HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA (1j
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS oo _ (D(p
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NU. 6
nF(+ULAR ADJOURNED
PAGE
(1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
(3-4) D)
1)
(5-6) —N 2)
(7-8) 3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
(17-18) 8)
(19-20)
(21-30)
--,4110)
(31-32)
11)
(33-36)
12)
(37-38)
13)
(3940)
14)
(41-42)
15)
(4344)
16)
(47 48)fwj6i18)
(49-54) 19)
MARCH 20, 2000
7:00 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes
Revocable Permit/Projecting Sign for Sabastian's Restaurant in
Radisson Hotel ' b Revised Request t Set Public Hearing for Establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District on Weatherstone Townhomes Project
Proposed Settlement of Carriage Homes Lawsuit
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
Off -Sale 3.2% Beer License for Silver Lake Foods, Inc.
Transfer of On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor (Exclusive) License from
RSD, Incorporated to S&S Rochester, Incorporated
Approval of Accounts Payable
Amend 2000 General Fund and Capital Improvements Fund Budgets
due to Residual Assets from Police & Fire Consolidated Pension 7
ISD 535 Request for Fire Code Appeal
Authorization to Advertise for Rescue Truck
Appointments to Music Board
License Fee/Companionship Sales/Escort Services
Development Agreement/Century Hills Development
Owner Contract/Western Walls/Diamond Ridge 16/17
Acquisition of Needed Right of Way for 16'' Avenue SW Signalization
Project
Revocable Permit for 609 — 9"' Street SW
Development Agreement/Pinewood Meadows/Schoenfelder Property
Proposal for Engineering Services for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
Extension to Serve 3010 Valleyhigh Drive NW
.� kl eill
Council Agenda
March 20, 2000
Page 2
(55-56) 20) Professional Services for Stormwater Pond to Serve the Folwell
Ridge Area
(57-58) 21)
Advertise for Bids/Traffic Signals at Intersection of 2nd Street and 16`"
Avenue SW
(59-64) 22)
Feasibility Report for Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay Northern
Hills Court NE from Northern Hills Drive NE to Cul-De-Sac
(65-70) 23)
Feasibility Report for Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10"' Avenue SE from
16-1/2 Street SE to 190 Street SE
(71-76) 24)
Feasibility Report for Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15`'
Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway
(77-82) 25)
Feasibility Report for Reconstruction of 9"' Avenue SW from 2"d Street
SW to 4'" Street SW
(83-88) 26)
Feasibility Report for Reconstruction of North -South Alley in 200
Block Between Broadway and 1$' Avenue SW
(89-94) 27)
Feasibility Report for Reconstruction of North -South Alley in 300
Block Between Broadway and 1"Avenue SW
(95-96) 28)
Request Bids for Painting of Traffic Signals & Parking Ramps
(97-100,) 29)
Funding for Local Share of Public Library Accessibility Grant
.?o)
S'+ sOwe Ma Fe.�s��'l�Jy
E) HEARINGGS
(101-124) 1)
Continued Hearing/General Development Plan Hidden Oaks Valley
(125-142) 2)
Continued Hearing/Type 111, Phase 11, Preliminary Plat to be Known as
Bandel North First Subdivision
(143-154) 3)
Continued Hearing/Type III, Phase 1, Final Plat to be Known as Yate's
First Subdivision
(155-166) 4)
Zone Change Petition by Payne Company to Amend Zoning District
for 5.93 Acres Along South Side of Viola Road NE, East of Century
Hills Drive NE/Change Designation from R-1 to R-1X District
(167-180) 5)
Preliminary Plat by Payne Company to be Known as Century Hills
Townhomes Third
(181-196) 6)
Preliminary Plat to be Known as Emerald Hills Second Subdivision
(197-228) 7)
General Development Plan by BBB Development, LLC to be Known
as Ripley Property
(229-240) 8)
Revised Final Plat to be Known as Orchard Ridge First Addition
(241-258) 9)
Preliminary Plat to be Known as Orchard Hills North Subdivision
(259-264) 10)
Continued Project Hearing/Reconstruct 7" Street NW from 46'"
Avenue NW, West Approximately 1,250 Feet
(265-270) 11)
Project Hearing/Public Improvements to Sunset Avenue, Rose
Avenue, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor
(271-272) 12)
Assessment Hearing/Public Improvements to Sunset Avenue, Rose
Avenue, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor
Council Agenda
March 20, 2000
Page 3
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(273-282) 1) City Administrator — Neighborhood Development Coordinator
(283-310) 2) City Attorney — Amended Findings of Fact Document for Bituminous
Plant Operation in the Restricted Development Conditional Use
Permit #98-05 for Property South of 40�h Street SW, West of TH 63
(311-316) 3) Park & Recreation — Mayo Civic Center Expansion
(317-318) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
11 OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
:'MEETING
DATE: : 20 00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A
i i cal DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
PREPARED BY:
S.KVENVOLD
This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of
their choice. The following guidelines apply:
• This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has
already been held as a public hearing.
• This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes.
• Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting.
• Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month.
• Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this fonun.
• Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing.
t.vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 3 _0 00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT
AGENDA
CITY ADMLNISTRATOR
D-1-29
i orvl DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
APPROVAL
OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
G. NