if determined feasible by the applicant.
Staff recommends the following conditions/modifications:
1) The applicant shall execution of a Development Agreement with the City of
Rochester that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not
limited to, storm water management, park dedication, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, abandonment of
utilities, re-routing utilities and dedication of easements over the new utilities
and those items specified by the City Council.
2) Approval is contingent upon approval to vacate the alley and also upon an
exchange of land between the Canadian Honker and Fiksdal consistent with
the development proposal.
3) The pylon sign size shall not exceed 50' sq. ft. in area or 25' in height. A 16 sq.
ft. sign, of either applied lettering or embossed into the brick, may be located
on the building, above the driveway along the west side of the building.
4) The 5' wide bufferyard along the west property line, west of the proposed new
alley, shall include the 4' high wood fence.
5) Parking lot lighting shall be revised to comply with standard 'B" in Section
63.213 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
(This is the same standard that applies to parking facilities in the R-3 district.)
6) Specific grading and construction plans shall be reviewed and approve by the
City prior to any on -site construction activities.
7) The "horse shoe" entrance drive shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane".
Parking lots shall be striped and marked with one-way directional arrows
where driving lanes do not accommodate two-way traffic. The entrance drive
from a St. SW to the alley shall be signed "No Parking". Directional signs
and "DO NOT ENTER" signs shall be provided to prevent motorists driving
eastbound in the alley from accessing 2nd St. SW via the hotel one-way access
drive.
NOTE: Minor revisions were made to the building and site plan prior to the Planning
Commission meeting. Since the revisions have not been reviewed by the referral
agencies, additional comments or recommended conditions may be suggested to the
Council if they result in new concerns from referral agencies.
Section 62.708
(6 S
1) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the
requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted.
b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard
have been incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set
aside from development.
c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so
as to:
1) Provide adequate separation from existing street intersections and adjacent
private driveways so that traffic circulation problems in public right-of-ways
are minimized;
2) Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with factors such as
noise from accelerating or idling vehicles or the glare of headlights from
vehicles entering or leaving the site.
In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified potential
problems in the operation of access points, plans for private
improvements or evidence of planned public improvements which will
alleviate the problems have been provided.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians
can move safely both within the site and across the site between properties and
activities within the neighborhood area, and, where appropriate, accommodations
for transit access are provided.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been
prepared which indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape
character of the surrounding area.
f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future
maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the
completion of any platting activities, and the provision of adequate assurance to
guarantee the installation of required public improvements, screening and
landscaping.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design
contains earth forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy
the needs identified in Phase I for the project.
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles
identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height Impact, Setbacks,
and Internal Site Design.
Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and
circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of
design.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the
requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to
signage and other appearance controls, and with general standards such as
traffic visibility and emergency access.
62.712 Modifications: The Council may waive the need to satisfy certain approval
criteria during the Type III review if it finds:
1) The applicant has demonstrated that the plan as submitted adequately
compensates for failing to address the criterion in question.
2) The strict application of any provision would result in exceptional practical
difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such
property, provided the modification may be granted without substantial
detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the
purposes of this ordinance or the policies of the Land Use Plan.
i. Plar.n= ano Lams,_ Cj mission NImucvs
ifeannc Date: January 'b. ''!00
before public h arings. tits. Baker noted that the Commission may take action to continue the
items to the spAcific dates suggested during the discussion of the order of the agenda.
Mr. Burke moved to conti
J0l
n /
Plat #99-48, to be known as Bandel North First
Subdivision, to the February 2000 meeting. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The
motion carried 9-0.
Ms. McGowan asked for /eprointed
ification whether this item is #98-48 or #99-48. Ms. Baker
stated it is #99-48, and s out at another correction to page 15 is that the GDP
should be listed as #145 — Salem Heiqhts.
Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan #98-6. amendment to PUD B-90
1 Fiksdal Motel to allow for the development of a new four story hotel facility and
` associated parking that would be located within the existing PUD District for the Fiksdal
RAM.1 �.A wki,h -I-- .. W....d :..,.. ♦L- C eTLC t-a-f :-
proposea to oe locatea oetween Z' St. SW and 1" St. SW west
{ the existing Fiksdal Hotel and the Canadian Honker Restaurant
Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated January 21, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Baker explained that technical difficulties are being experienced that result in the monitors
and overhead projector not working. She noted that drawings of the proposed plans are
contained in the staff reports that are available.
Ms. Schultze commented about the two memos from the Committee on Urban Design and
Environment (CUDE) that were distributed to the Commission this evening. She stated the two
memos are much in parallel, but contain some differences. She suggested the Commission
members review CUDE's concerns carefully because the CUDE subcommittee felt this was a
very complex site with a lot of the details unresolved.
Ms. Schultze noted that this is the first time CUDE is conducting a review like this and she
apologized about the fact that there are two memos and that they were unable to review this
earlier. She suggested that Sandi Goslee, who is the staff representative on CUDE, be made a
member of the review subcommittee so that the subcommittee can act more expeditiously
when items such as this require review.
Ms. Baker explained that the preliminary plan for this project was approved by the Council in
March and the final plans are very similar, with more detail provided. She pointed out that the
Commission and the Council did approve variances to setbacks, parking, building height, and
�V V t"ay Plannme and Zamne Conumssion Nlinu[es
! ieannc Date: January 26, 2000
floor area ratio, and these plans are consistent with those variances. Ms. Baker noted the
bufferyards adjacent to the parking lot now contain a 4' stained wood fence, except in areas
where the building or the parking structure are adjacent to the bufferyard. She stated the
configuration of the lobby entrance has been changed slightly and the tunnel entrance has been
removed because there are many details on the location to be worked out with multiple property
owners. She commented that the issue of the tunnel is something that may be pursued in the
future as an amendment to the plan. Ms. Baker explained that the preliminary plan showed two
levels of underground parking and the final plan contains only one, but there is now an above-
ground parking deck that will result in the same number of parking spaces. She noted that the
applicant is asking for an optional add -on for a vestibule or portal connection to the Canadian
Honker Restaurant if it is feasible in the future. She referred to page 35 of the packet, which
shows this connection. Ms. Baker pointed out the criteria and staff -suggested findings.
Ms. Baker explained that part of this project includes making modifications to the Canadian
Honker parking lot and a land exchange between the two properties. She stated that a letter
was received from Bob Suk, attorney for the Canadian Honker, and they have expressed
general support of this proposal with some details to be worked out between the two property
owners. She noted that a description of the building materials was included in packet and she
passed around to the Commission a color copy of the final rendering that the applicant
provided. Ms. Baker referred to a proposed text amendment that would require a developer to
enter into a development agreement that binds them to complete certain aspects of the
approved site plan. She stated that staff recommends the Commission make
recommendations to the City Council on what specific items should be included in the
agreement for this plan, such as landscaping, setbacks, parking, or building materials. She
commented that staff recommends approval of the final site plan with seven conditions, along
with approval of the add -on option to provide a covered or enclosed walkway to the Canadian
Honker, if it is determined to be feasible.
Mr. Werven stated that he catches the bus in front of this property and he is concerned about
congestion and safety. He pointed out that at times there are half a dozen vehicles there that
include shuttles, charter buses, and City buses, and he was surprised that Public Works did not
have concerns.
Ms. Baker pointed out that specific location of the bus stop will be reviewed by Public Works
when they get to the point of relocating it. She stated that these concerns will be forwarded to
Tony Knauer who works with the transit issues.
Mr. Werven stated a need for someone from Public Works to actually observe this area
between 4:45 and 6:00 PM on a weekday evening.
Ms. Schultze commented that she saw the bus stop in the middle lane to let passengers off
because there was not a place to pull over. She stated that in light of the concerns Mr. Werven
has expressed, that access to the hotel should generally be from 1" Street, maintaining 2nd
Street as the urban edge with no traffic way. She feels the hotel could easily move the access
to 1" Street and that realignment, for the people of Kutzky Park, would be advantageous in
terms of solar exposure. Ms. Schultze stressed that this is a complex site that requires more
study.
a_e»
t`ay Plannur_ and Zunme Commission Minutes
fleanma Date: January 26. 2000
Mr. Brede asked if there will be requirements retarding the exterior of the existing Fiksdal
Hotel.
Ms. Baker stated that the rendering in the packet is conceptual only and it may be done, but the
applicants have not made a commitment to alter the exterior of the Fiksdal building. She noted
the Commission needs to decide if modifications to the existing Fiksdal building should be
required as part of this review and approval for the new hotel.
Ms. Schultze commented that the CUDE review of this project, based on parking and weaving
through the existing Fiksdal Hotel and the abbreviated alley, is complicated and they suggest
that it needs further study if the Fiksdal building and the traffic patterns stay as it currently
exists.
Ms. Baker suggested that the Commission consider whether it is worth denying the project if the
property owners are not able to make the financial commitment of making modifications to the
existing Fiksdal building.
Mr. Slaver asked if it is even within the Commission's purview to require the modifications to the
existing building.
Ms. Baker explained that because this is a PUD and a Restricted Development combined, the
Planning Commission has some latitude to recommend requirements to the Council on
modifying the existing Fiksdal building.
Ms. Schultze suggested further study if the Commission has concerns. She stated that it is
CUDE's conclusion that this is an intense, highly used area of Rochester and they do not have
enough data to assess how it would operate.
Ms. Baker stated that the information the applicant has submitted with their application is
adequate for a Restricted Development Final Plan. She commented that the Commission
would need to outline specifically what they feel is needed additionally for this site.
Ms. Schultze suggested hearing from the applicant at this time. She pointed out that CUDE
wants to be. very careful in terms of their first review and they recognize they did not come into
this review at the very beginning.
It was the consensus of the Commission to hear from the applicant.
Kurt Smith, President of Fiksdal Motel of Rochester LLC, which is the applicant and developer
of the Staybridge. He noted that these plans submitted tonight are essentially the same as last
spring, with the major change being the ramp alteration. He stated they made a seven figure
reduction in their budget by eliminating one of the underground parking levels. Mr. Smith
explained that the other changes are refinements brought about by securing the Staybridge
franchise. He pointed out that Holiday Inn has gone through several plan reviews and finally
gave their approval today in written form. He explained the Staybridge is a brand new product
with only 14 in existence, and the first in Minnesota will open in Eagan this February. He
commented that the vestibule question was an add -on because they may be getting into a
broad scale approach with the tunnel and Mayo would like to involve the businesses in a three -
block area. He stated that they would like to have a vestibule entrance to the restaurant but
b 'aqe
City Ptamnng and Zomn_ Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: January 26. 2000
because of the uncertainties with the tunnel, they don't want to commit at this time. h1r. Smith
made himself available for questions, and pointed out that the project architect is also present.
Mr. Suk asked if has discussed the issues of the grease vent and the potential for snow
dropping on the roof of the Canadian Honker.
Mr. Smith answered yes, and stated that the Canadian Honker roof has been designed to take
the added snow load. There are no windows above the grease vent, but the architect could
address the issue of a grease stain further.
Daniel Brewer, Advanced Architectural Firm, addressed the Commission. He is the designer of
some of the remodeling of the Fiksdal building and the architect of Staybridge. He stated he is
also working with Canadian Honker. He has read the concerns of CUDE, and is not sure he
understands driveway issue. Regarding the grease stain issue, Mr. Brewer stated he doesn't
know, and that will have to be reviewed. He commented that they will be looking at the exhaust
system of the Canadian Honker after they finalize the Staybridge ventilation system. He
commented that in regard to snow Ieads, the roof of the Canadian Honker is fine. The issue of
snow load over the vents will be studied after the final plans are approved. He noted that the
Canadian Honker's owners have expressed interest in adding a second floor to the restaurant,
but in the interim, it will remain a one-story building.
Mr. Quinn asked about changes in the parking.
Mr. Brewer reviewed the lower parking level and the functions of the remainder of the lower
level of the hotel. He explained that in a previous plan, there was another level of underground
parking that was accessed via the adjacent parking lot, which has been omitted, but a parking
deck was added over the covered parking, making it more efficient and able to accommodate
more parking stalls. Mr. Brewer explained access to the parking area and stated that it is one-
way at the recommendation of City staff. He noted that refinements have been made to
landscaping, lighting, sidewalk details, and the plaza area as requested by City staff. He
explained that they have terminated access under the Fiksdal Hotel to the alley. Mr. Brewer
stated that now a loading area is included that can be used by either hotel. He pointed out that
they have spent a lot of time dealing with the trash for both the Canadian Honker and the
Staybridge, which will now be hidden, and they have also relocated the transformer, re -sloped
the site to deal with stormwater management, and re -landscaped. Mr. Brewer stated it is their
intent to have this parking lot fit into the landscape and architecture of the Staybridge Hotel. He
pointed out there will also be possibility for valet parking in the circular driveway.
Mr. Brede commented that the horseshoe driveway looks tight, but agencies have said it is
acceptable. He asked if there are standards to which must be adhered.
Mr. Brewer pointed out this driveway is not for trucks and a fire truck would not access there,
but would have access to the front and to the rest of the buildings via the other streets and the
alleyway. He noted a truck access for the businesses that were using the alley access has
been provided and the driveway was made wide enough for trucks to turn onto 1" Street. Also,
some parking is designated as "truck parking" only.
Ms. Schultze referred to the solar studies for 1" Street SW and asked if there were any
discussions about building over the Canadian Honker parking lot. She noted that if there was a
liLV Planing and Zonm Commission Nhnn[es
Heanne Date: anuary 26. _000
wing on the east and a wing on the west that were approximately equivalent in length, you
would have more rooms served by an elevator and be able to have it farther off the street from
the north property line. She commented that this is a very complex piece of property in terms of
property ownership and you are weaving through a gerrymandered building to accomplish from
marketing purposes, what Staybridge needs to accomplish. She questioned whether that is
beneficial to the City.
Mr. Brewer stated he is suggesting that it is beneficial to the City.
Ms. Schultze stated that it is not necessarily an advantage to the City in terms of how close
they come to property lines on the north and the houses across the street. She commented
that it is not necessarily the applicants' responsibility, and perhaps the City hasn't given them
guidelines to deal with this very urban situation. Ms. Schultze pointed out that she is not
criticizing the developer or architect, but this is a difficult project given the parameters. She
feels this is gerrymandering and the alley connection is totally illogical.
Mr. Brewer explained that in their approach to this design, they had to take the building almost
to the property line, with it set back enough to have some landscaping. They also had to
consider the narrowness of the site, but there is a fair amount of open space on either side of
this building. He conceded that this is a four-story building that casts a shadow on the street,
but pointed out that it also opens up more views and vistas than the homes that were there
previously, which were almost as high. Mr. Brewer stressed that the hotel design will bring the
residential character back to 1" Street and this will not be a typical urban hotel in terms of
design.
Mr. Werven asked what the advantage is of the horseshoe entrance.
Mr. Brewer explained that it allows patrons to get off the street and see if there is space within
before they try to check in, and it was requested by the City, and he thinks it is a good
approach. He noted that having the ability to get back on the street will allow for better loading
of a van without having to direct it through the site. He pointed out that this design also
develops a plaza, which will be shared by the two hotels.
Ms. Schultze stated that CUDE has questions on the landscaping plan and recommends a
more thorough landscaping plan.
Mr. Suk asked Mr. Brewer if he has any objection to preparing a more thorough landscaping'
plan.
Mr. Brewer stated he has no objection.
Ms. Schultze commented that if they are going to add more canopy trees, they should match
the existing trees. She noted that the plans don't adequately identify the ground cover and
other landscaping materials, pointing out that in a restricted development, landscaping is very
important. Ms. Schultze recommended, as a Commission member, that material boards be
submitted for the exterior of the building so that the Commission, the Council, and groups that
monitor this will have some means to monitor it visually. Ms. Schultze mentioned concerns
about snow loads dropping off of roofs onto a very tight site. She asked what is proposed to
handle the snow loads.
av Plammna ana Zunim-, commission Alinu[es
Hearne Daze: lanuary '6 'Q�)0
Mr. Brewer explained the roof line for the asphait and sloped shingled roof is at an eave that
drops off directly over a deck on top the parKing ramp below so they have no cars immediately
underneath any potential ice or snow dropping.
Ms. Schultze asked what is the distance of the east edge above the Honker parking lot.
Mr. Brewer referred to drawing SA1.1 and explained it will vary from 5' (which is gabled) and
where it is further, the roof above the parking level is the roof of the parking garage. He
explained the 5' landscaping area between the wall and the parking area, and then set back
from the wall is a valley so anything falling off the valley will land on the paved area that is a few
feet above grade, and is on top of the concrete structure and that won't affect anyone.
Ms. Petersson commented that the purpose of this review is to look at the changes from the
preliminary plan, not a point -by -point review. She stated this has gotten off track.
Mr. Sulk thanked Mr. Brewer for his presentation. He suggested reviewing the staff conditions
and then possible additional recommendations based on CUDE's suggestions. The
Commission reviewed staff -recommended conditions and expressed agreement with condition
number 1, and noted that condition number 2 will be addressed next on the agenda. Condition
number 3 is consistent with the ordinance. Regarding condition number 4, Ms. Baker stated
that it was the intent of the condition that the 4' high fence be added to the plan, and she has
discussed that with the architect. It was agreed that condition number 5 simply reflects
compliance with the ordinance. Condition number 6 is a standard requirement.
Regarding condition number 7, Mr. Werven asked if the horseshoe entrance is a change from
the preliminary plans that were approved.
Ms. Baker stated there was there was a similar entrance shown on the preliminary plan, with
the horseshoe shape, although there are also some differences.
It was the consensus of the Commission to agree with condition number 7.
Mr. Suk moved on to reviewing CUDE's concerns, beginning with the memo on CUDE
letterhead. It was agreed that it is appropriate to request a more thorough landscaping plan
delineating new and existing plantings.
Ms. Schultze commented regarding parking that the 8'4" parking spaces may not be adequate
given the number of people with disabilities and limitations getting into and out of vehicles who
may be using these spaces.
Mr. Sulk suggested recommending to the Council that deliberation be given to the unique
characteristics of the parking, along with the size of the spaces and the access. It was agreed
by the Commission that it be recommended that Public Works review the adequacy of the bus
stop design.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the first sentence of number 4 on the CUDE
memo be kept as a recommendation to the Council, "On -site snow management should be
addressed in greater detail."
. ,tv Piannmtz and Zonme �_,)mmtss;on Minutes
!{eanne Date: January -u.''000
It was agreed that a recommendation be made that the crease stain issue be worked out to the
mutual satisfaction of the two landowners.
Ms. Schultze suggested removing recommendation number 6 of CUDE's memo.
It was agreed that a recommendation be made that the fence be constructed of "a low -
maintenance, durable, permanent treatment, similar to the materials shown on the elevations
be provided."
Ms. Baker suggested getting a response from the applicant to that because it may involve
additional costs.
Mr. Suk noted this is something the applicant may want to discuss that with the City Council,
since this is simply a recommendation, not an injunction. The rest of the Commission agreed
Regarding number 8 of CUDE's memo, Ms. Petersson stated she feels the owners have
addressed that in the potential face-lift to the Fiksdal building, but she doesn't think that should
be part of this review.
Ms. Schultze commented that if the area across from St. Mary's is to be well -planned, she feels
the Commission should propose to the Council that better planning be implemented that would
allow developers to do things well, so the next proposal won't be in the same position as this.
Ms. Petersson stated she doesn't want anything the Commission proposes to be a deal -
breaker. She would like to have them consider upgrading the look of the current Fiksdal
building, but insisting on that would not in the best interest.
Ms. Schultze commented that, even as an architect, she found this proposal hard to follow.
She recommended in the future, that three-dimensional studies be presented.
Mr. Sulk agreed that is a good recommendation for future applications that involve such a high
intensity use, with such a complicated plan, and he recommended that be stated to the City
Council.
Ms. Schultze stated that frequently local architects bring material boards to the Council. She
noted it would help this Commission, the Council, and groups that have to implement the plans
if they have sample material boards to consider. She commented that should be requested of
developers in this type of development.
Discussion ensued of whether it should be recommended to the Council that material boards be
provided in this type of development. Ms. Schultze was the only Commission members who felt
they should be required, so the Commission will not make that recommendation.
In reviewing the other memo from CUDE, it was noted that the only major difference was to
number 6, which Ms. Schultze suggested eliminating since this is not an incentive development.
?ate 1
City Plannmiz ana Zoning Commission Minutes
lieanna Date: January 'G. 2000
Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve Restricted Development Final Plan 998.6, by
Fiksdal Motel, with staff -suggested findings and conditions, noting an change to number
4 stating "that a durable, low -maintenance 4' fence be provided, which is consistent with
the structure (materials) of the building proposed." She stated the motion includes the
recommendations of CUDE as discussed. Mr. Brede seconded the motion.
Ms. Baker referred to condition number 4, and noted that only addresses the fence along the
west property line. She stated that the CUOE memo indicates that all fencing that is erected
adjacent to bufferyards be of durable, low maintenance material. She stated this involves two
different things: a) the bufferyard along the west property line needs to include a fence, and b)
all fencing being proposed be of the materials specified.
It was suggested that condition number 4 be reworded.
Mr. Werven went on record stating he will vote against this proposal. He feels the concept is a
good one, but he has significant concerns about the horseshoe driveway and the traffic on 2n0
Street SW.
Ms. Schultze agreed and commented that she feels planning for that area requires more careful
study than what the City has given developers guidelines for.
The motion carried 7.2, with Mr. Werven and Ms. Schultze voting nay.
Conditions:
I. The applicant shall execute a development agreement with the City of Rochester that
outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater
management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities,
contributions for public infrastructure, abandonment of utilities, re-routing utilities
and dedication of easements over the new utilities, and those items specified by the
City Council.
2. Approval is contingent upon approval to vacate the alley and also upon an exchange
of land between the Canadian Honker and Fiksdal consistent with the development
proposal.
3. The pylon sign size shall not exceed 50 square feet in area or 25 feet in height. A 16
square foot sign, of either applied lettering or embossed into the brick, may be
located on the building, above the driveway along the west side of the building.
4. The 5' wide bufferyard along the west property line, west of the proposed new alley,
shall include the 4' high fence. All fencing along bufferyards shall be constructed of
a low -maintenance, durable, permanent treatment similar to the materials and
building elevations proposed.
5. Parking lot lighting shall be revised to comply with standard " B" in Section 63.213 of
the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. (This is the same
standard that applies to parking facilities in the R-3 district.)
':ce iu
-;tv Nam= and Zomt: unv mt n[sston Minutes
Hearing Date: January -G._000
6. Specific grading and construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to any on -site construction activities.
The "horseshoe" entrance drive shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane." Parking lots
shall be striped and marked with one-way directional arrows where driving lanes do
not accommodate two-way traffic. The entrance drive from 2n° Street SW to the alley
shall be signed "No Parking." Directional signs and "DO NOT ENTER" signs shall be
provided to prevent motorists driving eastbound in the alley from accessing 2n0
Street SW via the hotel one-way access drive.
8. A more thorough landscaping plan be provided detailing new and existing plantings,
with the new plantings being consistent with the existing plantings.
9. On -site snow management shall be addressed in greater detail.
The Commission also recommended the following, separate from conditions:
f. Deliberation be given by the City Council to the unique characteristics of the parking,
along with the size of the spaces and the access.
2. Public Works review the adequacy of the bus stop design prior to the City Council
hearing on this item.
3. The grease stain issue be worked out to the mutual satisfaction of the two
landowners.
4. That in the future, three-dimensional drawings be presented with applications of
such a complexity and high intensity use.
Mr. Brede moved to approve the add -on option for a covered or enclosed walkway to the
Canadian Honker if determined feasible by the applicant. Ms. Petersson seconded the
motion.
It was noted that the materials and specific design of the add -on have not been determined.
The motion carried 7-2, with Mr. Werven and Ms. Schultze voting nay.
Ms. Petersson moved that the exterior of the Staybridge may not be modified from that
which was presented and modified by conditions, without going through additional
review by the Planning Commission and a public hearing with the City Council. Mr.
Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 7.2, with Mr. Werven and Ms. Schultze
Mr. Suk called a break and reconvened the meeting after 10 minutes.
Vacation Petition #98-19 by Fiksdai Motel to vacate the alley right-of-way and utilities
within the alley abutting Lots 1-4 and 17.20 of Block 5, A.W. Kutzkv's Addition to
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HE.kRLNG
ING DEPT:
PLA.N'NLNG
�CC7.,j
LATE:
ITEM NO.
M DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #98-19 by Fiksdal Motel (and Canadian PREPARED BY:
Honker) to vacate the alley right-of-way and utilities within the alley %litzi A. Baker.
abutting Lots 1-4 and 17.20 of Block 5, A.W. Kutzky's Addition. The Senior Planner
property is located between 1" St. SW and 2"' St. SW, west of 12`h Ave.
SW. 1
February 16, 2000
Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated January 21, 2000
The Planning 8 Zoning Commission reviewed this vacation request at the January 26, 2000 meeting and
recommended approval of this vacation petition subject to the following conditions:
1. Vacation of the alley and utilities is contingent upon dedication of the new alley right-of-way and utility
easements, and also upon construction of the proposed hotel project that is being reviewed concurrent with
this application. If the proposed hotel project does not proceed, the alley should not be vacated.
Burke moved to approve vacation petition #98-19 subject to the above condition, McGowan seconded. The motion
carried 7-2, Werven and Schultze voting nay.
Council Action Needed:
1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attomey to
prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition subject to one condition.
Attachments:
1, Staff Report dated January 21, 2000.
Distribution:
1 City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on W EDNESDAY February 23,
2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
- UUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to:
IN
M
LaT
ITE F
= 4V—o'
--��- MOLIC 6,DEWALK
1 LOTJ LOT,
v
AMCM
y
i
43a]
\
&M~
p
y
a
gyp u
iTE
N,
�-MV
Vd� ALLFf
r� ew
/
AI
y
i
�
• HorEL CCEG
HOTEi
•wv
iww
r.w•ws s.r � 16ifiFT
uw o�w•
•
FK.6DAL
N01EL
--
�rwa+•.w I I'
•
NONWR
CdNM71IH
PLAZA — Ju�ewr
A
ao•
FNIRf
��.
nA6Gl66
+ova w•aw
LOT li LOT M
PUBM 6DEO"
LOT 10 LOT A LOT Jo
POLO 6R mmg
am Mr TWEL TO
JV,L 61. K4RM
AN
MW
xJtlVt.�fFN•If/1 jI
OR �I�7F D• A l L LSL••
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232
PLANNING
GIVADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPING
HOUSwGrHRA 507/285.8224
BUILDING CODE 507/285.8213
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
DATE: January 21, 2000
RE: Vacation Petition #98.19 by Fiksdal Motel and Canadian Honker to
vacate the alley right-of-way and utilities within the alley abutting Lots
1-4 and 17.20 of Block 5, A.W. Kutzky's Addition. The property is
located between 1" St. SW and 2nd St. SW, west of 12'" Ave. SW.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner(s): Fiksdal Motel of Rochester, LLC
1215 2n' St. SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Canadian Honker Restaurant
1201 2nd St. SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Reason to Vacate: The petitioners are requesting to vacate a portion
of the alley lying between 1"` and 2"d St. SW, west
of 12`n Ave. SW to facilitate the development of a
new hotel facility.
Referral Comments: 1. U.S. West
2. RPU Electric
3. RPU Water
4. Charlie Reiter, Senior Transportation Planner
5. Rochester Public Works
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
/
(� r1 Vac. 98-19
Pf"L 01/21/0000
Staff Recommendation:
Before the alley and utilities can be vacated, there a number of issues which must be
resolved.
Easements for utilities must be dedicated and utilities must be re-routed. The applicant
will need to enter into agreements for re-routing utilities and will also need to dedicate
new right-of-way for the new alley connection to 1s' St. SW.
Staff would recommend approval to vacate the alley and utilities contingent upon
dedication of the new alley right-of-way and utility easements and also upon
construction of the proposed hotel project that is being reviewed concurrent with
this application. if the hotel project does not proceed, the alley should not be
vacated.
ROBERT G. SUK LAW OFFICES, P.A.
Robert G. Suk Merchant Exchange Building
:attorney at Law 18 Third Street S.W. - Suite 200
Rochester, MN 55902
January 20, 2000
:Mitzi Baker
RochesteriOlaisted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive South East
Rochester, M'N 55904
Re: Joe and Sandy Powers - Canadian Honker - Staybridge Suites
Dear Mitzi:
(507) 299-8051
(507) 280-4010 fax
suklaw(Xinfonet.isl.net
The undersigned is attorney for Joe and Sandy Powers and the Honker Enterprises, Inc
d/b/a Canadian Honker and as such in accordance with our telephone conferences and meetings
with the Staybridge group together with their attorney, John Arnold, this letter will set forth
conceptually the agreements that have been reached between the parties as of this date. Based
upon the meetings that have taken place prior to this date and the plans and information provided
to my clients, the following sets forth, as previously indicated, what is conceptually agreed to as
of this date:
If the Staybridge project goes forward, my clients would be agreeable to and
would request vacation of the alley immediately adjacent to their properties.
The exchange of real property between Powers and Staybridge Group would
be agreeable so long as all other agreements are met,
3 Powers/Canadian Honker would be agreeable to the Staybridge Group
totally redoing its parking lot as presently planned at said group's sole
cost and expense with the express understanding that all work be completed
in approximately one week - weather permitting and my clients employees
and patrons being provided with temporary parking on the Staybridge properties.
Also with the understanding that my client would be provided certain agreed
upon permanent parking stalls for employees on the Staybridge parking lot when
completed.
a. The present plan for shanng trash storage would be agreeable subiect to
necessary easements and agreements with respect to cost of trash removal
and with the understanding that Staybridge Group move my clients transformer
from its present location to a spot in close proximity to Staybridge's transformer
I believe the above sets forth what has been agreed to as of this date with the further
understanding that this is conceptual at this point in time subject to final details being worked out
in writing by and between the parties prior to Council approval.
RGS jls
cc. John Arnold
Pace 10
City Planning and Lonme t2onvmsston Minutes
Hearing Date: January 'G. _1000
U. apecIrrc gra
prior to any
7. The "horsesh
shall be stripe
not accommc
shall be signs
provided to p,
Street SW via
and construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City
ite construction activities.
"entrance drive shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane." Parking lots
and marked with one-way directional arrows where driving lanes do
to two-way traffic. The entrance drive from 2n0 Street SW to the alley
"No Parking." Directional signs and "DO NOT ENTER" signs shall be
lent motorists driving eastbound in the alley from accessing fd
hotel one-way access drive. )
8. A more thorough
with the new War
9. On -site snow mana
taping plan be prove d detailing new and existing plantings,
being consistent wjffi the existing plantings.
shall be ad*ssed in greater detail.
The Commission also rec mmendec
1. Delibera#ion be given the City
along with the size of t spaces
2. Public Works review the dequa7
he
on this item.
3. The grease stain issue be
landowners.
4. That in the future, three
such a complexity and
Icil to the unique characteristics of the parking,
the access.
of the bus stop design prior to the City Council
out to the mutual satisfaction of the two
drawings be presented with applications of
use.
Mr. Brede moved to appro a the add- n option for a covered or enclosed walkway to the
Canadian Honker if deter ined feasibI by the applicant. Ms. Petersson seconded the
motion.
It was noted that the m erials and specific Nsign of the add -on have not been determined.
The motion carried 7 2, with Mr. Werven an Ms. Schultze votina nay.
Ms. Petersson molfid that the exterior Acarried
dge may not be modified from that
which was presen ed and modified by thout going through additional
review by the Pta ing Commission anring with the City Council. Mr.
Quinn seconded a motion. The motiwith Mr. Werven and Ms. Schultze
Mr. Suk called a break and reconvened the meeting after 10 minutes.
179
Cityuv planning and Zunme Commission Minutes
Hear= Dace: January 26. 2000 i
facilitate re -development. The property is located between 1" St SW and 2ntl St SW
west of 1V Ave SW The applicant is proposing to dedicate a new northisouth alley
connection to 15' St. SW allowing for through traffic
Mr. Burke moved to approve Vacation Petition #98-19 by Fiksdal Motel, as recommended
by staff. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-2, with Mr. Werven
and Ms. Schultze voting nay.
Vacation of the alley and utilities is contingent upon dedication of the new alley right-of-
way and utility easements, and also upon construction of the proposed hotel project that
is being reviewed concurrent with this application. If the proposed hotel project does
not proceed, the alley should not be vacated.
ANNEXATION:
Section 30, Haverhill Township.
Ms. Petersson made a motion to
Ms. McGowan seconded
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Ms. Baker presented the staff report,
report is on .file at the Rochester-Olm:
Ms. Baker explained that the prop(
single family development. She nc
denied or continued, but the conce
been worked out with the appiican
agreement has been distributed to
Subdivision Ordinance includes a I
access is constructed, and the de
has spoken to the applicant and d
Drive and the recommended acc
for this property. Ms. Baker expl
Works. Since that issue has
Commission approve the plat wi
and 73. She added three conditioi
ation Petition #99-27 by the Payne
which carried 9-0.
:d Janually 20, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
Planning tqepartment.
fconsists of 10. acres to be divided into 27 lots for
d that staff originaXy
s of staff have bee
She stated that a m
e Commission. Ms.
it of 1200 trips within
recommended that the proposal be
addressed and an agreement has
ko from the applicant outlining the
aker explained that the new
Plopment has reached th
weloper about extending
;s is highlighted in the pai
ned that details of the acc
ien more or less resolved
the suggested condition i
:velopment before a secondary
limit. She commented that staff
antury Hills Drive to East Circle
and was included in the GDP
s will be worked out with Public
to recommends that the
mb 2-b,c,d.e, and f on pages 72
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: TEM N0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS I PLANNING 6-
i i trill DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan #98-27 by the PREPARED BY:
Kendal Group for the development of two 16-unit and one 24-unit multi -family buildings on Brent wenby,
property zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential). The applicant is also requesting Planner
approval of a Substantial Land Alteration for the proposed cut and fill work on the site.
The property is located along the east side of East Circle Drive (CR 22), east of 16`" Avenue
NE, in the SE 114 of Section 24, Cascade Township.
February 17, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 26, 2000 to consider this restricted development
final plan.
Nanci Miller, TDI Associates, addressed the Commission. She stated they are in agreement with the staff -suggested
conditions.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request according to the applicable criteria and standards in the LDM. The
Commission found that this request is consistent with those criteria, subject to the following modifications or conditions:
Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve Restricted Development Final Plan #98.27 by the Kendal Group
with the staff -suggested findings and conditions. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried
8-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay
. Peterrson moved to approve the substantial land alteration, based on staff -suggested findings. Mr.
Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay.
Conditions:
1) The applicant must enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of
the applicant relating to, but not limited to, storm water management, parkland dedication, traffic
improvements, pedestrians facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, surety that guarantees
the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity and those items specified
by the City Council.
2) The property must be platted. Easements will need to be provided for watermain, drainage, sewer
and other public utilities. At the time the application for the plat is submitted the following
information must be submitted: copies of the approved construction plans for the roadway,
sidewalks, trails, utilities, grading and drainage; documents for long term ownership and
maintenance agreement for the private detention ponds; and an executed development agreement.
3) The alignment of utilities (water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and etc..) be revised to conform to
Rochester Public Utilities, City of Rochester and the Minnesota Department of Health requirements.
If the realignment of these utilities cause a change to the layout of the site plan, the site plan must by
reviewed by the Commission and City Council again.
4) The roadway must be posted "No parking Fire Lane".
The wetland delineation report must be reviewed and approved by the LGU prior to any grading
activities commencing on -site.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
--ye 2
RCA
February 17, 2000
tai
6) The developer agrees that this project will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and
that the cash in lieu of land of the amount of $12,0000 will meet this need.
7) That the site plan be revised to: a) provide a "S2" bufferyard along the west property line; b) show
the exterior color schemes of the buildings; c) show the approved alignment of utilities; d) amend
the development sign size to a maximum of 50 square feet and a height of S feet; e) show the
bituminous path along the entire south property line; and f) show the correct distance for the turn
lanes and taper lanes. Revised plans be submitted to the Planning Department for the record.
The motion to approve this restricted development also recommended that the Council specify that the
building finishes, site plan (landscaping) and the intent to maintain and monitor the wetland health be
included in the development agreement. This would require any changes to these items go through the
public review process again. The Council should specify any items to be included in the development
agreement.
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either approving,
approving with conditions, or denying this request based upon the criteria included in the staff report.
2. The motion should identify certain aspects of the site plan to be included in the development agreement.
3. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to support either approval or denial of the proposed
Substantial Land Alteration Activity.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated January 21. 2000 7
2. Minutes of January 26, 2000 CPZC Meeting,
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 in the Council/Board
Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
6. TDI Associates
Restricted Dev Plan #98-27
Kendal Group
1,200' Notification Distance
Ward 5 (Evans)
01 /04/00
NE
w,doa+ae�
I ���Mi•••si�ri��osi�
ia�
L r�anyNamS..
's..
�aaaa
S33S
3N 3AY RAL
,u
!� r-r 3xoz AAM=
-------- -----
---
��.; _ .�
L�MEN
�—
i
Un•nrinX tun 4'19� `NL 11a GitK � /
n11 nU141 n1 o r.r AllI -' �/_J'/��
uunv vnum unu."' I N2AyN UM
-+�1�•�'7X1 S7!'117055'f 101
� NY X11.MXIX
11vOf
svaee io,.�i ,
L BW1 &
--•�Y,Msxi •s�iriaossr � v. �ai�G �������
let
Asia
- psi• I} lY _ ///
7/ aw
F
0
�!�'�Ni
'S71117 a i 5 r
e.e�
,,Igy(1
cif 1�
0
Av/,_
"4L'003W 24 euaa+ie «
a..x rr,z
I?'
' lul•u1lnX tt lit it '111' 9'NL3O tGMiRd� '.WQN�i �
r . -n Iona suunm ""'
f170SSY IG1 � >IihMM tl73G ..
i
j01 's 31 v I00 ssr 101
li
133,�
rol cssacurss, uc.
Illlf\Itl \11.11111. 1\\11111
1111 f1111p1It UO
RIt11It. U U111 p11111-IUI
I�
mm MAV.1 FrM71�Ri1 IQOOK OINOU' LTD. � S S I A S S O C I A i F S, I N C ..�
� ���� .nwuu uuuur, roues
uunuu uu
aNwA •AHMIOIr � rnnnr, a urn pouf-un
TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: January 21, 2000
ESTF. R.tiJ tiF.
1;to" a
CAI T£D:��CGL9S.5'.
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADORESSING/
507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELUSEP71C
507/285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
RE: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan #98.27 by The Kendal
Group for the development of two 16-unit and one 24-unit unit multi -family buildings
on property zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential). The property is located along the
east side of East Circle Drive (CR 22), east of 16'" Avenue NE in the SE'/, of Section
24, Cascade Township. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Substantial
Land Alteration for the proposed cut and fill work on the site.
Planning Department Review
Applicant: The Kendal Group
4513 Milky Way Road
Waukesha, WI 53186
Architect: TDI Associates, Inc.
1285 Sunnyridge Road
Pewaukee, WI53072
Property Location and Size: This proposal includes approximately 5.38 acres of
land located along the east side of East Circle
Drive (CR 22), east of 16'" Avenue NE.
Zoning: The Property is zoned R-2 (Low Density
Residential) district.
Adjacent Land Use: North: Developed lots zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) in Olmsted County.
South: Across East Circle Drive is vacant land in
the City zoned R-2.
East: Property to the east is zoned A-4
(Agricultural -Urban Expansion) in Olmsted County
and is vacant.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
F.nal lice Plan =91-'-
O1 21 00
Paee ?
Referral Agency Comments:
Attachments:
West: Across 16`" Ave. NE is developed lots zoned
R-1 (Low Density Residential) in Olmsted County.
1. RPU Water Division
2. RPU Operation Division
3. Fire Department
4. Rochester Public Works
5. Park and Recreation Department
6. Olmsted County Public Works Dept.
7. Planning Dept. John Hanford
8. Planning Dept. Transportation Division
9. Mn/DOT
Location Map
Site Map
Narrative Report
Referral Comments
Explanation of Application and review procedures:
Since only 3 and 4 plex multi -family residential buildings are permitted in the R-2 zoning
district, the proposed development must be reviewed under the Restricted Development
provisions. In January 1999 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Restricted Development Preliminary Plan for this project, which was later approved by the
City Council in February 1999. This application is for the Final Site Plan. The Planning
Commission will need to review this item and make a recommendation to the City Council.
This item will then be scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council.
The Restricted Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual (Section 62,700) recognize that certain land uses which are generally not allowed
within a given zoning district can, if regulated, "serve both the public interest and allow a
more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to
standards zoning regulations".
Summary of Proposal:
The applicant is proposing 3 multi -family apartment buildings on the site (two 16-unit
buildings and one 24-unit building). The development of the site will require an extension of
sanitary sewer and watermain. The Rochester Public Works Department has estimated the
cost of bringing these facilities to the property line is approximately $42,000. The proposed
buildings are 2 story structures with underground parking garages. There would be a total
of 32 one bedroom units, 24 two bedroom units, 81 indoor parking stalls and 23 surface
parking stalls. Each unit has its own separate entry and deck. Exterior materials are
proposed to be a combination of vinyl siding and brick veneer. Vinyl shutters are also
shown on the buildings. The applicant will be addressing the proposed color scheme at the
Planning Commission meeting.
13�
Final Site Plan a98-"
t3 00
NeePa3
ee 3
The final site plan is slightly different than the approved preliminary plan. The preliminary
plan had two access points, the main access to the property from East Circle Drive with a
secondary access (in -bound only) from 16'" Avenue NE. The secondary access was also
needed to provide a means for fire access. A condition of approval on the preliminary plan
required that the design of the secondary access meet minimum separation distances. The
final site plan only has one access to the property, which is from East Circle Drive. The
applicant removed the secondary access from 16"Avenue NE for a number of reasons.
The Olmsted County Public Works Department does have access control along East Circle
Drive and 161" Avenue NE. The Olmsted County Public Works Department will permit the
access opening on East Circle Drive but will not permit an access opening on 16'h
Avenue NE. The roadway within the development has been modified to accommodate fire
equipment but will need to be posted "No Parking Fire Lane". The development is not
anticipated to generate enough traffic to require a secondary access. A development this
size is expected to generate a total of 370 trips per day. The standard for when a
secondary access is required is 500 trips.
The applicant is also requesting approval of a substantial land alteration for the cut and fill
work proposed on the site. The location of the 24-unit building does involve cutting into the
hillside and changing the existing grades more than 10 feet. The restoration of the hillside
will be at a slope of at least 3:1 and will include retaining walls. The hillside will be restored
with seeding. The applicant anticipates generating 35,000 yards of fill of which 15, 500 will
be used on site with the remainder being removed. There is a wetland located west of the
proposed building, which the applicant is avoiding, but there is concern of how the building
will affect the wetland. The applicant proposes to alleviate potential problems by channeling
overland drainage to catch basins and piping this water to a plunge pool directly adjacent to
the wetland and also collecting surface water around the building through drain tile and then
piping it into the same plunge pool. The Council can approve a conditional use permit of
the substantial land alternation if findings can be made to Section 62.1105 of the LDM.
Criteria:
Final Site Plan
The following are recommended findings to the applicable the Restricted Development Final
Site Plan criteria found in Section 62.708 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land
Development Manual:
a) Public Facility Design: Utility alignment must be revised to conform to Rochester Public Utilities,
City of Rochester and the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. Specific utility design
and construction plans will need to be approved prior to platting of the property. Pedestrian
facilities are shown along the south and west property boundaries.
b) Geologic Hazard: There are no known geologic hazards related to this development proposal.
There is a wetland that is being avoided. The consultant has indicated that there is some shale
located at the proposed building foundations.
c) Access Effect: Olmsted County Public Works Department does have controlled access along
the entire south and west property boundary of the site except where the proposed access
location is shown. The applicant has received an access permit from the Olmsted County Public
Finai S.te Pan 993-2'
01 =1 00
Pan 4
Works Department subjected to four conditions. According to the Planning Department
Transportation Division the peak hour traffic flows from the proposed development are not
excepted to create traffic operational problems at the intersection with East Circle Drive.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: Sidewalks are provided around each building to every entrance, as well
as a path through the eastern portion of the property. Pedestrian facilities will be required along
the west (concrete sidewalk) and south (10' bituminous path) property lines.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A detailed landscaping plan was submitted showing bufferyards
along the north and south property boundaries and planting around the buildings. According to
the site plan the eastern portion of the site will be left in its natural state with a walking path
through it. There also is number of retaining walls throughout the property. There does need to
be a 10-foot bufferyard along the west property line. With the addition of a bufferyard along the
west property line, the landscaping would meet the Ordinance requirements.
fl Site Status: The developer will need to enter into a Development Agreement with the City that
includes the developer's obligations as they relate to public improvements. In addition, the
agreement will identify additional features of the site, which must be completed as approved (i.e.
landscaping, signage.) as specified by the Council. Documents for the long-term ownership and
maintenance agreement for the private detention ponds will need to be provided by the property
owner.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The landscaping plan submitted shows a 10 foot bufferyard along
the north and south property boundaries meeting standards "C" and "D". The eastern portion of
the site will be left in its natural state, which will provide adequate screening and buffering. A
revised landscaping plan showing a bufteryard along the west property boundary meeting the "S2"
standard is needed.
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles identified in the
preliminary development plan relative to Height impact and Setbacks. The Internal Site Design
has changed from the preliminary plan eliminating a secondary access from le Avenue NE. The
revised site design accommodates an internal turnaround that meets the Fire Department
requirements.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: The plans for off-street parking meets the ordinance requirements.
The roadway will need to be posted "No Parking Fire Lane".
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the
underlying zoning district for similar uses. The applicant has requested approval of a substantial
land alteration for the location of the 24-unit building because the existing grade is proposed to
change more than 10 feet.
Substantial Land Alternation
if the Planning Commission and City Council approve the proposed substantial land
alteration, staff recommends the following findings to Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of
the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land Development Manual:
62.1105
1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. Once the proposed
excavation activity is completed, the site will be restored and slopes created will
not be greater than 3:1. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply
Imai Site Plan s11-2-
O l 2 L 00
�V Page 5
with City standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works
Department.
2) The actual excavation work will only take placed during the excavation for the
foundation of the building. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City
standards.
3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment should not adversely impact the safety
and maintenance of East Circle Drive, which is designed to carry large volumes
of traffic.
4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground and
surface water quality. The grading and drainage plans indicate catch basins will
collect surface water and pipe it to a plunge pool.
5) The proposing excavation work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of
Rochester. There will not be any exposed rock faces. According the grading
and drainage plan the hillside will be restored and slopes created will not be
greater than 3:1
6) The proposed activity will last a short duration, only until the building foundation
is excavated. The property is proposed to be developed has multi family
apartment buildings. Adequate screening and bufferyards will be provided.
7) The grading will be confined to the property and will not affect the use and
enjoyment of adjacent properties. The excavation activity will only last during the
excavation of the building foundation.
8) The grading activity will only take place during the construction of the building
foundation. The site will be restored after construction of the building and
plantings will be planted according to the landscaping plan.
9) The grading plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in
accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester.
10) The applicant has indicated that the proposed work will not result in negative
impacts on drainage patterns. Storm water catch basins are shown on the
grading plan, which will move the water around the building into the plunge pool
and eventually into the wetland. Drain tiles will also be placed around the
building, which will be piped over to the plunge pool.
11) The applicant has indicated that the proposed activity should not impact the
wetland located to the west or the water ground. Drainage will be directed to the
plunge pool and then eventually into the wetland. Drain tiles will also drain into
the plunge pool:
12) The anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity will be until the
building foundation is excavated.
Final Site Plan -4S-27
age 6 Page
Pb
13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the
grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate
permanent and interim erosion and sediment control.
14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after
the completion of the excavation activity. This can be handled in the
Development Agreement.
15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public
Works Department prior to any grading on the property.
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses:
1) Not applicable to the excavation activity.
2) Not applicable to the excavation activity.
3) Not applicable to the excavation activity.
4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading
and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim
erosion and sediment control.
5) Not applicable to the excavation activity.
6) Not applicable to the excavation activity.
7) Not applicable to the excavation activity.
8) Not applicable to the excavation activity.
Staff Recommendation:
A text amendment is currently in process that requires an applicant of a Restricted
Development to enter into a Development Agreement that binds the applicant to complete
certain features of the project as specified by the Council. These features may include
landscaping, exterior materials and colors, signage, setbacks, access, number of units or
other features. Staff recommends that the Commission discus the project and make a
recommendation to the Council outlining the items which should not be changed without
subsequent review by the Commission or Council.
Staff has reviewed this request in accordance with the applicable standards and
provisions, as included in this report. If the City Council approves the substantial
land alteration, staff recommends approval of this application subject to the
following conditions or modifications:
F,nai site Plan
�� 00
P a e +
1) The applicant must enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the
obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, storm water management,
parkland dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrians facilities, contributions for public
infrastructure, surety that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion
of the excavation activity and those items specified by the City Council.
2) The property must be platted. Easements will need to be provided for watermain,
drainage, sewer and other public utilities. At the time the application for the plat is
submitted the following information must be submitted: copies of the approved
construction plans for the roadway, sidewalks, trails, utilities, grading and drainage;
documents for long term ownership and maintenance agreement for the private
detention ponds; and an executed development agreement.
3) The alignment of utilities (water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and etc..) be revised to
conform to Rochester Public Utilities, City of Rochester and the Minnesota Department
of Health requirements. If the realignment of these utilities cause a change to the
layout of the site plan, the site plan must by reviewed by the Commission and City
Council again.
4) The roadway must be posted "No parking Fire Lane".
5) The wetland delineation report must be reviewed and approved by the LGU prior to any
grading activities commencing on -site.
6) The developer agrees that this project will have an impact upon the City's needs for
parkland and that the cash in lieu of land of the amount of $12,0000 will meet this need.
7) That the site plan be revised to: a) provide a "S2" bufferyard along the west property
line; b) show the exterior color schemes of the buildings; c) show the approved
alignment of utilities; d) amend the development sign size to a maximum of 50 square
feet and a height of 8 feet; e) show the bituminous path along the entire south property
line. Revised plans be submitted to the Planning Department for the record.
Final Jrte Plan =)S-'-
ul 1--1 00
Paee d
62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or
approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be
guided by the following criteria:
1) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the
requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted.
b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard have
been incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set aside
from development.
c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so as
to:
1) Provide adequate separation from existing street intersections and adjacent
private driveways so that traffic circulation problems in public right-of-ways are
minimized;
2) Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with factors such as noise
from accelerating or idling vehicles or the glare of headlights from vehicles
entering or leaving the site.
In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified potential
problems in the operation of access points, plans for private improvements
or evidence of planned public improvements which will alleviate the
problems have been provided.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians can
move safely both within the site and across the site between properties and activities
within the neighborhood area, and, where appropriate, accommodations for transit
access are provided.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been prepared
which indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape character of
the surrounding area.
f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future maintenance
and ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the completion of any
platting activities, and the provision of adequate assurance to guarantee the
installation of required public improvements, screening and landscaping.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design contains
earth forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy the needs
identified in Phase I for the project.
jq�
Plan
cc
0! '_1 00
Page 9
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles
identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height Impact, Setbacks, and
Internal Site Design.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and
circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of
design.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the
requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to signage
and other appearance controls, and with general standards such as traffic visibility
and emergency access.
62.110s FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS:
The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation
activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed
activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146:
1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or
unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or
(4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways;
2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts
on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately
mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the
Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of
such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate
legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out;
3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety
and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such
impacts will be mitigated;
4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or
surface water quality;
5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester
or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if
such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for
adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation
activity;
Finai Site Nan =93-2-
i
Pa0 Page
1
Pale 0
6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development
anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the
Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use,
recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open
space resources and other natural resources;
7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent
properties;
8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round
from unsightly features of the excavation operation;
9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration
and stabilization of cut and fill areas;
10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage
patterns or stormwater management facilities;
11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and
other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality;
12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation
activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity;
13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been
approved by the City;
14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored,
after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one
that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and
applicable City policies.
15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted
building code.
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or
Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless
one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is
made:
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and
pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will
create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures
will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will
Final 00 Plan »9�S•2-
Ol 2LU0
Page 11
impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar
public facilities.
3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the
development.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may
be created by the development.
5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling
on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users
of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of
adjacent properties.
6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing
adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency
vehicles.
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change
in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the
revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph.
S) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to
permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically
applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific
ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the
proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been
secured by the applicant.
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
[fIF �lll
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
*REVISED 1118/00*
10 �1
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287.7800
FAX - 507.281.6216
Public Works has reviewed the requested Restricted Development Final Plan #98-27 for the
Kendal Group for multifamily buildings. The following are Public Works Comments on the
proposal (Revisions are indicated in BOLD):
1. A Development Agreement will be required for this project.
2. This site would require an extension of sanitary sewer and watermain. The estimated
cost to bring these facilities to the property line is $42,000.00. Extension of these
utilities could be performed as an Owner's Contract (100 % developers cost). Sewer
and water will need to be extended to the North and East property lines.
3. Pedestrian facilities are required along all public streets. A concrete sidewalk is
required along the west property line and a 10-foot bituminous path will be required
along the south property line (CSAH#22) in lieu of a concrete sidewalk (Bituminous
Path is required along the entire south property line).
4. A grading and drainage plan must be approved for this development, as well as
approval of construction plans, prior to final Council action on this RDP.
5. Onsite easements will be needed for watermain, drainage, sewer or other public
utilities. Drainage easements and a long term ownership and maintenance agreement
will be required for the private detention pond.
6. Routing of utilities, including Sanitary Sewer, Water, & Storm Sewer will be
reviewed separate from this application process but must be approved prior to final
Council action on this RDP.
7. Platting of the property is recommended.
8. A second access, to 16i° Ave NE, is required.
The following charges / fees are applicable for the development of the property:
Water'Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1605.50 per acre
Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per acre
:• Storm Water Management - provide on site (100% developers cost) or request
voluntary participation in the City's Plan ($1983.50 per acre plus a factor for increase
in the runoff rate and impervious surface)
rpu
:ve p./q ,ue det'iver
January 1 . 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, %IN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III, Phase III, Restricted Development, Final Plan #98-27 by the Kendal Group for the
development of two 16-unit and one 24-unit multi -family building on property zoned R-2 to be known as Deer Haven.
Dear Ms. LaPalm
Our review of the referenced Restricted Development Request is complete and our comments follow
1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Assessments
Manager (507-281-6004) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees.
2. The water main alignment shown on this submittal must be revised to conform to Rochester Public Utilities, City
of Rochester and the Minnesota Department of Health requirements. Final water main construction plans will need
to be prepared by a Civil Engineer.
3. As previously discussed one option to provide service to this site would be to extend the water main east to
provide a Northeast High Level Water System connection, an on -site pressure reducing station and west to a
Northeast Intermediate Level Water System Connection.
4. Preliminary computer water system modeling indicates with the connections mentioned above and the PRV station
serving the entire site the static pressures will range from approximately 61 PSI to 70 PSI at the First Floor
Elevations shown on the site plan with approximately 2700 to 2800 GPM flow available for fire protection.
5. The Fire Prevention Bureau will need to comment on the location of the proposed fire hydrants. Water mains
connecting to and including any fire hydrant are considered public and need to be within a 20' minimum public
utility easement.
6. The owner is required to enter into a City Owner Contract with the City of Rochester for the installation of the
public water main. Contact the Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department for
details.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
C" R
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
TDI Associates, Inc.
Jeff Blank/Ken Miller
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
8� RecrePoo
Park and Recreation Department
City of Rochester
201 Fourth Street SE • Room 150 • Rochester, MN 55904
(507) 281-6160 • FAX (507) 281.6165
January 12, 2000
To: Suzanne LaPalm
Consolidated Planning
From: Rochester Park and Recreation
RE: Deer Haven
Final #98-27
Acreage......................................................................... 4.68 acres
Number of Dwelling Units ............................................ 56 units
Dwelling Unit Density ................................................... 12.0 units / acre
Density Factor............................................................ .16
Dedication Requirement .............................................. .75 acres
Fair Market -Value of Land ........................................... $16,000 / acre
10-
The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication
requirement for the plat be satisfied by:
Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $12,000 (.75 acres X $16,000) . Payment due within 12
months of Council approval of final plan.
Applicant
Jeff Blank / Ken Millet
3854 Milky Way Road
Waukesha, Wl53189
N:\PARK\OSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\NE 2896\DEER NAVEN.DOC
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
507i285-8231
January 6, 2000
Suzanne LaPalm
Planning Department
Dear Suzanne:
The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III Phase III Restricted Development
Final Plan #98-27 by the Kendal Group in Section 24 of Cascade Township and has the
following comments:
A copy of the approved access permit from Olmsted County is
included with our comments.
Sincerely,
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS:bw
Attachment
oengindmC planzone.doc
Administration
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks 8 Agriculture Solid Waste
W
(51
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR BE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-47"
507/265.8231
December 13, 1999
Deerhaven LLC
Ken Miller/Jeff Blank
3854 Milky Way Rd
Waukesha, WI 53189
RE: Access permit from CSAH 22 East
Dear Mr. Miller & Mr. Blank:
Your application for access driveway permit from CSAH 22 to your property is
approved with the following conditions:
1. A right turn lane 6" depth of bituminous 300 feet in length with a
180 foot taper to be constructed along the northbound roadway to
your access.
2. A left turn lane 6" depth of bituminous 300 feet in length with a 180
foot taper be constructed along the southbound roadway to your
access.
3. The access shall be a maximum of 32 feet in width with no curb
and gutter on the CSAH 22 right of way.
4. The 24" metal driveway culvert shall be purchased from Olmsted
County Public Works Department, the cost is $12.25 per foot with
$61.24 per apron.
If you have any questions please give Don Brennan or myself a call.
Siinnc�ereelly,
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MS:ss
Enc.
c: Dave Rossman, City Traffic Engineer
Don Brennan, Highway Maintenance Supt.
Bud Hanson, Area Supervisor
Planning Department
kbnginV"Wmmrtnaven driveway
�� AN ECUAL CPPORTUNRY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineonng _ Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture
Said Waste
i 1
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
507/285-8231
January 24, 2000
Suzanne LaPalm
Planning Department
Dear Suzanne:
The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III, Phase III Restricted Development
Final Plan #98-27 by the Kendal Group for the development of two 16-unit and one 24-
unit multi -family buildings on property zoned R-2 and has the following comments:
Right and left turn lanes from CSAH 22 to Deer Haven apartments
shall be 480' in length.
Sincerely,
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS:ss
Attachment
I kengindmVanzone.doc
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture
Solid waste
TRANSPORTATION STAF 1� 3
DEVELOPMENT .APPLICATIONS REVIEW DATABASE - 1998 1 �J
Jurisdiction Application . Comments
J.ANUARY 2000 REFERRALS
Annex
Ciry rel Plat 99-52 No comment
.00 Cent Hills 4th
' City
Restricted Dev
Fin Plan 98-27
Kendall Group
Peak Hour traffic flows from the proposed development are not expected to create
traffic operational problem at intersection with Circle Drive. For 48 unit multi -
family development, morning peak hour is expected to generate a total of 24 trips
(20 outbound) and late afternoon peak hour is expected to generate 30 trips (20
inbound/ 10 outbound). Based on observations at both 16th Ave NE and Albert
Drive intersections, predominant traffic flow is to and from the west on East
Circle Drive, which results in right turn merge outbound and left turn off mainline
for inbound, both of which are movements that, given projected level of
development traffic, should not create operational problems at the intersection.
Ciry
ZC 99-20
The proposed Zone Change request will not require preparation of a Rezoning
Yanish
Traffic Analysis. The R-1 portion of the site (22.1 acres) is being develope th
30 lots, which if extrapolated to the entire site would establish a basel' ensiry
of approximately 39 lots and, in turn, 390 daily trips. The projecte vel of traffic
from the site with the R-2 and B-5 zoning being proposed is 7 - , daily trips,
based on a maximum of 13,000 sqft of office space being eloped on the B-5
site and 26 attached units being developed on the R-2 (5 dwelling units / acre)
The Land Development Manual requires prepar on of a Rezoning Analysis
where the proposed uses will generate over 0 additional trips above the
baseline per day or over 100 additional in the peak hour over the baseline.
Neither of these thresholds is exceede th the proposed rezoning.
and Development Manual o cites the potential need for a Rezoning
Anal ' where a developme 11 take access within 500 feet of an expressway.
While th evelopment in t will have access within 500 feet of an expressway
(CSAH 22), a volume local traffic at the access points will be low and
alternative acce o a gnalized intersection does exist if operational traffic
problems do devel If access to CSAH 22 was eliminated at Woodland Drive,
the rerouting of tra down the frontage road to Fox Valley Drive would still
not result in tr is volum xceeding the threshold for local streets established in
the Thorou are Plan. It is es ted that if all traffic from the proposed
develop t had to be routed do the frontage road to the signal at Fox Valley
Drive, a resulting traffic on the Fro a Road between Woodland Drive and
Ba' y Hills Drive would be approxima 1100 vehicles per day, which is
w' 'n the range of acceptable traffic on a to residential street.
City
GDP 99-145
'le access to the site is currently available at intersection of Bamber Valley
Salem Heights
Road and CSAH 22 as well as Woodland Drive, pro mined changes in the
Yanish
Olmsted County Capital Improvement Program will res in changes to the
access. Olmsted County has a project programmed in the 2001 to replace the
bridge on Bamber Valley Road over the Zumbro Road, at whi time the
alignment of the road will be shifted to west, moving the intersec of Bamber
Valley Road west to approximately the west edge of the developmen . t this time
the connection of the north frontage road to CSAH 22 will be severed all
access to CSAH 22 will need to occur at Woodland Drive or at the signalize
intersection at Fox Valley Drive.
It is anticipated that at some point in the future warrants for a traffic signal will be
met at the intersection of Bamber Valle Road and CSAH 22. and that a
ROC: :ESTER
�/���ruze�ata
DATE: January 11, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning
From: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
Ln G'i9•tG t,
e�R1 rfO yC4U Sj:..\
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904.3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507)285-8256
Subj: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan #$98-27. Deer Haven
Apartment complex by Kendal Group, located NE of East Circle Drive (CR22)
and east of 16 Avenue NE.
This project will add 56 residential apartments in three multi -level buildings to the
fringe of the four minute response area of the Rochester Fire Department. With that
regard the above noted Final Plan, the fire department has the following requirements:
An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants
properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water
Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction.
If this property is supplied by the high level water system, the water supply should
be adequate. Hydrant locations shown on plan are acceptable.
2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance
with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual including approved cul-de-sac dimensions and street widths. All fire
department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building
construction.
Fire lanes shown on plan appear to be acceptable as drawn. "No Parking Fire lane"
signs must be posted where an 8 foot parking lane is not provided in addition to the
required 20 fire lane width.
3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any
residential buildings.
4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the
building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the
property.
c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division
TDI Assoc. Inc. 1285 Sunnyridge Rd., Peawaukee, Wi. 53072
Jeff Blank1Ken Miller 3854 Milky Way Road, Waukesha, Wi. 53189
165 '
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: _'4*-)-- yy„ r --4� t' le.` '%, -27
_ No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Sail Survey. The property
owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and
submitting the information as part of this application.
A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file
with the Planning Department
A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No -
loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning
Department.
A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan
incorporates the approved wetland plan.
No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However,
due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine
the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying
wetlands.
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
rpu
507/280-1579
January 18, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
SUBJECT: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan 998-27 by the Kendal
Group for the development of two 16-unit and one 24-unit multi -family buildings
on property zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential). The property is located
along the east side of East Circle Drive (CR 22), east of 16`h Avenue NE, in the
SE Y. of Section 24, Cascade Township.
Utility easements will be required for all RPU-owned electric facilities installed within the site.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Engle iJ
ks
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813
telephone 507.280.1540 Facsimile 507.280.1542
- ...-:51av:r.^. >SSCCiA'es.
12M SUNNMVGE POAQ PEWEE. WtSCCN81N 53072
January 12. 2000
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
Attn: Brent 5venby
2122 Campus Drive 3E
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
Re: Deer Haven
TDI # 98-238,000
Developer: The Kendal Group
Dear Brent:.
TDI A550CIATES. INC.
A90HtTELT5 • ENGMEER5
PLMNER5
PHONE 4"t4/691-3400 FAX 4141691-3547
We are requesting that the City of Rochester authorize.a conditional use permit for excavation
activity per 62.1105 for the proposed Deer haven project.
The portion of the site affected is the east foundation of the 24 unit building and the hillside area
just to the east of that"building: Because the building is set next to a hillside and includes an
underground parking garage, more than ten feet will be excavated at and near the east foundation
of that building. This will require cutting for the foundation and cutting and regrading a portion
of the hillside to the east as shown on the attached page. The foundation will be backfiiled to
first floor grade. Regrading the hillside will be at a slope of at least 3:1 and will include retaining
walls of natural matexials.which will help with stabilization. The area willthen be restored by
seeding. This area will then become part of the area designated for recreation which includes a
walking path. We are expecting to use rock from the site for the retaining walls.
This activity will take place in a short period of time. The excavation will not remain open
longer than required to complete necessary construction work on the building and restore the
area We do not anticipate added safety concerns, extra traffic or other impacts beyond that
which would have been generated by construction activity on this site. Proper erosion control
measures will be utilized.
The placement of the 24 unit building could obstruct the flow of surface and subsurface water
from the hillside to the existing wetlands. We propose to alleviate these potential problems in
the following ways: the surface water will be channeled by directing overland drainage to storm
catch basins and piping this water to a plunge pool directly adjacent to the wetlands; we will "
bring the subsurface water around the building through drain tile and then pipe it into the same
plunge pool. We have modified the grading plan as shown on the attached page to accommodate
this plan. These measures should maintain the wetlands.
_ _.o -e.._ +.,scc ,-'es' - _-
Adjacent properties should not be adversely affected by this work. The hillside will be
stabilized. The property to the east is undeveloped. The area affected is distant from the north
property line and the property to the north is heavily wooded.
We anticipate generating 35,000 yards of fill of which 15,500 can be utilized on site. The
remaining 19,500 yards will be taken off site. We arc in the process of locating a suitable site to
deposit this remaining material. That information should be available in the next day or two.
If you have any comments or questions, please call me at 262-691-3400 x 12.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
TDI Associates, Inc.
Nanci Miller
Project Manager
cc:: Mr. Ken Miller
File
FA98t3 0W B32ZIEi9ER3. W PD
Pa_e l:
C av Plantniig and Zoning Conunission Minutes
fteonna Date: Januan. 'G, 2000
09
e. Dedicate parkland as recommended the City Park & Recreation Department in the
attached memo, dated January 4, 2 0.
f. Because the cul-de-sac radius i insufficient to allow an 8' parking lane, the cul-de-
sac will have to 6e designate nd signed, "No Parking Fire Lane."
g. An additr nal hydrant shall a provided along Deer Ridge Lane near Lot 12 or Lot 2,
per there\,uirements oftre Department.
h. The develt agre ent for this plat shall include requirements and agreements
for the der to c struct the secondary access to Circle Drive concurrent with
the develt of ntury Hills 4'h Subdivision.
Ms. Schultze made a motion to continue one Change #99-20 by Ron Yanish, and GDP
#99-145, to be known as Salem Heights, t6,the February 9, 2000 meeting. Ms. McGowan
seconded the motion, which carried 9-0.
TYPE III PHASE III RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN:
Type III, Phase III Restricted Development Final Plan #98.27 by the Kendal Group for the
ana nu work on the site.
Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated January 21, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby explained that since only 3- and 4-plex multi -family buildings are allowed in the R-2
district, the applicant is going through the restricted development process. A preliminary plan
J /1 ?;ce I
i_ Iity Plannm_ anti Zonmg �,-;�:nussiun \linu[es
Hearine Date: .'anuary 26. ' Jo
for this site was approved by the Commissicn in January of 1999, and the Council approved it
in February. Final plan approval is the secona step in the process.
Mr, Svenby explained the applicants are proposing three two-story buildings with underground
parking. There will be 32 one -bedroom units and 24 two -bedroom units, and the parking will
consist of 81 underground and 23 surface stalls. He stated that each unit will have their own
entry and deck. Mr. Svenby reviewed the exterior materials, and noted there are slight
differences in the site design from the preliminary plan. He explained that the secondary
access that was a condition of approval on the preliminary plan was not able to occur because
the County wouldn't permit an access opening on 16'0 Avenue NE. He noted that the roadway
within the development has been modified to accommodate fire equipment, but will need to be
posted "No Parking Fire Lane." Mr. Svenby explained that a development this size is expected
to generate a total of 370 trips per day, which less than the standard of 500 trips per day to
require a second access, so one access should be adequate. He pointed out that the applicant
is also requesting approval for a substantial land alteration for the cut and fill work proposed on
the site and commented that a grading plan is contained on page 96 of the packet. Mr. Svenby
explained that the applicant is proposing to cut back the hill to place the 24 unit building and
will provide retaining walls to the east. They will remove approximately 35,000 cubic yards of
fill, of which 15,000 will be used on the site and the remainder will be trucked from the site. He
noted there is a wetland on the property that has been delineated and the applicant will avoid
that area. He stated that John Hanford had concerns regarding water reaching the wetland, but
the applicant is now proposing a number of catch basins that will direct storm water and surface
water to a plunge pool that will drain into the wetland. The subsurface drains will also be routed
to the plunge pool and will run into the wetland. He stressed that the wetland will be monitored
and if it dries up, the applicants will be required to replace it at a 2:1 ratio.
Ms. Schultze asked if condition number 5 covers what he explained about the wetland.
Mr. Svenby explained that the applicants have submitted a wetland delineation and have paid
the fee. Mr. Harford will review that delineation and the construction plans will be submitted
once they are approved, and that will show the catch basins and the route of the drainage. All
of this is covered by condition number 5. Mr. Svenby referred to the criteria and staff -
suggested findings. He noted that the Commission may want to discuss certain items to
include in the development agreement that cannot be changed unless they go through the
review and public hearing process again. Mr. Svenby stated that staff recommends approval
with findings and conditions, along with the findings for the Substantial Land Alteration.
Ms. Petersson asked how far back on the hill will be cut.
Mr. Svenby explained that the biggest cut they will be making will be approximately 15 feet. He
stated that the trees won't be disturbed.
Mr. Brede asked if there are restrictions on hours of operation when they do the excavating.
Mr. Svenby stated there are hours of operation outlined in the ordinance.
Ms. Baker commented that they will be confined to the same hours as all site construction is
confined to.
I'agr i f
lrc p!amune and Zomnu (�,)mmissio❑ Alimn
I{ranne Date: ianuary 26,'_000
Mr. Brede asked where they will take the aceitional fill.
Mr. Svenby stated the additional fill will be trucked to the Century Hills development.
Mr. Sulk suggested that it may be simplest if the applicant simply addresses the condition.
Nancy Miller of TDI Associates and Ken Miller of the Kendal Group addressed the Commission.
They presented photos of a location in Wisconsin of the same buildings that will be constructed
on the site in question, including the same colors and building materials. Ms. Miller stated that
that because they could not have the access off of 16`" Avenue NE, they put in the circle
driveway so emergency vehicles would have access. She explained that surface water from
the hill will be picked up in catch basins and piped to a plunge pool adjacent to the wetland.
Ms. Miller stated they will construct a retaining wall behind the 24 unit building and they will
include drain tile around the building and drainage will go directly to the wetland. She noted
they will regrade to a 3:1 slope.
Ms. Schultze asked about filtration rates for the drain tiles.
Ms. Miller explained that if they find they need slow the drainage, they will make the plunge pool
larger. She noted they are just starting to look into that issue further.
Mr. Suk asked if the conditions are acceptable.
Ms. Miller answered yes.
Mr. Werven asked how close the buildings are to the wetland, specifically building 2.
Ms. Miller stated the smallest distance is approximately 8 feet. She stated they have a similar
situation in Waukesha. She noted that the highest point of the retaining wall is about 8 feet.
Mr. Werven asked the classification of the wetland.
Mr. Svenby stated it is a type 2.
Mr. Werven asked the specific category. His information from Mr. Hanford was that it hasn't
been classified to determine the value of it.
Mr. Svenby explained that in the wetland delineation report it states that it is an .85 acre type 2
wetlands. He noted that wetlands are classified from 1 to 8.
Ms. Baker pointed out that the different types of wetlands aren't necessarily correlated with
value, but designate the different amounts of water and vegetation.
Mr. Werven stated that in looking at the stormwater plan, there are values attached to certain
classes of wetlands. He stated his point is they don't know the value of this particular wetland
at this time.
Ms. Petersson asked the applicants if they are planning on doing everything can do to protect
the wetland.
I,.',C :b
`� Cit} Planning snd Zunmg �:omm¢siun Slmuces
I learn_ Dace: L nuary 26. 1000
Ms. Miller answered yes, that is the idea of bringing the water back to it
Mr. Svenby pointed out a revision to condition number 7. He stated that when revised plans are
submitted. they should contain modifications to show the correct distance for the turn lanes and
taper lanes. The turn lanes should be 300 feet in length with a taper of 180 feet.
Mr. Werven moved to deny Restricted Development Final Plan #98-27 by the Kendal
Group based on the value of the wetlands not being known. He stressed that there are
State laws that protect wetlands and there are values that are attached to them. He
pointed out this a fairly large multi -family complex in close proximity to wetlands of
which we do not know the value. The motion died for lack of a second.
Ms. Schultze commented that if the Park Department and others haven't questioned this, why
propose denying this. She feels that a denser development located like this is proposed, allows
a wetland to remain when many other developments on this site may not.
Mr. Werven feels Mr. Hanford has raised some concern in his comments on page 109
Ms. Petersson moved to approve Restricted Development Final Plan #98-27 by the
Kendal Group based on staff -suggested findings and with their suggested conditions.
Mr. Staver seconded the motion.
Ms. Schultze requested the motion be amended to include that finishes, site plan and
intent to maintain and monitor the wetland health, as outlined, be part of
recommendation unless there is further public review. Ms. Petersson and Mr. Staver
agreed to amending the motion. The motion carried 8-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay.
Conditions:
1. The applicant must enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines
the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater
management, parkland dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities,
contributions for public infrastructure, surety that guarantees the site will be fully
restored after the completion of the excavation activity, and those items specified by
the City Council.
2. The property must be platted. Easements will need to be provided for watermain,
drainage, sewer, and other public utilities. At the time the application for the plat is
submitted, the following information must be submitted. copies of the approved
construction plans for the roadway, sidewalks, trails, utilities, grading and drainage;
documents for long term ownership and maintenance agreement for the private
detention ponds; and an executed development agreement.
3. The alignment of utilities (water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and etc.) be revised to
conform to Rochester Public Utilities, City of Rochester, and the Minnesota
Department of Health requirements. If the realignment of these utilities causes a
change to the layout of the site plan, the site plan must be reviewed by the
Commission and City Council again.
Pace i7
1tv Planntn; and Zoning C onuntsston \Imutes
Heanne Date: Jmuary 20. _000
4. The roadway must be posted "No Parking Fire Lane."
5. The wetland delineation report must be reviewed and approved by the LGU prior to
any grading activities commencing on -site.
6. The developer agrees that this project will have an impact upon the City's needs for
parkland and that the cash in lieu of land in the amount of $12,000 will meet this
need.
103
7. That the site plan be revised to: a) provide an "S2" bufferyard along the west
property line; b) show the exterior color schemes of the buildings; c) show the
approved alignment of utilities; d) amend the development sign size to a maximum of
50 square feet and a height of 8 feet; e) show the bituminous path along the entire
south property line; and 1) show the correct distance for the turn lanes and taper
lanes. Revised plans be submitted to the Planning Department for the record
Ms. Schultze stated she feels generally, that on substantial land alterations, since it is new to
the Commission, that drawings that show the cut and fill sections should be presented. She
commented that it is impossible to visualize what the cut and fill means to the site without some
sort of graphic analysis.
Mr. Suk asked if she is suggesting that be part of the application process.
Discussion ensued.
Ms. Baker explained that a text amendment would probably be necessary to require three-
dimensional drawings that were mentioned during the Fiksdal review, because they have never
been required in the past. She noted that requesting profile sheets for a substantial land
alteration may not always be beneficial, but probably would require an amendment. She
explained that without it being part of the ordinance, the applicants can be informed that these
are things the Commission wants, but it would be difficult to require it be submitted with the
application.
Ms. Petersson moved to approve the substantial land alteration, based on staff -
suggested findings. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-1, with Mr.
Werven voting nay.
Ms. Schultze moved to initiate two text amendments based on what Ms. Baker outlined
regarding the three-dimensional presentation for restricted developments, incentive
developments, and other applications where staff feels it is appropriate; and a sectional
presentation for substantial land alterations. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion, which
carried 9-0.
OTHER BU ESS:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ATE. _-
SECTION:
°t BLIC HE.kRI\GS
URICINA I INU UGh' 1:
PLAN N'fN'G
. _M DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #99-52 by Payne Company to be PREPARED BY:
known as Century Hills Fourth Subdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately Theresa Fogarty,
10.87 acres of land into 27 lots for single family development. The property is located east of Planner
Century Hills Drive NE, south of Viola Road.
February 16, 2000
NOTE: Condition # 1 should be revised by removing the language "Including the extension of Century Hills Drive NE to
CR22. This part of the roadway is not include within plat to be known as Century Hills 4" Subdivision.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 26, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat.
The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following
conditions or modifications:
1. The roadway name(s) be identified on the plat, including the extension of Century Hills Drive NE to CR 22.
2. Stormwater management must be approved for this site. Stormwater management will need to address the impacts
on the downstream residents. Any new ponds serving less than 50 developable acres are considered private and
will need ownership and maintenance agreements.
1 Easements for off -site utilities will be required prior to final plat approval.
4. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant
relating, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilitities,
and contributions for public infrastructure.
5. Dedicate parkland, as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department in the attached memo, dated
January 4, 2000.
6. Because the cul-de-sac radius is insufficient to allow an 8' parking lane, the cube -sac will have to be designated
and signed, "No Parking Fire Lane".
7. An additional hydrant shall be provided along Deer Ridge Lane near Lot 12 or Lot 2, per the requirements of the
Fire Department,
8. The development agreement for this plat shall include requirements and agreements for the developer to construct
the secondary access to Circle Drive concurrent with the development of Century Hills Fourth Subdivision.
Mr. Wade Dumond of Yaggy Colby Associates, representing the applicant, stated they have been working out all the
details and are in agreement with the conditions.
Motion by Ms. Schultze to approve Preliminary Plat #99.52, to be known as Century Hills Fourth Subdivision,
with the eight staff -suggested conditions. Seconded by Ms. Petersson. The motion carried 9-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
1. See attached staff report dated January 20, 2000.
Council Action Needed `
- "Y`ib • �+•D 1 ^-s'. T .IE'4"�..w 'jV �YT4-ii,�Y!'.� ,.. . .. .
1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit
make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff repo-K. A"motion to
supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the fifteen findings for denial In po
be made.'
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
deny
Eli
vLO53NNIw JB :Bi
I 't13153HJOM
ll l � ;,� NOISIAIMS Hanoi SIIIH .WIN3J �j 1; iI it iI ! li,
12a
me can,
1 G k ao an Ir.Kne see.21
w
1 Spy 1 • 6 S .�E.r•Z of yq I I OJ
�`
e E ,E3 i !�
o � M
W !rr BB
N \
fill a
fill cn
oil
\\�
(
n ,
iIII
fill
i�i;ili;
*b� + LWI M1
/ 3J
Ln
!\ ZH��
��9`�
it
` 12 0-!
-
C14,
N 7
—�
04
IN
\
_
,
e.
•i
I
N
CENTURY HILLS
II. cE� EvILc �E� i
P I_
it q,
F
pR�I TF.p ALUILS1 '.
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904.4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/265-8232
PLANNING
GISiADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
MAPPING
TO:
City Planning and Zoning Commission
HOUSING/NRA 5071285-8224
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
FROM:
Theresa Fogarty, Planner
WELUSEPTIC 507/285.8345
FAX 5071287-2275
DATE:
January 20, 2000
RE: Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit #99-52 (Preliminary
Plat) to be known as Century Hills Fourth Subdivision. The
property is located east of Century Hills Drive NE, south of Viola
Road NE.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Payne Company
1700 Northwood Drive NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 3f' Avenue SE
Rochester. MN 55904
Referral Comments: RPU Water Division
RPU Operations Division
Park and Rec. Department
Rochester Public Works Department
Planning Addressing Staff
Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Referral Comments (5 letters)
3. Copy of Preliminary Plat
4. Century Hills General Development Plan
Development Review.
Location of Property: The property is located east of Century Hills Drive NE
and south of Viola Road NE.
�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Century Hills 4th
January 20,2000
Ibq
Zoning: The property is currently going through the Annexation
process and is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban
Expansion) District on the County of Olmsted Zoning
Map. Once the property is annexed, the property will
be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City
of Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: This development consists of 10.87 acres of land to be
subdivided into 27 lots for single family development.
Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for four
roadways.
The first would be a easterly extension of 20'" Street NE
to the eastern border of this development, currently not
named. This roadway is designed with a 60' right-of-
way.
The second is a cul-de-sac, currently named Deer
Ridge Lane NE intersecting 200 Street NE to the north.
This roadway is designed with a 56' right-of-way and a
55' cul-de-sac right-of-way radius.
The third roadway is a northerly extension of Deer
Ridge Lane NE, currently not named. This roadway is
designed with a 60' right-of-way.
The fourth roadway is a cul-de-sac, currently named
Century Hills Lane NE, extending easterly from Century
Hills Drive NE. This roadway is designed with a 56'
right-of-way and a 55' cul-de-sac right-of-way radius.
The addressing staff of the Planning Department
related the following:
1. The roadway that is an extension of 201" Street NE
is not identified on this plat.
2. The stub roadway that lies directly north of Deer
Ridge Lane NE is not identified on the Plat.
Required second access. According to the LDM,
Section 64.127, Paragraph 10, "Secondary access will
be required for any low density residential development
that is projected to generate more than 500 average
daily trips. Where secondary access is not constructed
as part of the initial phase of development, the
secondary access shall be provided before the City
authorizes any construction that would be projected to
generate traffic in excess of 1,200 average daily trips."
1 `O Page 3
- ` Century Hills 4th
January 20, 2000
Roadways (continued): Currently the existing access (Century Hills Drive NE)
to the proposed Century Hills 4" Preliminary Plat
serves:
48 townhomes and 90 single family lots
adding the proposed 27 single family lots in Century
Hills 4" Preliminary Plat, the estimated trips are as
follows:
48 townhomes x 7.5 trips = 360 trips
117 Single Family x 10 trips = 1170 trips
Total: 1530 trips
The total number of estimated trips exceeds the
requirements for a second access by 330 trips.
Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along both sides of all of the new streets in the
subdivision.
Drainage: The topography is rolling with 1240' in the NW and SE
direction and 1230' in the SW and NE direction.
Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved
by the City Public Works Department prior to the
submittal of the final plat.
Storm Water Management must be provided for this
development.
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: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from
their present ends to accommodate this development.
The property may be subject to the water availability
fee, connection fees or assessments.
The Rochester Public Utilities, Water Department, have
provided the engineering firm with comments on the
proposed water system layout.
Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential
development must provide spillover parking for service
vehicles and visitors. This development requires 32
spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the
additional parking can be accommodated on the
roadways and most likely within private driveways, as
well.
Page 4
Century Hills 4th
January 20. 2000
Parkland Dedication: The owner of this proposed plat will be required to
dedicate .66 acres of vacant land for dedication of
parkland. The City Park and Recreation Department
recommends that dedication requirements be met via:
Deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated at
future site of neighborhood park located west of School
District 535 elementary school. The location of the
future elementary school is shown on the Century Hills
General Development Plan.
General Development Plan: This property is included within the Century Hills
General Development Plan (GDP).
Phase IV of the GDP includes completion of the public
roadway connection to CR 22 (East Circle Drive).
Although the roadway and lot design are generally
consistent with the approved GDP, this proposed plat
does not include the extension of Century Hills Drive
NE to CR 22, as indicated on Phase IV of the GDP.
Staff Review and Recommendation:
Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by
the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application.
This section is attached for your information.
The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of Section
61.225 of the LDM, effective May 15, 1999. The staff recommends that the following the following
options:
Denial of the Type III, Phase 11, Land Subdivision Permit #29-52 (Preliminary Plat) to be
known as Century Hills Fourth Subdivision for failure to meet Section 64.127,
Paragraph 10 of the LDM; or
2. Table the Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit #99.52 (Preliminary Plat) to be
known as Century Hills Fourth Subdivision if the owner is agreeable to revise and
resubmit the plat to include:
a. Dedication of Century Hills Drive NE to CR 22 (East Circle Drive), consistent with
Phase IV of the approved General Development Plan.
b. The roadway name(s) be identified on the plat, as recommended by the Addressing
Staff In the memo dated, January 13, 2000, including the extension of Century Hills
Drive NE to CR 22.
If the owner submits a revised plat, the following additional conditions will be
recommended as part of the preliminary plat approval:
c. Storm water management must be approved for this site. Storm water
management will need to address the impacts on the downstream residents. Any
new ponds serving less than 50 developable acres are considered private and will
need ownership and maintenance agreements.
d. Easements for off -site utilities will be required prior to final plat approval.
(71
(I� Page 5
I Century Mills 4th
January20, 2000
e. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines
the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, storm water
management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, and
contributions for public infrastructure.
f. Dedicate parkland as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department in
the attached memo, dated January 4, 2000.
Page 6
Century Hills 4th
January 20,2000
CITY OF ROCHESTER
ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
EXCERPTS
61.225 Finding 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.
B. 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 stormwater 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 resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover
parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.425.
H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the
purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the
development.
I. 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.
Effective May 15, 1999
1 73
�qq Page 7
Century Hills 4th
January 20, 2000
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 as 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 proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate
drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion
potential or any other floodplain 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 development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving
body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such
modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225,
Effective May 15, 1999
rpu
�;:•.7ar. :r
.t ,.,er
507/280-1579
January 5, 2000
TO: !nne l` aPalm, Planning Department
Consolidated Planning Dept.
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
I%.
SUBJECT: Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #99-52 by Payne
Company to be known as Century Hills Fourth Subdivision. The plat proposes to
subdivide approximately 10.87 acres of land into 27 lots for single family
development. The property is located east of Century Hills Drive NE, south of
Viola Road.
RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this land subdivision permit 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,
Michael J. Engle
ks
c: W. Lorber
T. Adkins, City Attorney
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Rood NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813
telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542
i
fl
park &
recreation
DATE: January 4, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
Planning
ROCHESTER PARK AND R ;REATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
RE: Century Hills 41"
Preliminary Plat #.99-52
Number of dwelling units ............................................. 27 units
Densityfactor............................................................ .0244
Dedication............................................................... .66 acres
Fair market value of land ............................................. NA
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated at future site of neighborhood park located
west of School District 535 elementary school site.
ZSWCENTJAY Hi:.:.3 :T.H..',OC
ROCHESTER j9q
Minnesota
li 12/00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4`" Street SE Room 108
TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740
2122 Campus Drive SE 507-
Rochester, MN 55904 FAX-507-281-6 7-281-6216
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for a
Preliminary Plat 9952 on Century Hills Fourth Subdivision (Payne Company)
property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. Storm Water Management shall be addressed for this development.
2. A City I Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this
property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure to serve
this subdivision.
3. Easements for off site utilities will be required prior to final plat
approval.
4. Pedestrian facilities shall be located along both sides of all public
roadways within 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, and contributions for public infrastructure.
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property:
•:• Trunkline Sanitary Sewer (J9218) @ $1403.17 per acre (no
interest based on prepaid contribution).
:• High Level Water Tower in Northern Heights Area (J9288) @
$1021.46 per acre plus interest @ 7.5% from May 4, 1998
Fees for Traffic Signs including (1) Street Name Sign, and (1)
Street Ends Sign.
C:ITEMP1PP9952.doc
RUCHESTER
✓��izrte�o�a
��CHEiiei•1r11
pt Tr O.4t G Lit''••
DAVID A. KAFLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3725
(507)255-8072
FAX #(507) 285-8256
DATE: January 18, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning
From: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
Subj: Type III, Phase II, Land Subd. Preliminary Plat #99-52, Century Hills 4th Subd.,
located east of Century Hills Drive NE and south of Viola Road NE.
This project is outside of the 5 minute response area of the Rochester Fire Department
and as such fire protection issues are critical. Wiith that regard, the fire department has
the following requirements:
1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants
properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water
Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction.
It appears an additional hydrant is necessary along Deer Ridge Lane NE near lot 12
or lot 2.
2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance
with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual including approved cul-de-sac dimensions and street widths. All fire
department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building
construction.
The cul-de-sac radius of 43.6' feet is insufficient to allow an 8 foot parking lane and
allow sufficient turn -around for fire apparatus. (96' with parking lane) "No Parking —
Fire Lane' signs must be posted on these cul-de-sacs, if constructed as shown.
3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any
residential buildings.
4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the
building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the
property.
c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division
Yaggy Colby Assoc., 717 3r0 Avenue SE., Rochester, Mn. 55904
Payne Company, 1700 Northwood Drive NE, Rochester, Mn. 55906
MA
Pave l l
City Planning and Zoning Commission }Minutes
Hearing Date: lanuan, 26. 2000
Ms. Petersson made a m approve Annexation Pe 27 by the Payne
Company. Ms. an seconded the motion, which carried 9.0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #99-52 by Payne Company
to be known as Century Hills Fourth Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide
approximately 10 87 acres of land into 27 lots for single family development. The
property is located east of Century Hills Drive NE. south of Viola Road.
Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated January 20, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Baker explained that the property consists of 10.87 acres to be divided into 27 lots for
single family development. She noted that staff originally recommended that the proposal be
denied or continued, but the concerns of staff have been addressed and an agreement has
been worked out with the applicant. She stated that a memo from the applicant outlining the
agreement has been distributed to the Commission. Ms. Baker explained that the new
Subdivision Ordinance includes a limit of 1200 trips within a development before a secondary
access is constructed, and the development has reached this limit. She commented that staff
has spoken to the applicant and developer about extending Century Hills Drive to East Circle
Drive and the recommended access is highlighted in the packet, and was included in the GDP
for this property. Ms. Baker explained that details of the access will be worked out with Public
Works. Since that issue has been more or less resolved, staff recommends that the
Commission approve the plat with the suggested condition number 2-b,c,d,e, and f on pages 72
and 73. She added three conditions:
1. Because the cul-de-sac radius is insufficient to allow an 8' parking lane, the cul-de-sac will
have to be designated and signed, "No Parking Fire Lane."
2. An additional hydrant shall be provided along Deer Ridge Lane near Lot 12 or Lot 2, per the
requirements of the Fire Department.
3. The development agreement for this plat shall include requirements and agreements for the
developer to construct the secondary access to Circle Drive concurrent with the
development of Century Hills 4" Subdivision.
Representing the applicant, Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the
Commission. He stated they have been working to work out all the details and are in
agreement with all of the conditions. He referred to condition b, and noted that one of the roads
staff suggests renaming to a "Lane" is not a lane per the definition, so it should be designated
an "Avenue" or "Drive," and they will work with staff on that issue. He pointed out that the
additional hydrant has already been designed. Mr. Dumond made himself available for
questions.
Ms. Petersson asked why the cul-de-sac can't be made bigger to accommodate parking.
Page 12
City Plannme and Zonme Commission .14inures
Hearin¢ Date: January 26, _1000
Mr. Dumond explained that it would have to be made much bigger, which wouldn't be feasible.
Ms. Schultze pointed out that, generally, on cul-de-sacs, the driveway is longer, so that makes
up for the loss of on -street parking.
Mr. Brede asked for clarification of differences between the roadways shown on pages 76 and
77.
Mr. Dumond stated the intersection is shown correctly on page 76.
ms. acnuitze movea to approve Preliminary Plat f199-52, to be known as Century Hills 416
Subdivision, with the 8 staff -suggested conditions. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion,
which carried 9.0. ,
Conditions
a. The roadway name(s) be identified on the plat, including the extension of Century
Hills Drive NE to CR 22.
b. Stormwater management must be approved for this site. Stormwater management
will need to address the impacts on the downstream residents. Any new ponds
serving less than 50 developable acres are considered private and will need
ownership and maintenance agreements.
c. Easements for off -site utilities will be required prior to final plat approval.
d. 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.
e. Dedicate parkland as recommended by the City Park B Recreation Department in the
attached memo, dated January 4, 2000.
f. Because the cul-de-sac radius is insufficient to allow an 8' parking lane, the cul-de-
sac will have to be designated and signed, "No Parking Fire Lane."
g. An additional hydrant shall be provided along Deer Ridge Lane near Lot 11 or Lot 2,
per the requirements of the Fire Department.
h. The development agreement for this plat shall include requirements and agreements
for the developer to construct the secondary access to Circle Drive concurrent with
the development of Century Hills 4' Subdivision.
District to the B-5 (Residential Commercial) District and also to change 5.3 acres of land
from the R•1 (Mixed Sinale Family) District to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) District
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETNG
DATE:
V
2/23/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Works
-07
r
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROJECT HEARING: "Construction of
16th Ave NW from Civic
PREPARED BY-
Center Dr NW to 7th St NW' (J2261).
D. Nelson
This is a Hearing to consider the following public improvement project:
Project No. 6316-4-97 J 2261
"Construction of 16' Ave NW from Civic Center Dr
to 7`" St NW"
The Estimated Costs are as follows:
Street Construction
$337,159.20
Utility Construction
$193,215.00
Traffic Signal
$151,000.00
RR Crossing
$310,900.00
Engineering, Contingency, Interest
$300,082.26
Right-of-way Acquisition Costs
$1,050,500
Total Project Cost
$2,342,856.46
Total Estimated Funding Distribution:
Special Assessments Frontage
$412,281.75
Federal Funds
$700,000.00
City Share (MSAS Funds)
$1,230,574.71
Total:
$2,342,856.46
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution ordering the project to be made.
,k
I
;OUNCIL ACTION: Motion b,7
Second by:
to.
,�ieb��pzd
Scherr, Judy
From: Senjem, David H. [senjem.david@mayo.edu]
*ent: Friday, February 18, 2000 1:41 PM
To: jscherr@ci.rochester.mn.us'
Subject: FW: 16th Ave NW Roadway and Fun in the Sun
Judy..... Please copy this email from Don Prow and place in boxes of Mayor
and Councilmembers..... thanks so much!
> -----Original Message-----
• From:donprow@webtv.net [SMTP:donprow@webtv.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 11:18 AM
> To: Senjem, David H.
> Subject: 16th Ave NW Roadway and Fun in the Sun
>
> I am writing to express my thoughts on the 16th St. roadway and give you
> a little background on this.
> I am in favor of the 16th Ave NW roadway going through for these
> reasons: It will speed up the HWY 52 project building time and save the
> state and city a large sum of money on interest alone. The businesses
> won't be inconvenienced and losing revenue for such a long period of
> time. It will also ease the communities traffic flow problem.
> Since I have owned this property I have had 3 interested parties . We
> always get back to what is going to happen with the roadway and how much
> will it cost me? When they ask the city staff these questions they are
> answered with a reply such as we don't know when or if it will happen or
> what it will cost . One party was told that they would not only have to
> buy my parcel, but Napa's as well as donating the land and paying the
> cost of the assessments. That makes it one of the most expensive pieces
> of land in town and is enough to scare off most people.As you can see
> this leaves my piece of property undevelopable or in limbo because of
> the uncertainty of what will happen. Limbo is a Catholic word meaning
> you don't know where you are going for all you Lutheran boys.
> Stalling of these projects and decisions is very unfair to the
> businesses and the community as a whole.
> Another concern that I have is about the price of the assessment.) have
> talked with Richard Freeze about this and he has told me that I will be
> charged for a normal roadway but they will build a five lane concrete
> roadway . It seems to me that the asessments are rather large for a
> normal roadway. I would like you to look into this and make sure that we
> aren't getting charged too large of an asessment for this. I realize
> that yo can't pay too large a price for good government but I don't wan
> to pay for it all by myself. I would also appreciate your pursuading the
> other council members to vote in favor of this matter. I also am worried
> that I won't get paid fair market value for my property
> from the city of Rochester, HopefuIly I will get fair compensation. By
> the City of rochester stalling making a decision on the roadway they are
> keeping my property in limbo, making it unsaleable.Fear of the unknown
> scares all buyers therefore putting an unfair hardship on me. I would
> appreciate your help and support in this matter.
> Now for fun in the sun. The weather is80's and sunny. Sunday we are
> takng a Harley down the road. Barbara is getting tatooed I don't know
> where for sure and getting ready to go. Having lots of fun
> As Always
> Don
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEET'.NG 183 /
DATE: 2/23100
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
JEM DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: "Construction of
Civic Center Dr NW to 7th St NW" (J2261).
Public Works
ITEM NO.
E -S
127PARED BY:
.) D, Nelson
This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public
improvement project:
Project No. 6316-4-97 J 2261
"Construction of 16'" Ave NW from Civic Center Dr to 7N St NW'
The Estimated Costs are as follows:
Street Construction
Utility Construction
Traffic Signal
RR Crossing
Engineering, Contingency, Interest
Right-of-way Acquisition Costs
Total Project Cost
Total Estimated Funding Distribution:
Special Assessments Frontage
Federal Funds
City Share (MSAS Funds)
Total:
Project Assessment Rate: $297.70
Assessment Period = 10 years
$337,159.20
$193,215.00
$151,000.00
$310,900.00
$300,082.26
$1,050,500
$2,342,856.46
$412,281.75
$700,000.00
$1,230,574.71
$2,342,856.46
The project is scheduled for construction in 2000. No payments of the assessments are required until
the project is substantially completed. Assessment Notices (invoices) will be sent to the owners of
property abutting the project at that time. l
it
!i
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution levying the proposed assessments.
ti'`,
C-!TT Of ROCHE;SJER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST )1/21i00
OPTION 1 M
2261 6316.4-97 EXTENSION OF 16TH AVENUE N.W. FROM CIVIC CENTER DRIVE N.U. TO 7TH STREET N.W.
TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS L E G A L 0 E S C R I P T I 0 N PROPERTY ID
R & S NORTHGATE
285 WESTVIEW OR
SAINT PAUL MN 55118
COMMERCIAL RATE 201.370
TO BE ASSESSED
------------------------ ________
WEBER & BARLOW STORES INC
1161 6TH ST NW
ROCHESTER MN 55901
*" AUDITOR'S PLAT D •e
LOT 1
'AGE '
LOT SLK
74.34.14.001444 001
FEET 297.70000000 59,947.85
59,947.85
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
PT OF LOT 14 DES AS FOL DOM SECOR NE1/4 TH 74.34.14.056667 014
N83.60FT TH W722.60FT FOR THE PT OF BEG TH
N458.58FT TH NW78.20FT IN S255FT TH W70FT
MORE OR LESS TH SW TO A PT ON THE R-O-W LN
17.40FT FROM THE W LN LOT 14 iH SE174.75FT
TO THE S LN LOT 14 TH E57.5FT TO THE PT OF
BEG SEC 34.107-14
COMMERCIAL RATE
96.230
FEET
297.70000000 28,647.67
TO BE ASSESSED
28,647.67
....................................................................................................................................
WEBER & BARLOW STORES
INC
PT OF LOT 14 DES AS FOL CON SECOR HE1/4 TH
74.34.74.056668 014
1161 6TH ST NW
N83.60FT TH W780.11FT TH NW192.15FT TO W LN
ROCHESTER MN
55901
LOT 14 TH N384.48FT NWCOR LOT 14 IN E5.42FT
FOR THE PT OF BEG TH SE124.80FT TH 9255FT
TH W70FT MORE OR LESS TH N TO THE N LN LOT
14 & PT OF BEG SEC 34.107-14
COMMERCIAL RATE
312.420
FEET
297.70000000 93,007.43
TO BE ASSESSED
93,007.43
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MATTISON GARY
ALL TH PT LOT 12 LYING ELY OF A LINE CON
74.34.13.053760 012
3805 20T4 ST SE
AT A PT ON NLY LINE OF SO LOT 12 WN IS 104
ROCHESTER MN
55904
FT NWLY OF NECOR SO LOT 12 & EXTENDING SWLY
AT FIT ANGLES TO SO NLY LINE OF LOT 12 TO
SLY BOUNDARY OF SO LOT 12 & THERE TERM
COMMERCIAL RATE
164.430
FEET
297.70000000 48,950.81
TO BE ASSESSED
48,950.81
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BARB PROW LLC
ALL LOT 11 & LOT 10 LESS PC DES AS FOL COM
74.34.14.056670 011
516 17 AVE NW
SECOR LOT 10 TH 436FT TH SELY TO A PT ON
ROCHESTER MN
53901
THE S LN THEREOF 47FT SELY OF SECOR LOT 10
TH NWLY AL S LN TO BEG SEC 34-107-14
COMMERCIAL RATE
247.830
FEET
297.70000000 73,778.99
TO BE ASSESSED
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
73,778.99
" CITY LANDS 107-14-34 '*
R & 5 NORTHGATE
TH PT SE1/4 NE1/4 DES AS FOLLOWS BEG AT A 74.34.14.031246
285 WESTVIEW OR
PT ON W LINE 11TH AVE NW SOFT NELY MEASURED
SAINT PAUL MN 55118
AT FIT ANGLES FR THE CEN LINE OF THE MAIN TR
OF C NW RR CO SD PT BEG ALSO THE SECOR OF
LOT 1 AHREN-DALS80 ADD TH NWLY PAR WITH SO
CRIG MAIN TR CEN LINE SO PAR LINE BEING
ALSO THE SWLY LINE OF $0 AHRENS-OALSBO ADO
& THE SWLY LINE OF LOT 1 AUDITORS PLAT '0'
A DIST OF 1088FT TH SWLY AT FIT ANGLES TO
LAST DES COURSE 28.38FT TO A PT DISTANT
8.5FT RELY FR CEN LINE OF C NW RR SPUR TR
NO 290 TH SELY PAR WITH SO SPUR TR 1096.3FT
TO A PT ON W LINE OF 11TH AVE NW TH NLY
AL SO W LINE 11TH AVE NW 29.56FT TO PT OF
BEG SEC 34-107-14
COMMERCIAL RATE 27.210 FEET
297.70000000 8,100.42
TO BE ASSESSED
8,100.42
_---------------- _____________
----------- _-------------------------------------------------
BARB PROW LLC
_----------------------------------------
TH PT NE1/4 DES AS FOL CON SECOR NE1/4 TH N 74.34.14.057484
CITY OF ROCHESTER
TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS
'16 17TH AVE NW
OCHESTER MN 55901
COMMERCIAL RATE 327.160 FEET
TO BE ASSESSED
---------------------------------------
WEBER 8 BARLOW PROPERTIES
1161 6TH ST NW
ROCHESTER MN 55901
COMMERCIAL RATE 8.240 FEET
TO BE ASSESSED
--------------------------------------
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST 01/2'/'0 �4GE /2G�xj
L E G A L D E S C R I P T 1 0 N PROPERTY ;D LOT SILK ! V�
AL E LN 456.11FT TH NW740FT TH S124.92F7 TH 111
NW204.79FT FOR THE PT OF BEG TH NW432.68FT
TH NE124.92FT TH SE452.67FT TH SW120.86FT
TO THE PT OF BEG SEC 34-107-14
297.70000000 97,395.53
97,395.53
------------------------------------------- _...... ______________________________________
TH PT NE1/4 DES AS FOL COM SECOR NEi/4 TH N 74.34.14.057485
AL E LN 456.11FT IN NW74OFT FOR THE PT OF
BEG TH S124.92FT TH NW204.79FT TH NE120.86
FT TH SE184.79FT TO THE PT OF BEG
SEC 34-107-14
297.70000000 2,453.05
2,453.05
______________________________________________________________________________
CITY OF-ROCHESTER SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS 'AGE 3
OPTION 1 ( V W
2261 6316•\\\\4 YYY/// 997EXTENSION OF 16TN AVENUE N.W. FROM CIVIC CENTER DRIVE N.W. TO 7TN STREET N.W.
TOTAL COST OF JOB
TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED 412,281.75
TOTAL TO BE DEFERRED
TOTAL TO FUTURE
COMMERCIAL RATE 1,384.890 FEET 297.70000000 412,281.75
ASSESSKNT KRK FILc - 3tL .17 CiS272?
(B�
Job Number: 2261 Total Cost: 412,281.75
Cption: 1 Total Current: 412, 281.75
Option Description Total Deferred:
I11111111��111.11�111111111111�111�11111111111 ............
Type Number of Unit of Rate Cost
Units Measure
CM 1384.890 F 297.70000000 412,281.75
i
0 1►
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF 16TH AVE NW FROM CIVIC
CENTER DR TO 7r" ST NW
January 14, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing the following project:
Construct a new portion of 16t° Ave NW extending from Civic Center Drive north to 7* St NW,
Feasibility Renort
We report that this project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of this project is
within a redeveloping commercial area.
This project has been budgeted for in the City's Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2000.
The costs of this project should be paid from Federal funds, Municipal State Aid funds, and assessment
charges to abutting property owners.
The original project was included / approved as part of the City of Rochester's 1996 Capital Improvement
Program at a cost of S 1,376,000. This cost included construction cost, engineering and contingency cost
and ROW reimbursement for the Northgate and Mattison parcels. The balance of ROW was to be
dedicated by those owner(s). Project funding was to come from the City's Municipal State Aid account.
The proposed project consists of the construction of a 52' - 66' wide, multi -lane street, 950 feet in length,
with a new traffic signal at 7° St NW and modifications to the existing signal at Civic Center Dr.
Additionally, work will include a Railroad crossing and signal system at the DM&E tracks. Watermain
and storm sewer improvements are included as a part of this project.
'?.ALA �(Y
The estimated costs of the project an as follows:
0
0
$0.00
Street Pavement sg1t
48880
5.84
5285,459.20
Concrete Curb - LF
1480
10
$14,800.00
SidenoWdriveway sgft
7100
4
$28,400.00
ClearirxyGrubdnglSeeding/Restorabon
Lump
85W
$8,500.00
Utility Contraction
F & I Watermain - LF
985
72
S70,920.00
F 8 I Storm Sewer - LF
465
263
$122 295,00
Utility Service Line(s) Sewer/W"
4
20M
$8,000.00
Associated Construction
Traffic Signal
Luny
151,000
$151.000.00
Railroad Crossing
Lump
3109W
$310,900.00
Sub Total
$1,000,274.20
Fsgineenrog/Condrxjencylinterest 30%
$300,08226
TOTAL
$1,300,356.46
Total less service connections
$1,292356.46
Right of Way Acquisition
$1,050,500.00
$2,342.556.46
Since the original project was approved as part of the 1996 CIP, construction costs and right-of-way cost
have significantly increased
In 1999, we received a commitment for Federal funding for a share of the construction costs. Federal
funding is approved at S700,000.
To make this a viable projem the watermian and storm drainage costs and a portion of the street costs
should be assessed to the abutting property owners.
There is approximately, 1276.44 feet of assessable frontage. The full cost to build a standard 36 ft wide, 9
ton commercial street is S380,000 which equates to an assessment rate of S297.70 per assessable foot of
frontage.
Sao_ . _ J.ANL:.�,;kV
Additionally, service connection charges are funded directly from the benefiting owner
Assessments (S380,000) together with Federal Funding (S700,000) totals S 1,080,000. This represents
46% of the total project costs.
The remaining 54% (S1,262,856) represents the City Share of the project. This would be funded from the
City's MSAS funds. This number is similar to the 1996 CIP project funding previously approved by the
City Council.
As such we recommend this project moves forward as a feasible, special assessment project
Michae�ur, Douglas elson, PE
Land Development Manager Engineering Manager
Project No:
-4-
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
IANUARY 14, -"CC 111
Date: Jan 13, 2000
J No: 2261
Description: Construct 16" Ave NW from Civic Center Drive to 7' St NW
Pmiect Cast 8uttattary
Street Construction
0
Street Pavement son
48M
Concrete Ciro - LF
1480
Sidewalk/dnveway Wit
7100
CleamxyGrubbirglSeadinglft Ltanp-
Utility Construction
F & I Waterinain - LF
9a5
F & I Storm Sewer - LF
465
Utility Service Line(s) SewerNV
4
Associated Construction
Traffic Signal 1Jt11p
Railroad Crossing Lump
Property Assessable Frontage
Total
Project Assesenrnt Rah
Distribution
To be presently cortecied
To be dehneWPostponed
City's Share (MSAS funds)
Federal Share
Total
Revenue Sources
Assessrrent Charges
City Share (MSAS funds)
Federal Share
TOTAL
Contract
Project Budget Coat Final Gast
0 S0.00
5.84 $255.459,20
10 S 14, 800.00
a $29,400,00
72 $70.920.00
283 $122.29&00
2000 sa.o00.00
151,0001 $151,000.00
3109W $310,900.00
$2, 342.856.46
1276.44
1276.44
$297.70
$379,999.19
50.00
31,262,860.27
$700,000.00
S2,342.856.46
Total Revenue
S379.996.19
s1,262,WO 27
S700.000.00
$2.342,956.46
16m AvE NW PROPERTY OWNER MAP - 4 - J.�N tl AKY 14, _'CC
�U}� 1N3WNOIIV C330aO�ld
rj:c31_ I /
O :�i i� � raos3Hr+�w 'a31S3N�0a i
Q u < •; �� 153MH1210N 3(1N3AV H191Ili!,,!rug ��f�
s c
-- - - - ..
i
F7/
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �
2-23-00
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARLNGS
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
4
PLANNCL G e - _1
'M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99.8 to be known as Spruce Meadows Subdivision. PREPARED BY:
tititzi A. Baker,
February 17, 2000
Planning Department Review:
See attached Staff Report dated February 17, 2000
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed with this Plat, a resolution approving the plat should be
adopted.
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 Wednesday February 23, 2000, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
6. Yaggy Colby Associates
L
_OUNCILACTION: Motlonbv Second
11
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner
DATE: February17, 2000
F ,L ltr rFu•iriti
RI rFD. ACUL`�
POCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285.8232
PLANNWG
GIS/ADORESSING/
507/285.8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELL/SEPTIC
5071285-8345
FAX
507/287.2275
RE: Type III, Phase I Final Plat #99-8 to be known as Spruce Meadows
Subdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide 7.96 acres of land into
34 lots for single family development. The plat dedicates the risIht-of-
way for one public roadway. The property is located east of 11 h
Avenue SE, north of 201h Street SE and west of Bear Creek.
Planning Department Review:
ApplicanUOwner:
Surveyors/Engineers:
Arnold Bomgaars
1530 SW Greenview Dr.
Rochester, MN 55902
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: 1.
Olmsted County Public Works
2.
Rochester Park & RED. Dept.
3.
Rochester Department of Public Works
4.
Olmsted Soil and Water Conservation District
5.
RPU Water Division
6.
Planning Department Addressing Staff
Report Attachments: 1.
Land Development Manual Excerpts
2.
Referral Comments ( 6 Letters)
3.
Copy of Preliminary Plat
Development Review:
Location of Property: This plat is located east of 11' Ave./CSAH 1, and
north of 201" Street SE.
�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
re
ITEM. 'F-9
DATE: February 23, 2000
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker
RE: Agenda Item E-9, Spruce Meadows Subdivision Final Plat
so
1a•�nI
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN
55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
5071285-8232
PLANNING
ele/ADDRESSINGl
5071265-6232
MAPPING
HOUSINGMRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
5071285-8213
Wru11sEPTlc
5071285.8345
FAX
507/287.2275
This final plat Is subject to Subdivision regulations that were In effect prior to May 15, 2000.
Since that Is the case, a development agreement would not be needed to address certain
development obligations. Also, Public Works has revised their comments as they relate to the
requirements for pedestrian facilities. For these reasons, staff recommends amending the
conditions as follows: {new text is underlined, text to be deleted is shown with strlkattAreugh)
1. The applicant is responsible to provide a right turn lane from CSAH 1, if required by
Olmsted County.
3. The applicant must meet park land dedication requirements by dedication of cash In lieu of
land In the amount of $8,160 as Identified In the attached memo from the Rochester Park
and Recreation Department dated February 10, 2000.
S. A temporary turnaround shall be provided at the southerly end of "Spruce Meadows Drive
SE". Easement documents for the turn around must be executed with the City prior to
recording the final plat documents.
6. The Plat shall be revised to identify controlled access along the north line of Lot 1, Block 1
for the westerly' 120 feet and also along the north side of "Spruce Meadows Drive SE" from
11`" Ave. SE to the comer of Lof 1, Block 2. The Plat shall also be revised to change the
roadway name from "Spruce Meadows Avenue SE" to "Spruce Meadows Drive SE".
7. Stormwater management must be provided for this plat through on site fsclilNes or
participation In the Cltv's Ragional Plan.
AN ECUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFRRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
C00/ZOOin NH310 S.LS') , 'Id31 DNTNNY'Id PnO-HOOK SLZZ LVZ LOU YVd 10:0T 00/EZ/ZO
40 ROCHESTER
Minnesota
2/18/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
"REVISED 2/18/00'
ITEM E-9
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507.287-7800
FAX - 507.281-6215
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #99-08 on
the Spruce Meadows Subdivision. The following are Public Works comments on this proposal:
1. The grading plan and construction plans for this plat have been approved.
2. The owner has requested to participate in the City's Regional Stormwater
Management Plan. The applicable stormwater management fee will be addressed in
the Development Agreement.
3. 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.
4. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property to
address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this
subdivision.
5. 44ke prelintimmy plat i1qdipated- that the developer hail a eheiee to previde eithef a S
feet sidewsik or A 10 foot wide bike path is required at the owner's expense within
the I I" Ave SE ROW. In addition, construction of a 5 foot concrete sidewalk is
required at the owner's expense, along be* sides the east side of Spruce Meadows
Avenue SE, concurrent with this development.
6. A temporary turn around, and associated easement, shall be provided at the southerly
extent of Spruce Meadows Lane SE.
7. Controlled access is required along the north and cast ROW of Spruce Meadows
Lane SE from I Vh Ave SE to the westerly comer of Lot 1, Block 2. Controlled access
is also required for 120 feet from 11 h Ave SE, easterly along the north and east line
of Lot 1, Block 1.
C9TEMRFP9908Rev2-00. DOC
COO/ COO 1n MNH-13 SLID � 'Jd30 DNINNY"Id W10-BOON SLZZ 499 LOS YVd TOOT 00/£9/ZO
Page 2
February 17, 2000
Zoning:
The property is in the City limits and is zoned R-1
(Mixed Single Family).
Proposed Development:
This development consists of 7.96 acres to be
subdivided into 34 lots for single family residential
development.
Streets:
The plat dedicates right-cf-way for one (1) roadway
identified on the Plat as "Spruce Meadows Ave. SE",
The roadway name will need to be changed to
"Spruce Meadows Drive SE".
Utilities:
Sanitary sewer and water lines can be extended from
their present ends within CSAH 1.
Sidewalks:
In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along both sides of the new roadway within
this plat. Sidewalk, or a 10' bituminous path, will be
required along 11 `' Ave. SE.
Drainage:
This property is relatively flat and was previously
filled. Most of the site is filled to 1,015' with the
property sloping to the east to an elevation of 1,005'
in the north east corner. The applicant has requested
to participate in the City's Regional Stormwater
Management Plan.
Wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The original grading plan was approved for this
property in 1993. At that time, the site was studied for
wetlands and no wetlands were found except some
that were exempted at the outlet of a storm sewer.
Spillover Parking:
The spillover parking requirements for this
development would be 41 parking spaces. The
proposed roadways should be adequate to
accommodate the required spillover spaces.
Parkland Dedication:
There is no parkland included within the boundaries
of this plat. The Park & Recreation Department
recommends that dedication requirements be
satisfied by cash in lieu of land.
General Development Plan:
There is no general development plan for this
property.
1a1
IPage 3
February 17. 2000
Preliminary Plat:
The Preliminary Plat for this property was approved by the City Council in April, 1999 with the following
conditions or mocificaticns:
1. The applicant is responsible to provide a right turn lane from CSAH 1. if required by Olmsted
County.
2. 2Y" Street improvements must be included as part of this project and any improvements on
11"' Avenue dictated by the County.
3. Stormwater management must be addressed as part of this plat through on site facilities or
participation in the City's Regional Plan.
4. Sidewalk is required to be constructed adjacent to the abutting roadways including 'Spruce
Meadows Avenue SE", 11°e Avenue/CSAH 1 and 2dh Street SE. The developer may
construct a 10' bituminous path abutting 11'h Avenue instead of the five foot concrete walk.
5. The applicant must meet park land dedication requirements by dedication of cash in lieu of
land as identified in the attached memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department
dated March 21, 1999.
6. That "Spruce Meadows Avenue" be modified to intersect with 2d" Street SE at a right angle.
The developer shall incorporate a curve to allow this to happen.
Staff Review and Recommendation
The preliminary plat for this property was approved prior to adoption of the new subdivision
regulations, which became effective May 15, 1999. Since this final plat application was filed
prior to May 15, 2000, the subdivision regulations by which this final plat is reviewed are those
which were in effect prior to May 15, 1999.
The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance
and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant is responsible to provide a right turn lane from CSAH 1, if required by
Olmsted County.
2. Sidewalk is required to be constructed adjacent to the abutting roadways including
"Spruce Meadows Avenue SE", W Avenue/CSAH 1 and 200 Sheet SE. The developer
may construct a 10' bituminous path abutting 11 m Avenue instead of the five foot concrete
walk.
3. The applicant must meet park land dedication requirements by dedication of cash in lieu of
land in the amount of $8,150 as identified in the attached memo from the Rochester Park
and Recreation Department dated February 10, 2000.
4. 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.
Page
ebr a I �q �
February 17, 2000
5. A temporary turnaround shall be provided at the southerly end of "Spruce Meadows Drive
SE". Easement documents for the turn around must be executed with the City prior to
recording the final plat documents.
6. The Plat shall be revised to identify controlled access along the north line of Lot 1, Block 1
for the westerly 120 feet and also along the north side of "Spruce Meadows Drive SE" from
11 'h Ave. SE to the corner of Lot 1, Block 2. The Plat shall also be revised to change the
roadway name from "Spruce Meadows Avenue SE" to "Spruce Meadows Drive SE".
F7,
r
pi
SSyE
:;
is
F
siii
c!7
w
LLJ
F
E^
y
4=
zi{7
p
aVu,�Lw
>YwN .v ..✓rel
„N aaw
1
I
3�}}
t�
}
r
d1O53NNIW M3.63H308
NOISIA1(3ans SMOad3W 3DnNdS
!
� E
rem T T &tad
H
N
w
n:
a
a{
0
pow
as 3
February 15, 2000
Suzanne LaPalm
Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Suzanne:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
507/285-8231
The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III, Phase I Final Plat #99-8 to be
known as Spruce Meadows Subdivision and has the following comments:
Access permit will be required from Olmsted County Public Works
Department
Sincerely,
/��
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS:ss
taengincloclplanzone.doc
5
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste
Administration Building Maintenance
px � RectePoo
`IB 1
Park and Recreation Department
City of Rochester
201 Fourth Street SE • Room 150 • Rochester, MIN 55904
(507) 281-6160 • FAX (507) 281.6165
February 10, 2000
To: Suzanne LaPalm
Consolidated Planning
From: Rochester Park and Recreation
RE: Spruce Meadows Subdivision
Final Plat #99-8
Acreage.........................................................................
Number of Dwelling Units ............................................
Dwelling Unit Density ...................................................
Density Factor
Dedication Requirement ..............................................
Fair Market Value of Land
7.96 acres
34 units
4.27 unitstacre
.12
.96 acres
$8, 500/acre
The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication
requirement for the plat be satisfied by:
Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $8,160 (.9eacres x $8500/acre)
Payment due 12 months after approval of plat.
Appkwt
Amax BWQWs
1530 C4mrvNw D"m sw
ROCHESTE&
Minnesota
2/15/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
aos'
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4' 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 #99-08 on
the Spruce Meadows Subdivision. The following are Public Works comments on this proposal:
1. The grading plan and construction plans for this plat have been approved.
2. The owner has requested to participate in the City's Regional Stormwater
Management Plan. The applicable sormwater management fee will be addressed in
the Development Agreement.
3. 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.
4. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property to
address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this
subdivision.
5. The preliminary plat indicated that the developer had a choice to provide either a 5
foot sidewalk or 10 foot bike path within the I I'h Ave SE ROW. In addition,
construction of a 5 foot concrete sidewalk is required at the owner's expense, along
both sides of Spruce Meadows Avenue SE, concurrent with this development.
6. A temporary turn around, and associated easement, shall be provided at the southerly
extent of Spruce Meadows Lane SE.
7. Controlled access is required along the north and east ROW of Spruce Meadows
Lane SE from i Vh Ave SE to the westerly corner of Lot 1, Block 2. Controlled access
is also required for 120 feet from I Vh Ave SE, easterly along the north and east line
of Lot 1, Block 1.
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property:
:• Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre.
•:• Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre.
•A Stormwater Management Fee for participation in the City's Regional
Stormwater Plan.
A Traffic Signs as determined by the Traffic Division.
C:\TEMP\FP9W8.D0C
U 1i115 L`:0-JW'..il I 47U!-L6U-L6-�6 _ -�:�: -._.- ..I.
OLMSTED SOIL mND ,,LATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1485 Industnal Drive NW
Room 102
Rochester, Minnesota 55901
(507) 280-2850
MINNESOTA
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
February 26, 1999
Olmsted County Planning
Attention: Suzanne LaPalm
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Attention: Suzanne LaPalm
Re: Preliminary Plat #99-9
the Olmsted SWCD reviewed the plat to be known as Maulowbrook Subdivision.
The area of the proposed subdivision has been altered by the placement of fill, which resulted in
changing the elevation several !feet. Lots 1 through 26 in Block I may need additional fill to
achieve the proposed grades prior to building of dwellings.
Wetlands may exist in this a = which is adjacent to the Bear Creek floodway. We recommend a
wetland delineation be completed prior to any site grading activities. Additional fill in the
backyards of these lots may encroach into the floodplainlfloodway along Bear Creek.
Erosion and runoff control measures must be installed and maintained to prevent impacts of this
area. Additional fill may not he requited in Block 2 with the exception of areas on Lot 19 and 20
and the proposed 2014 Street right of way. Erosion control measures must be installed prior to any
grading activities with the proposed subdivision.
A stormwater treatment pond may be required to be in compliance with the NPDES requirements of
the MPCA and the Rochester Stormwater Management Plan.
If you have any questions please call 280-2850.
S incerely,
Floyd CW.
District Technician
FWldm
cc: David Kramer, Rochester Public Works
AN EQUAL CPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
r u
t'
fill nPelge, we dedwer
507/280-1579
February 14, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
SUBJECT: Type III Phase I Final Plat #99-8 to be known as Spruce Meadows Subdivision.
The plat proposes to subdivide 7.96 acres of land into 34 lots for single family
development. The plat dedicates the right-of-way for one public roadway. The
property is located east of l ls' Avenue SE, north of 20th Street SE and west of
Bear Creek.
RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this final plat and has no objections.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Engle
j8
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813
telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ',1E= :
CATE:
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
BLIC HEART\GS PLA\N'I\G
_M DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00-02 by Verna Badger Trust to PREPARED BY:
i annex approximately 40.17 acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, west of Theresa Fogarty,
West Circle Drive, in Section 20, Cascade Township. Planner
February 14, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on February 9, 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 Ms. Schultz to approve Annexation Petition #00-02 by Verna Badger Trust,
with the property being designated "H" Holding Zone. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Quinn. The motion carried 7-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated January 31, 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
$96.22.
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. The motion shall also include that
the property be placed in H-Holding Zone, upon annexation to the City.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report, dated January 31. 2000.
Distribution: i
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 Wednesday
the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
February 23, 2000 in the Council Chambers at
7 Yaaav Colby Associates
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
ago
zI
Z_
Z
O
N
a
M
c
to
U
N
Q
U
O
a
Q
Q
Q
Q
U=_<
u7
a�
'm
E
O
0
0
N
co
N
C
R
T
tD
a
LL
l
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
`,t KJ�Hl�fF'R-tIFt 1F
OR �h�T F. D•�CGLS( �
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232
PLANNING
GIS%ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGMRA 5071285-8224
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner �� BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213
WELUSEPTIC 5071285.8345
DATE: January 31, 2000 FAX 507/287.2275
RE: Annexation Petition #00-02 by Verna Badger Trust to annex
approximately 40.17 acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW
west of West Circle Drive, in Section 20, Cascade Township.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners: Verna Badger Trust
Richard E. Badger, Power of Attorney
4410 Valleyhigh Road NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Location of Property: The property is located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, and
west of West Circle Drive NW.
Existing Land Use: This property is currently farmland with suspended agricultural
production activities. There exists one single family dwelling
and approximately 20 agricultural outbuildings.
Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately
40.17 acres of unplatted land.
Existing Zoning: The property is zoned A4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion)
District on the Olmsted County Zoning Map.
Future Zoning: Upon annexation, the property should be place in a
"Holding" Zone. The applicant has filed a Zoning District
Amendment for the entire property.
Land Use Plan: This property is designated for "low density residential" uses
on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Note:
The applicant has filed a Land Use Plan Amendment for
medium density uses.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
�Annexation #00-02
ebruary 2.. 2000
Adjacency to the Municipal
Limits:
Sewer & Water:
Fire Protection:
Thoroughfare Plan:
Townboard Review:
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
The property is adjacent to the city limits along its east
boundary, once Annexation Petition 00-01 is approved.
The Northwest High Level Water System service is available
to this property.
Municipal sewer and water will need to be extended to serve
this area.
The entire area is outside of the six minute response area of
the Rochester Fire Department thereby making fire protection
issues in this area of critical concern.
The Fire Department has no objection, however, city water
services must be in place prior to occupancy of residential
homes.
A traffic impact study is being prepared to address future
traffic services issues associated with development of the site
The Townboard reviewed this annexation along with
annexation request 00-01 and adopted a Resolution 001-
2000, approving the annexation.
RPU Operations Division, RPU Water Division, Rochester
Public Works, Rochester Fire Department, Planning Staff -
Transportation Division
1. Annexation Map
2. Location Map
3. Referral Comments (5 letters)
4. Township Resolution 001-2000
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).
Staff also recommends this property be zoned H-Holding, upon annexation to the City. Land Use Plan and
Zoning District amendments are currently under consideration for this property.
rpu
nr�F.?:7e
507/280-1579
January 18, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department
Consolidated Planning Dept.
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
P13
SUBJECT: Annexation Petition #00-02 by Verna Badger Trust to annex approximately 40.17
acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, west of West Circle Drive, in
Section 20, Cascade 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 future.
Sincerely,
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 ;n'?dye. Ne 7e ver
January 21, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00-02 by Verna Badger Trust to annex
40.17 acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW and west of West Circle Drive NW in
Section 20, Cascade Township.
Dear Ms. LaPalm:
Our review of the referenced petition 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. Northwest High Level Water System water service is available approximately '/< mile to the east
of this property.
3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system
layout to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
C" (• pj_
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Yaggy Colby Associates
Verna Badger Trust
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
ROCHESTER ar5
Minnesota
1 21, 00 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
ANNX00-02 on the Verna Badger Trust property (40.17 acres). The following are
Public Works comments on the proposal:
Municipal sewer and water is available to serve this area.
CATEMPWNNEX00-02coc
ROCHESTER
%l/7tZF'JCi�/Z,
DATE: January 25, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning
From: Lyle Feisch, Deputy Chief
4�rF O.�L Gbit
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester. MN 55904.3726
(507)285-8072
FAX t#(507) 285-8256
Subj: Annexation Petition #00-01 and #00-02 by Richard and Verna Badger for a total
of 235.64 acres located west of West Circle Drive and south of Valleyhigh road
NW.
This entire area is outside of the six minute response area of the Rochester Fire
Department thereby making fire protection issues in this area of critical concern.
With that regard the fire department has no objection to the approval of these
annexations, however, city water services must be in place prior to occupancy of
residential homes. All construction must be in accordance with the requirements of all
appropriate building and fire codes including required permits.
c: Richard Badger, 6004 Valleyhigh Road NW, Rochester, Mn. 55901
Verna Badger Trust, 4410 Valleyhigh Road NW, Rochester, Mn. 55901
Yaggy Colby Assoc., 717 3rd Avenue SE, Rochester, Mn. 55904
TRANSPORTATION ST:
1 City GDP 147
Arcon
ENV DATABASE - 1998
ar7
which are being reviewed with landowners, which include the School District and
Park Department on a 40 acre site immediately to the southeast.
The one change or modification to the General Development Plan that is
recommended would be for the GDP to reflect the future need to align Bandel
Road in a direct north -south alignment along the west property line all the way to
the proposed 650 St alignment. This realignment is recommended in order to
create a cleaner, 90' intersection with the future 65" St and a oorennal extension
of Bandel Road to the north and to provide additional spacing between the end of
any bridge structure over the highway and the fast intersecting street.
The transportation issues associated with the proposed development have for the
most part been identified in the development of other properties in the area and are
issues that are under study by the city in cooperation with the developers. These
include:
> The need to upgrade 50's Ave and 65" St to accommodate collector i arterial
type of traffic levels, which requires the dedication of land to provide for the
needed future right of way, and to evaluate the locationispacing of access
points to limit the level of traffic conflict on these corridors.
> Financing the upgrade of these corridors through some type of cost sharing
program involving the private sector and public sector
> Providing accommodations for transportation needs other than auto and truck
traffic; this includes accommodations for non -motorized traffic and transit.
> Addressing the issue of neighborhood traffic management.
In response to these issues we would make the following comments and
recommendations:
> The development plan is making provisions for the needed right of way along
50" Ave and 65' St — 60 feet of right of way should be provided towards the
120' right of way that is anticipated to be needed
> Financing issues are a matter that is under study. Among the concepts being
looked at is the ability to use TIF, adjustments to the substandard street fee,
and city pursuit of federal and/or state funds. Until these issues are resolved
there is a need to limit the addition of traffic to 50' Ave, which would require
City
Annex 00-02
Badger Trust
No comment on annexation. A traffic impact study is being prepared to address
future traffic services issues associated with development of the site.
City
Annex 00.01
No comment on annexation. A traffic impact study is being prepared to address
Badger
future traffic services issues associated with development of the site.
City
GDP N 146
55 St is designated as a collector street on the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan
Kingsbury
and the corridor is designated for development of a Neighborhood Connector Trail
on the Long Range Bicycle Plan. The collector street designation in combination
with the trail designation will require a right of way of 120'. This corridor
currently meets local road standards and in the future will need to be upgraded to
handle the expected level of traffic that will be generated by full development of
properties along the corridor. The plan to upgrade 55" St will also need to identify
on which side of the corridor the future trait will be located
The proposed GDP, with 148 lots, in combination with the existing and
undeveloped lots in the Wedgewood development, will generate approximately
3000 trips per day. This level of trip making will utilize the capacity of the
existing street, and it would be our recorrtmendation that no further development
beyond that included in the Wedgewood and Kingsbury developments be
approved until a fmancine plan is developed for uoemdine 55" St to collector
ass iJ S tot P o v C'R-S(ZA o a-
Ce U ,j Ty of
4ezcs- , j Sbc*rt.Jbi' (:�4SCAOF—
A-osE2 ?aoPfe,, YJ
i
III TEE ,¢,a�rE-�c a�-te,�J m 2 3 37t/�ceras Sic r re,� ��p
!: CA�GaOE 'Ti«SJSIFcP k)R5 �12f�E.JZ'� To7+4E C SGgp! le..�asch!
Q.,.t �nJD£2so.�) fbe T►l��e 9�idi E.,1
,a.,�o fjAP2e,/�a-c�. Nf2 ,QatesaJ 7EA r �o D
l.Cifl�ef,as, -r,�, Tm4s,J Soq,� o� G',4sc,4-o�J .4��Ee iJv�t,
E1�Aw, v1 a .J� Tub. beC.v.K�,..t rs r-ca.0 14 A44
lUBcJ 1b4-e*-f-oP.E. e,E I-r aoa" o1
i
�.45G,4CE. l�o�s G+P.4 APP2e%a-e— o -rN.L-
�+'��F-X�4-'ri�
zap C�sc,�� .JS61-L .,
sc,aoE E� f�G2�Es �A�✓E Th(& vs,.,W— 90
JloE.eLap
AS 5 r�.D, 14L}o�tE D l4 �D AoPeo vED
y
® o.�aauaeY 2000,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION '.1EE`NG 42(G�
DATE 11C -±_i10
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
-"IBLIC HE.ARINI GS PLAIvtiING —(
EM DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00.03 by Fern Meyers to annex PREPARED BY:
approximately 40 acres of land located along the east side of 401" Avenue SE, east of Theresa Fogarty,
Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision. The property is located in the SW114, SW114 Planner
Section 4, Marion Township.
February 16, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on February 9. 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 Ms. Schultze to approve Annexation #00-03 by Fern Meyers, with property
being designated "H" Holding Zone. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion
carried 7-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated January 31, 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
$73.05.
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. The motion shall also include that
the property be placed in H-Holding Zone, upon annexation to the City.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report, dated January 31, 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 Wednesday, February 23, 2000 in the Council Chambers at
the Rochester 1 Olmsted County Government Center.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
w
rCD
CL
m
42
r
d
O
a
x
u1
u
Q
N
tll
o cyy U O
'o Q Q Q Q
a�
y
E
r
lu
rr
i
.i
_Vr
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner J�
DATE: February 1, 2000
Rq ieo:'a i:�tet•e..
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS OR SE
ROCHESTER MN
55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/
5071285.8232
MAPPING
HOUSING,rtiRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC
5071285-8345
FAX
507/287.2275
RE: Annexation Petition #00-03 by Fern Meyers to annex approximately 40
acres of land located along the east side of 40' Avenue SE, east of
Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision. The property is located in the
SW1/4, SW1/4, Section 4, Marion Township.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners:
Fern L. Meyers
22661 Dodge Court
Faribault, MN 55021-7865
Location of Property:
The property is located east of 40" Avenue SE, east of
Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision.
Existing Land Use:
This property is currently vacant undeveloped land.
Size:
The property proposed for annexation is approximately
40 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 should be place in a
"Holding" Zone. The applicant is expected to submit a
General Development Plan and Zoning District Amendment,
for R-2 low density, for the entire property.
Land Use Plan:
This property is located in the 25 year Urban Service Area and
is designated for "low density residential" use on the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
�� AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Annexation 900-03
February 2, 2000
Adjacency to the Municipal The property is adjacent to the city limits along its west
Limits: boundary.
Sewer & Water: The Southeast High Level Water System service is available
approximately 200 feet north of the northwest corner of this
property. Pressures in areas below an approximate site
elevation of 1080 will be too great without the installation of
pressure reducing devices. Typically this is done by either
installing pressure reducing valves in the individual homes or
in a pressure reducing station in the street, serving many
homes (whichever fits the best for the layout and future
extensions of adjoining properties).
Municipal sewer and water is available to serve a portion of
this area. Additional area may be served through the use of
private lift station.
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 23, 2000. The City Clerk has
sent the certified notice 30 days prior to the hearing date.
Referral Comments: RPU Operations Division, RPU Water Division, Rochester
Public Works
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
1. Annexation Map
2. Location Map
3. Referral Comments (3letters)
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).
Staff also recommends this property be zoned 1-1-Holding, upon annexation to the City. A zoning district
amendment is expected to be submitted for this property.
rpu
:'e Ptedge. .vr delia�er
507/280-1579
January 27, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Departmedt
Consolidated Planning Dept.
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
43
SUBJECT: Annexation Petition #00-03 by Fem Meyers to annex approximately 40 acres of
land located along the east side of 40d' Avenue SE, east of Eastwood Hills 2nd
Subdivision. The property is located in the SW '/4, SW `/4, Section 4, Marion
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 future.
Sincerely,
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
we I)Iedye, we delver
January 24, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Annexation Petition 400-03 by Fern Meyers to annex 40 acres of land located
along the east side of 40`h Ave. SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision in the SW ''/4, SW
'/4 Section 4, Marion Township.
Dear Ms. LaPalm:
Our review of the referenced petition 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. Southeast High Level Water System service is available approximately 200' north of the
northwest corner of this property. Pressures in areas below an approximate site elevation of
1080 will be too great without the installation of pressure reducing devices. This typically is
done by either installing pressure reducing valves in the individual homes or in a pressure
reducing station in the street serving many homes (whichever fits the best for the layout and
future extensions to adjoining properties).
3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system
layout and pressure reducing zones to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
o-- %� _
Q" 1`� ^
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Freedom Development & Consulting
Fem Meyers
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
1.31,00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 a'" 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
ANNX00-03 on the Fern Meyers property (40 acres). The following are Public
Works comments on the proposal:
Municipal sewer and water is available to serve a portion of this area.
Additional area may be served through the use of a private lift station.
C:\TEMP\ANNEX0M3-d0C
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 2/23/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEENO.
Reports and Recommendations
AdministrationRITEM
DESCRIPTION: Time Square
PRD BY:
Dott -W'-
The City Council approved entering into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with GAC TS nearly 16 months ago (November
9, 1998). During the exclusive negotiation period, the City and GAC TS were supposed to have made an assessment of the
feasibility of the project and negotiated the terms of a development contract. The development contract would have spelled
out GAC TS's obligations with respect to the design, financing, and construction of the project. It also would have defined the
city's obligations to the project including the level and timing of any tax increment financing assistance.
The original Exclusive Negotiation Agreement was for a one-year period. Two extensions have been granted to allow GAC
TS an opportunity to obtain a letter of intent from Nordstrom. A letter of intent is a non -binding document outlining the basic
terms under which Nordstrom will lease space in the project. The media has reported that GAC TS has received the letter of
intent. No documents have been provided to staff. As of the time of this writing, the City has not received any request from
GAC TS for additional time extensions.
The question of the feasibility of the project remains open. The cost of acquiring real estate, relocating tenants, abating
environmental hazards, demolishing buildings, relocating utilities, and constructing parking and skyways will be extraordinarily
high. Building costs will also be high due to the need to relocate the railroad tracks, construct underground parking, and
develop the air rights above the public streets.
Staff believes that GAC TS will need a minimum of 9 to 12 months before they are ready to sign a development contract
committing them to the construction of Time Square. This amount of time will be needed to define the scope of the project
and complete the design to a point where traffic, parking, environmental and other studies can be prepared. GAC TS will also
need to obtain construction cost estimates and leasing and financing commitments. Finally, they will need to negotiate the
terms of a development contract with the City and a track relocation agreement with the DM&E. The City will need to update
the appraisals and the other work that we have already done. Both parties will incur considerable additional expense.
Before we proceed with any long-term time extensions, staff should have an opportunity to review the Nordstrom letter of
intent. In addition, GAC TS should work with staff and our consultants to update the tax increment analysis that was submitted
to us in October of 1999. The purpose of this analysis would be to provide both parties with a realistic assessment of the
amount of TIF assistance that the City may be able to provide GAC TS. This should help us make a more accurate
assessment of the feasibility of the project and the length of time needed to attempt to complete the negotiations. It should
not take longer than 30 to 45 days to complete the study. Staff would report back to the Council as soon as possible after that.
The TIF analysis should be based on the basic terms of a redevelopment agreement that staff outlined to GAC TS last year.
Those terms include:
➢ Up to 1/3 of the TIF assistance would be provided on a "pay as you go" basis. Using "pay as you go" financing reduces
the risk to the City if the project does not perform to expectations. Nearly all of the projects that the City has assisted in
recent years have used pay as you go TIF financing.
➢ The City would bond for the remaining 2/3 of the assistance.
➢ No inflation factor should be used in projecting the future taxes. Staff takes this position because past experience
indicates that values on downtown properties have been relatively flat. In the Centerplace project, for example, the values
are approximately the same today as they were 10 years ago. Secondly, taxes from commercial properties could trend
downward if the legislature continues to reduce the 3.4% commercial/industrial tax rate to the target rate of 3%.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:_
Time Square
Pagetwo
City Council Agenda Item F-1
wary 23, 2000
The cost of constructing public parking that will serve the demand created by Time Square should be paid from
the increments generated by the project. The alternative is pay for parking either from significant system wide rate
increases for shoppers, employees, hotel guests, and other visitors who park downtown or to spend down
reserves that are intended for the repair and replacement of existing parking facilities. We should be able to
prepare a rough estimate of the magnitude of the parking rate increase if increments are not used to pay for
parking.
The most recent Time Square plans show the public parking located on a site currently occupied by the Salvation
Army and Response Computer, The City has not agreed to include these properties in the project nor have we
inspected them or had them appraised.
The report should be based upon the most recent project description presented to staff. This includes a 120,000
square foot Nordstrom store, approximately 280,000 square feet of other retail space, 38,000 square feet of
restaurant space, an eight screen - 1200 seat theater, a 120 unit + hotel and 43,000 square feet of office space.
The City would retain up to 10% of the increment to cover our administrative costs.
The City and GAC TS need to mutually agree upon the construction schedule, the projected property taxes, the
discount rates etc. that will be used in the analysis.
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the terms of a redevelopment contract nor would the City be
committing itself to them. They are simply a reasonable set of assumptions for purposes of analyzing the project.
Council Action Requested:
Extend the exclusive negotiation period for the Time Square project to a date no later than April 3, 2000. The
extension of time shall be subject to the terms and conditions contained in the February 5, 1999 agreement.
Furthermore, the extension is also subject to the following:1) GAC TS must provide staff an opportunity to review the
Nordstrom letter of intent and 2) GAC TS must work with staff on the preparation of an updated TIF study as outlined
above.
City of Rochester
City Administrator's Office
MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
From: . - Douglas A. Knott
Date: February 23, 2000
Subject: Time Square
GAC TS has a signed letter of intent from Nordstrom. The letter describes the terms
under which Nordstrom would lease space in Time Square. Those terms include a 20-
year lease for a store containing up to 120,000 square feet of space. The agreement
says the opening date will be determined by April 30, 2000. According to Mr.
Chafoulias, opening would occur in the spring or fall of 2003.
The letter requires 1,500 new parking spaces to serve the complex. According to GAC
TS, Nordstrom understands that this number may move up or down depending upon
the final scope of the project. The site plan shows a portion of the spaces on -site
(below the buildings). The balance would be located in a municipal parking ramp
located on the north 1/2 of the block bound by 1s' Avenue NE, Center Street, Civic
Center Drive, and 15t Street NE. The letter contemplates that the City would enter into
a three-way parking agreement with GAC TS and Nordstrom that would govern rates
and operation of the ramp. Exhibits attached to the agreement show the site plan and
the skyways that would connect to the project to downtown.
There are several other minor terms and conditions that involve the City. They primarily
relate to skyways and parking. We will report back to the Council on these items after
we have had time for additional review.
The letter contains a number of other business terms between Nordstrom and GAC TS
that Nordstrom would prefer remain confidential. Staff reviewed the letter of intent in
the Chafoulias offices. We did not keep a copy due to Nordstrom's concern for
confidentiality. The Council will need to let staff know if they are comfortable with this
arrangement.
Craig Wendland of the Wendland and Utz Law Firm and Charlie Birkelbach will be at the
Council meeting representing GAC TS.
I have attached a copy of the floor plans and preliminary schedule.
§
/�
_
/\
�
��
i�
\§\
e.
e
R-
u2
E
iiL
\ L
[-----[
---/
_---_
`--'----'
Co
MIR
-|-(������� --------'-'
----'
b.
CK)
BRO"WAY
Coyy
14 N1 M:
, t;q
ju
1 11 Ifff Avg NX
If F
4
CIVIC cm?m DRI'll
V!
�
A
Y}J
p
. • e a a
CIVIC CHMICD DMVE
BR WAY
CD
I AVS 1 9
ff
Royal Management & Development, Inc.
Commercial and Residential Properties
February 23, 2000
John Hunziker, President
City of Rochester City Council
2828 Mayowood Common Street, SW
Rochester, MN
Dear Mr. Hunziker:
We understand that GAC TS, the developer of the proposed Time Square project,
has shown to the City Administrator's office an unsigned letter of intent with
Nordstrom. We also understand that GAC is refusing to provide a copy of this letter
to City officials because of a confidentiality agreement with Nordstrom.
The City conditioned the extension of time for Time Square on the delivery of a
letter of intent to the City by February 23. Accordingly, if this letter of intent is not
delivered to the City, any further extension of time should be denied and our project
should be reconsidered.
The Council and the citizens of Rochester deserve to know all of the details
surrounding any City assistance, direct and indirect, to Time Square. If GAC is
obligated under the letter of intent to make a payment to Nordstrom and at the
same time is asking the City for financial assistance, the details of GAC's
commitment to Nordstrom should be made known. In such case, City assistance
would free -up monies for GAC that it could use to pay Nordstrom. Essentially, any
indirect or "back-to-back" assistance flowing from the City to Nordstrom should be
publicly disclosed.
If GAC delivers a letter of intent that is deemed acceptable to the Council by
February 23, we would not oppose an extension of time to April 3, but no longer, to
complete those matters outlined in Doug Knott's Request for Council Action dated
2123/00.
rA=3ak
AGEEMENT & DEVELOPMENT, INC.
President
cc: Douglas A. Knott, Development Administrator
7611 Little River Turnpike • Suite 304 West • Annandale, Virginia 22003 • Tel: (703) 916-9191 • Fax: (703) 916-9393
.1:-}. »: 4CP6,1;M0 I M.S r Y-SoC l ate,
HOLMES & ASSOCIATES? I;FD.
TWO CAEL SDN FAS[WAY, Sum: 155, MPMEAPOLIS, MMMESOTA 55447
TELEPHONE: (612) 249-0888 ♦ FACSIAIILE: (612) 249-0777
F--MAILADDEESS' HOIAIESLTD&KYPOMTCOM
?all•
Date: 2/22/00
FAX File No.: RYA100-001
No. of pages including cover: 3
Please deliver to:
507-285-8256
From:
James S. Holmes, Attorney at Law
Phone: 612-249-0888
Fax: 612-249-0777
Remarks: Urgent For your review ❑ Reply ASAP Please Comment
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TELECOPY MESSAGE IS BEING TRANSMITTED TO
AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER
OF THIS IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT ANY
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS TELECOPY IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF
YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TELECOPY IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY
TELEPHONE AND DESTROY THIS TELECOPY MESSAGE.
C:`8ER NI OFFICMNEW FAX FORNMOC
1: 1: 40pkt: No, mES ._ +_SOC. I 'tee .1+E12+249�077T C d
40 HOLMES & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
February 22, 2000
Mr. Stevan Kvcnvold
Administrator
City of Rochester
City Hall
201 4r' Street Southeast
Rochester, MN 55904-3742
TWO CAN WN PARXWAt', SUITE 135, MrNNEAMLIS, MINNE$OTA 55447
TELEraaNE:(612) 24MB38 • FACSIMIU:(612) 249-0777
E-MAILADrutsw JMLME%@H0LMrSLMC0M A DIR rhu:(612)24M900
JAMES S. HOLMES
ATTORNEY AT LAW
VIA FACSIMILE
Douglas Knott
Community Development Director
City of Rochester
City Hall
201 4d' Street Southeast
Rochester; MN 55904-3742
RE: Request for Data/Production of Documents
Gentlemen:
On behaif of Royal Management and Development, Inc, of Annandale, Virginia, and pursuant to
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, we hereby request copies of, or the opportunity
to review, all data and documents 2 responsive to the following:
All data or documents reflecting any letter of intent, agreement, agreement to
agree, or intent to negotiate, between GAS TS Development L.L.C., Gus
Chafoulias, or any entity controlled by GAS TS Development L.L.C. or Gus
Chafoulias, on the one hand, and Nordstrom, Inc, or any person or entity having
an ownership or financial interest in Nordstrom Inc., on the other, relating to the
so-called Titres Square development in downtown Rochester, Minnesota.
For purposes of our request. the tern "data" shall mean factual information used or useful as a basis for reasoning.
discussion or calculation within the knowledge, temporary or permanent possession, custody, control, or subject to the
temporary or permanent control of, or temporarily or permanently accessible to the City of Rochester; the City Council, its
committees and staff, the Rochester HRA and its staff, or the attorneys for any of the foregoing entities.
For purposes of our request, the temrs "document" and "documents" shall mean all writings, recordings, and graphic matter
of any kind, including the originals and all non -identical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any
notations or changes made on such copies or otherwise, including without limitation correspondence, memoranda, notes,
diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements. receipts, returns, summaries,
pamphlets, books, interoffice and intra-office communications, notations of any sort of conversations, telephone calls,
meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts, electronic mail ("e-mail') messages,
teletypes, telefax, invoices, work sheets, all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes and amendments of any of the
foreguing, graphic or oral recordings or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, discs,
recordings, computer memories), or any other recorded information of any kind whatsoever, within the knowledge,
temporary or permanent possession, custody, control, or subject to the temporary or permanent control of, or temporarily or
permanently accessible to the City of Rochester, the City Council, its committees and staff; the Rochester HRA and its staff;
or the attorneys for any of the foregoing entities.
D:'aYAl WUIU [WOR&DA I A REQ0E5I' DOC
February 22, 2000
Page 2
Please be advised that this request is ongoing and that any data or document becoming
lemporarzly or permanently in the possession of the City shall be considered to be subject to it.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in responding to this request.
cc: i, tsaKer
K. Mullin
T. Adkins
D:`RYN WWOIICORRTATA REQOE5T.WC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
%IEETING oz;(P
DATE:
Reports and Recommendations
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Time Square
ORIGINATING DLPT:
Administration
F-I
Doug Knott -DK--
The City Council approved entering into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with GAC TS nearly 16 months ago (November
9, 1998). During the exclusive negotiation period, the City and GAC TS were supposed to have made an assessment of the
feasibility of the project and negotiated the terms of a development contract. The development contract would have spelled
out GAC TS's obligations with respect to the design, financing, and construction of the project. It also would have defined the
city's obligations to the project including the level and timing of any tax increment financing assistance.
The original Exclusive Negotiation Agreement was for a one-year period. Two extensions have been granted to allow GAC
TS an opportunity to obtain a letter of intent from Nordstrom. A letter of intent is a non -binding document outlining the basic
terms under which Nordstrom will lease space in the project. The media has reported that GAC TS has received the letter of
intent. No documents have been provided to staff. As of the time of this writing, the City has not received any request from
GAC TS for additional time extensions.
The question of the feasibility of the project remains open. The cost of acquiring real estate, relocating tenants, abating
environmental hazards, demolishing buildings, relocating utilities, and constructing parking and skyways will be extraordinarily
high. Building costs will also be high due to the need to relocate the railroad tracks, construct underground parking, and
develop the air rights above the public streets.
Staff believes that GAC TS will need a minimum of 9 to 12 months before they are ready to sign a development contract
committing them to the construction of Time Square. This amount of time will be needed to define the scope of the project
^d complete the design to a point where traffic, parking, environmental and other studies can be prepared. GAC TS will also
ed to obtain construction cost estimates and leasing and financing commitments. Finally, they will need to negotiate the
_.ms of a development contract with the City and a track relocation agreement with the DMBE. The City will need to update
the appraisals and the other work that we have already done. Both parties will incur considerable additional expense.
Before we proceed with any long-term time extensions, staff should have an opportunity to review the Nordstrom letter of
intent. In addition, GAC TS should work with staff and our consultants to update the tax increment analysis that was submitted
to us in October of 1999. The purpose of this analysis would be to provide both parties with a realistic assessment of the
amount of TIF assistance that the City may be able to provide GAC TS. This should help us make a more accurate
assessment of the feasibility of the project and the length of time needed to attempt to complete the negotiations. It should
not take longer than 30 to 45 days to complete the study. Staff would report back to the Council as soon as possible after that.
The TIF analysis should be based on the basic terms of a redevelopment agreement that staff outlined to GAC TS last year.
Those terms include:
> Up to 1/3 of the TIF assistance would be provided on a "pay as you go" basis. Using "pay as you go" financing reduces
the risk to the City if the project does not perform to expectations. Nearly all of the projects that the City has assisted in
recent years have used pay as you go TIF financing.
> The City would bond for the remaining 213 of the assistance.
> No inflation factor should be used in projecting the future taxes. Staff takes this position because past experience
indicates that values on downtown properties have been relatively flat. In the Centerplace project, for example, the values
are approximately the same today as they were 10 years ago. Secondly, taxes from commercial properties could trend
downward if the legislature continues to reduce the 3.4% commercial/industrial tax rate to the target rate of 3%.
. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second by:
to:
p0 Time Square
Page two
City Council Agenda
February 23, 2000
The cost of constructing public parking that will serve the demand created by Time Square should be
paid from the increments generated by the project. The alternative is pay for parking either from
significant system wide rate increases for shoppers, employees, hotel guests, and other visitors who
park downtown or to spend down reserves that are intended for the repair and replacement of existing
parking facilities. We should be able to prepare a rough estimate of the magnitude of the parking
rate increase if increments are not used to pay for parking.
The most recent Time Square plans show the public parking located on a site currently occupied by
the Salvation Army and Response Computer, The City has not agreed to include these properties in
the project nor have we inspected them or had them appraised.
> The report should be based upon the most recent project description presented to staff. This includes
a 120,000 square foot Nordstrom store, approximately 280,000 square feet of other retail space,
38,000 square feet of restaurant space, an eight screen - 1200 seat theater, a 120 unit + hotel and
43,000 square feet of office space.
> The City would retain up to 10% of the increment to cover our administrative costs.
> The City and GAC TS need to mutually agree upon the construction schedule, the projected property
taxes, the discount rates etc. that will be used in the analysis.
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the terms of a redevelopment contract nor would the City
be committing itself to them. They are simply a reasonable set of assumptions for purposes of analyzing
the project.
Council Action Requested.
Extend the exclusive negotiation period for the Time Square project to a date no later than April 3, 2000.
The terms and conditions of the extension shall be the same as those contained in the original November
9, 1998 agreement. During the extension period, GAC TS must provide staff an opportunity to review the
Nordstrom letter of intent. In addition, GAC TS must work with staff on the preparation of an updated
TIF study as outlined above.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING q
DATE: 2123/00
Reports and Recommendations
City Ordinance — Prostitution and Escort Businesses
Police
F-1
Roger Peterson
Within the last year the Rochester Police Department has entered into an investigation of prostitution and the
escort business in Rochester. This investigation resulted in the arrest of four individuals for prostitution -related
crimes. These most recent arrests indicated that prostitution activity is ongoing in the Rochester area Escort
services, and the operators of such businesses, have been associated with the sale of controlled substances and
some have used these businesses as a point of operation and cover. The changes requested with this ordinance
would assist law enforcement in the investigation of illegal activity associated with escort businesses operating
in Rochester. The changes requested would cover such areas as:
• Owner's name and business location
• Employees
• Point of operation rather than just a phone number
• Individuals with past criminal convictions of narcotics or prostitution crimes would be prevented from
setting up an escort business by simply obtaining a cellular phone number
• The new ordinance would expand the current ordinance in the area of definitions to include escort
services and would bring the Rochester ordinance more in line with ordinances presently used in other
communities in the State of Minnesota
Based upon the information detailed in the attached document, it is the opinion of this agency that a more
proactive and aggressive city ordinance designed to regulate and license escort businesses in Rochester would
be beneficial to the Rochester Police Department and the citizens of this community.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Repeal the current RCO Chapter 105 and adopt the atteelted as RCO Chapter 105A.
INCIL ACTION: Madan by SecorW by to:
��LC��-c�r�7 .� •'�i�u�rr�a
�_z�att4 t.Cxlr.� Z'1 i
aa3�ORDINANCE NO. L�tiLcliv
AN ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER 105A OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF
ORDINANCES, RELATING TO REGULATION OF ESCORT SERVICES AND
COMPANIONSHIP SALES IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN:
105A. ADULT ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES
Section 1. Section 105A..01 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted
to read as follows:
105A.01 Findings of the City Council. The City Council of the City of Rochester finds that
companionship sales, escort services and private adult dancer services can be used as fronts for
prostitution and other criminal activity, thereby taxing city law enforcement resources. The
Council finds that companionship sales, escort services, and private adult dancer services used
as fronts for illegal sexual activity can also increase the risk of the spread of sexually transmitted
diseases including, but not limited to, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) for which
there is currently no cure.
Section 2. Section 105A.02 of the Rochester Code of Ordinance is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.02. Definitions. Subdivision 13he following words and terms used in this section
shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
Subd. 2. "Alcoholic beverage" means non -intoxicating malt liquor as defined in Minnesota
Statutes, section 340A.101, subd. 2, and intoxicating liquor as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
section 340A.101, subd. 14.
Subd. 3. "Companionship establishment' means a room or rooms used or intended to be
used for the purpose of companionship sales, and accessory rooms and facilities used or
intended to be used in conjunction with or to accommodate companionship sales.
Subd. 4. "Companionship sales" means a transaction in which for a fee or gratuity or in
anticipation of a fee or gratuity a person provides the service of companionship, association, or
fellowship to another person, or provides the service of engaging in or listening to conversation,
talk, or discussion with another person for the purpose of providing such person with
companionship, association, or fellowship, regardless of whether other goods or services are
provided and regardless of whether such other goods or services are required to be licensed;
but does not include the following services:
(1) The sale of companionship, association, or fellowship which is not offered to the
public;
(2) Services provided incidental to the sale of intoxicating liquor or non -intoxicating
malt liquor on premises licensed for such purpose;
(3) Services provided by a charitable or religious organization;
(4) Services provided by an educational institution, panel, or seminar;
(5) Legal, medical, nursing, psychiatric, or psychological services by a person
appropriately licensed to do so or a person possessing a degree relevant to the
services being provided from a professionally accredited educational institution.
Subd. 5. "Contraceptive device" means an instrument or article for the prevention
of conception.
Subd. 6. "Controlled substance" means controlled substance as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, section 152.01, subd. 4.
Subd. 7. "Escort' means any individual hired for the purpose of accompanying
another to or about social affairs, entertainments or places of amusement, or at
any place of public resort, or within any private quarters for compensation or
amusement of any kind.
Subd. S. "Escort Service" means any person having a source of income or
compensation derived from the services of an escort, or placement of an escort
with a customer.
Subd. 9 "Licensed premises" means a companionship establishment, escort service or
private adult dancer service licensed under this chapter.
Subd. 10. "Narcotic drug" means narcotic drug as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section
152.01, subd. 10.
Subd. 11. 'Patron" means any person who seeks or solicits companionship sales,
escort services, or private adult dancer services from a person employed by a
companionship sales establishment, an escort service or a private adult dancer
service.
Subd. 12. `Person" means any individual, firm, association, partnership,
corporation, joint venture or combination of individuals.
Subd. 13. "Private Adult Dancer" means any individual hired for the purpose of
dancing or otherwise entertaining patrons for a social event such as a bachelor
party at a location requested by a patron and who seeks to arouse or excite the
patron's sexual desires
Subd. 14. "Private Adult Dancer Service" means any person having a source of
income or compensation derived from the services of a private adult dancer, or
placement of an private adult dancer with a customer.
Subd. 15. 'Within the City" means any physical presence as well as telephone referrals in
which the business premises, although not actually located within the City, serves as a point of
assignment of employees who respond to requests for services from within the City.
Section 3. Section 105A.03 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted
to read as follows:
105A.03. CompaniQn5hip Sales License/ Escort Service License. Subdivision 1.
Companionship Sales License Required. No person shall operate a companionship
establishment or engage in a companionship sale in the city except upon premises licensed for
such purpose under this chapter.
Subd. 2. Escort Service License Required. No person shall operate, engage in, conduct,
— carry on within the City an escort service without having first obtained an escort service
:ense from the City.
Subd. 3. Private Adult Dancer Service License Required. No person shall operate,
engage in, conduct, or carry on within the City a private adult dancer service without having first
obtained a private adult dancer service license from the City.
Subd. 4. Application. An application for a companionship sales license, escort service
license, private adult dancer service license or renewal of any license shall be made at the office
of the city clerk by paying the annual license fee and completing an application form provided by
the city clerk. The application shall be signed and verified by the applicant in person, and if the
applicant is a corporation, by an officer of the corporation. It is unlawful to make any false
statements in the application. The application shall contain the following information:
(1) The location of the premises and an exact description of the area within a
building to be used as a companionship establishment, escort service or private
adult dancer service. If the area to be so used is not constructed and furnished at
the time the application is completed, detailed plans of the area and furnishings
should be attached to the application. An exact description of the area within a
building an escort service or private adult dancer service will be using is not
required if the escort service or private adult dancer service dispatches employees
from a location outside the city limits;
I
(2)(a) If the applicant is an individual or individuals, the name, residence address
and date of birth of each applicant, the person who is to manage the operation to
be licensed, and each person who is to perform the service of companionship
sales or act as an escort or private adult dancer.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names, addresses, and interest of all
general and limited partners, including a copy of the partnership agreement
and any trade names certificates filed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
333.02.
(c) If the applicant is a corporation, the name of the corporation, the state of
incorporation, a copy of the certificate of incorporation, the names and
addresses of the officers, directors and onsite manager of the corporation as
well as the names and addresses of all persons who own or control any
interest in the corporation;
(4) Whether any person named in clause (2) above has ever used or ever been
known by name other than the applicant's name, and if so, what name or names
and information concerning dates and places where used;
(5) Whether any person named in clause (2) above is a resident alien and whether
the person lacks legal authority to work and live in the United States;
(6) The type, name and location of every business or occupation of any person
named in clause (2) above for the preceding 10 years, including the names and
addresses of the person's employers or partners, if any, for the preceding 5 years;
(7) A description of any felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor for which
any of the persons named in clause (2) above have been convicted and for which
jail sentence may have been imposed, except traffic offenses and convictions
which have been annulled or expunged pursuant to law, including the date, place,
and disposition;
(8) A description of the services to be offered;
(9) The name of a person and address in this state upon whom service of notice
may be made as provided in this chapter;
(10) Photographs of the applicant taken by the police department showing both
the front and side view;
(11) A complete set of fingerprints of the applicant taken by the police department.
Subd. 4. Issuance. An application shall be investigated by the city health officer, building
safety department, police department, fire department, and planning and zoning department.
Such officers and departments shall submit their reports and recommendations to the council
and the license shall be granted or denied by the council pursuant to this chapter.
Section 4. Section 105A..04 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.04 Escort License. Subdivision 1. Escort License Required. No individual
shall provide services as an escort within the City without first having obtained an escort license
from the City.
Subd. 2. Application. An application for an escort license, or renewal of any license shall
be made at the office of the city clerk by paying the annual license fee and completing an
application form provided by the city clerk. The application shall be signed and verified by the
applicant in person. It is unlawful to make any false statements in the application. The
application shall contain the following information:
(1) The name of the applicant including whether applicant has ever used or ever
been known by name other than applicant's current name, and if so, what name or
names and information concerning dates and places where used;
(2) The applicant's current residence address, current home phone number, and
addresses for the last 5 years;
(3) The date of birth of the applicant;
(4) Whether the applicant is a resident alien and whether the applicant lacks legal
authority to work and live in the United States;
(5) The name, address of each employer or business partner of the applicant
including dates of employment for the preceding 5 years;
(6) A description of applicant's convictions for any felony, gross misdemeanor, or
misdemeanor offense, if any, except traffic offenses and convictions which have
been annulled or expunged pursuant to law, including the date, place, and
disposition;
(7) The applicant's height, weight, eye color and hair color.
(8) Photographs of the applicant taken by the police department showing both the
front and side view;
(9) A complete set of fingerprints of the applicant taken by the police department.
Subd. 3. Issuance. An application shall be investigated by the police department. The
department shall submit its reports and recommendations to the council and the license shall be
granted or denied by the council pursuant to this chapter.
Section 5. Section 105A..05 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.05 Private Adult Dancer License. Subdivision 1. Private Adult Dancer License
Required. No individual shall provide services as a private adult dancer within the City without
first having obtained a private adult dancer license from the City.
Subd. 2. Application. An application for an private adult dancer license, or renewal of
any license shall be made at the office of the city clerk by paying the annual license fee and
completing an application form provided by the city clerk. The application shall be signed and
verified by the applicant in person. It is unlawful to make any false statements in the application.
The application shall contain the following information:
(1) The name of the applicant including whether applicant has ever used or ever
been known by name other than applicant's current name, and if so, what name or
names and information concerning dates and places where used;
(2) The applicant's current residence address, current home phone number, and
addresses for the last 5 years;
(3) The date of birth of the applicant;
(4) Whether the applicant is a resident alien and whether the applicant lacks legal
authority to work and live in the United States;
(5) The name, address of each employer or business partner of the applicant
including dates of employment for the preceding 5 years;
(6) A description of applicant's convictions for any felony, gross misdemeanor, or
misdemeanor offense, if any, except traffic offenses and convictions which have
been annulled or expunged pursuant to law, including the date, place, and
disposition;
(7) The applicant's height, weight, eye color and hair color.
(8) Photographs of the applicant taken by the police department showing both the
front and side view;
(9) A complete set of fingerprints of the applicant taken by the police department.
Subd. 3. Issuance. An application shall be investigated by the police department. The
department shall submit its reports and recommendations to the council and the license shall be
granted or denied by the council pursuant to this chapter.
Section 6. Section 105A.06 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted
to read as follows:
105A.06. License Fees and Term. The annual license fee for a companionship
establishment, escort service, escort, private adult dancer service or private adult dancer shall
be set by resolution of the City Council. Companionship establishment, escort service and
private adult dancer licensees shall obtain a separate license for each place of business and
licensees shall display the license in a prominent place on the licensed premises at all times.
Escort and private adult dancer licensees shall carry the license on their persons when
performing services. A license, unless revoked, is for the calendar year or part thereof for which
it has been issued, and shall expire on December 31 of each year. If six months or less remain
of the year for which the license is issued, then the license fee shall be half of the annual fee.
Licensees shall apply for renewal of an existing license at least 60 days prior to expiration of the
license.
ection 7. Section 105A.07 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted
cu read as follows:
105A.07. Denial of License. The council may refuse to issue or renew a license for any
of the following reasons:
(1) The applicant, or if a partnership, a partner, or if a corporation, an officer or
director, or the manager or person designated to be the manager, has been
convicted of a felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor which directly relates
to the business of operating a companionship establishment, escort service or
private adult dancer service or to the business of serving as an escort or private
adult dancer;
(2) An employee or person designated to be an employee, has been convicted of
a felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor which directly relates to the
business of providing companionship sales, escort services or private adult dancer
services;
(3) The applicant has been denied a license or has had a license issued by the
city revoked within one year prior to the date of the application;
(4) The applicant is a person who is less than 18 years of age or lacks legal
authority to live and work in the United States;
(5) The applicant is not of good moral character or repute;
(6) The applicant intends to run an companionship sales establishment, escort
service, or private adult dancer service at a location where the applicant also holds
an intoxicating liquor license under Section 125A of this Code;
(7) Owes taxes, assessments, or other financial obligations to the city which are
delinquent or unpaid.
(8) Has knowingly misrepresented or falsified information on the license
application.
(9) The proposed location for the companionship establishment, escort service or
private adult dancer service does not comply with the city zoning ordinances.
Section 8. Section 105A..08 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.08. License Restrictions. Subdivision 1. No license for a companionship
establishment, escort service or private adult dancer service shall be effective beyond the space
comprising the licensed premises. If the licensed premises is enlarged, altered or extended, the
licensee shall inform the City to permit reexamination of the premises and reconsideration of the
license.
Subd. 2. No license for a companionship establishment, escort service or private
adult dancer service shall be transferable from person to person or to other premises
without the consent of the council.
Section 9. Section 105A.09 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.09. Service of Notice. Subdivision 1. Service Designee. Each person licensed
under this chapter shall have at all times on file in the office of the city clerk the name of a
person and address in this state upon whom service of notice may be made as hereinafter
provided. A licensee may, from time to time, change the name or address of such person by
filing written notice of such change with the city clerk.
Subd. 2. Notice by Mail. A licensee upon being issued a license under this chapter shall
accept notice from the city pertaining to any matters involving the license by service of such
notice by mail upon the person whose name and address is on file in the office of the city clerk.
Subd. 3. Application. Nothing herein contained shall limit or affect the right to serve any
process upon the licensee in any other manner now or hereafter permitted by law.
Section 10. Section 105A.10 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.10. Revocation or Suspension of License. A license granted hereunder may be
revoked or suspended by the council after public hearing for a violation of this chapter, or any
other law or regulation when the violation occurs in connection with the licensed premises, or for
other good cause shown. The licensee shall be given at least ten days written notice of the
charges and the time and place of the public hearing by certified mail to the most recent address
listed on the license application. The licensee shall have the right to testify, present witnesses,
and cross-examine witnesses. If the license is revoked or suspended, no portion of the license
fee shall be returned to the licensee.
Section 11. Section 105A.11 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.11. Regulations. Subdivision 1. Alcoholic Beverages, Controlled Substances, and
Narcotic Drugs. It is unlawful for any companionship sales employee, escort, private adult
dancer or patron to possess or consume, or permit the possession or consumption of any
-Icoholic beverage, controlled substance, or narcotic drug on the licensed premises of a
ompanionship sales establishment, escort service, or private adult dancer service.
Subd. 2. Contraceptive Devices. It is unlawful for any companionship sales employee,
escort, private adult dancer or patron to possess a contraceptive device while on the licensed
premises of a companionship sales establishment, escort service or private adult dancer service
or elsewhere in the city while escort services or private adult dancer services are being provided.
A license may be revoked or suspended if a contraceptive device is found on the licensed
premises, or in the possession of a escort, private adult dancer or patron while services are
being provided.
Subd. 3. Pornographic Material. It is unlawful for any companionship sales employee,
escort, private adult dancer or patron to disseminate any pornographic material or to engage in
or display a pornographic performance on the licensed premises of a companionship sales,
escort service or private adult dancer service or elsewhere in the city while escort services or
private adult dancer services are being provided. As used in this subdivision, disseminate,
pornographic material, and pornographic performance shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in section 85.05, subdivision 1.
Subd. 4. Attire. It is unlawful for an companionship sales employee, escort or private
adult dancer to fail to have his or her breast, buttocks, genitals, and pubic area covered with a
non -transparent material in the presence of a patron while companionship sales services, escort
services or private adult dancer services are being provided
Subd. 5. Physical Contact. It is unlawful for an companionship sales employee, escort or
private adult dancer to touch with any part of his or her body, to fondle in any manner, or to
massage, the breast, buttocks, genitals, or pubic area of any patron while companionship sales
services, escort services or private adult dancer services are being provided. It is unlawful for
any patron to touch with any part of his or her body, to fondle in any manner, or to massage, the
breast, buttocks, genitals, or pubic area of any companionship sales employee, escort or private
adult dancer while companionship sales services, escort services or private adult dancer
services are being provided.
Subd. 6. Unlicensed Employees. It is unlawful for a licensee to employ any person
who is not licensed as herein provided.
Section 11. Section 105A.11 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.11. Facilities. Subdivision 1. It is unlawful to provide or receive a companionship
sale or to initiate or conclude the services of an escort in a room which does not comply with the
following standards.
Subd. 2. The room shall be illuminated while in use with a minimum of 15 foot candles of
illumination.
Subd. 3. The room shall not contain a bed, sofa, or similar article of furniture.
Subd. 4. Doors to the room shall not be locked or capable of being locked and shall
contain an opening or glazed area containing transparent glass or similar substance measuring
not less than 12 inches by 12 inches which provides clear two-way viewing into the room.
Subd. 5. There shall be no partition, stall, screen, curtain, or other device which obstructs
the view of any part of the room from the opening or window in the door.
Subd. 6. If any provision of this section is inconsistent with a comparable and applicable
provision of the building code, the provision of the building code shall govern to the extent of
such inconsistency.
Section 12. Section 105A.12 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.12. Inspection. During business hours companionship sales establishments and
escort services shall be open to inspection by city health, building, and fire prevention bureau
inspectors and by police officers. The main entrance and each inner door restricting access to
the rooms where the service is provided shall remain unlocked during business hours and upon
emand access shall be provided to an inspector or police officer to any other part of the
ucensed premises.
Section 13. Section 105A.13 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.13. Business Hours. No patron shall be allowed to enter or remain on the licensed
premises of a companionship sales establishment or escort service and no escort shall be
dispatched by an escort service to provide escort services after 10:00 p.m. or before 8:00 a.m.
daily.
Section 14. Section 105A.14 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and
enacted to read as follows:
105A.14. Severability If any subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this section is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this section. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the subdivision,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subdivisions,
sentences, clauses or phrases is declared invalid.
1938, 3/6/78; 2218, 11/17/81)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
- ,SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
. i EM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
G. 1. RESO
MEETING 93(
DATE: 2'2312000
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE I G
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
I:yA
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
a) An Ordinance Repealing Subdivision 2(c) of Section 125A.21 of the Rochester Code of
Ordinances, Relating to Hours of Sales of Intoxicating Liquor.
b) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 75.01 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances,
' Relating to the Designation of 61" Street NW within North Park Ninth Subdivision as Savannah Drive
N.W.
c) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 40.31 Acres of Land Located in
the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and a Part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8,
Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located South of
55'h Street NW West of Wedgewood Hills.
j(�•t d) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 54.40 Acres of Land Located in
a Part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County,
Minnesota. Said Property Located East of 50' Avenue NW North of White Oaks Fourth Subdivision.
`. e) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 17.01 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances,
Relating to Personnel of the Fire Department.
G.4. MISCELLANEOUS
�ut�G��
P4
- _,UNCIL ACTION: Mods, by: Second
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
1) Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes from Meetings of
11/O8/99, 11/15/99, 11/29/99,12/06/99, 01/10/00 and 01119100
I
STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA
ROOM 104, CITY HALL
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M.
PAGE
(1-4) 1) Requested Improvements to Building Safety Offices (attachment)
(5-16) 2) Review of Proposed Wireless Communications Tower Sites
(attachment)
�j ..Gr.l it �fr'.-/,' �C-.✓.:.r G rC-a-O'�..� cs. -c-CG ��
U `
(17) 3) Discussion of Schedule for Reviewing Proposed 2000 Budget
(attachment)
y ,s M 7
STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA
ROOM 104, CITY HALL
NOVEMBER 15, 1999
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M.
PAGE
(1-15) 1) Presentation of Fire Department Five Year Plan
(attachment)
0
0
STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA
ROOM 104, CITY HALL
NOVEMBER 29, 1999
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M.
PAGE
(1-20) 1) Review of Housing Code Procedures (attachment)
STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA
ROOM 104, CITY HALL
DECEMBER 6, 1999
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M.
PAGE
(1-7) 1) Review of City of Rochester Affordable Housing Efforts
(attachment)
The Council reviewed the report prepared by the staff
concerning the municipal organization's 1999 affordable
housing activities. The Council expressed their thanks to
the staff, the developers, and others involved in the
projects that have been initiated in 1999 to address
affordable housing needs. The Council by consensus
indicated that the City should participate in the First
Homes process in 2000 and that the tool of tax increment
financing could be utilized consistent with the guidelines
mentioned in the staff report. The Council indicated that
they would prefer to again see a mix of housing types to
include single family home ownership, townhomes, and
apartments.
STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA
ROOM 104, CITY HALL
JANUARY 10, 2000
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M.
PAGE
(1-14) 1) Request for Funding/Rochester Area Foundation (attachment)
co3G �U• ~_�"
(15-16) 2) Councilmember McConnell Requests the Initiation of a Study to Amend
the Arboretum GDP (attachment)
y, ,� pf . N. vv.
lJ
3) Presentation of Video on Values of Parks and Recreation
STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA
ROOM 104, CITY HALL
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M.
1) Meeting with Kevin Schieffer RE: DM&E Expansion Plans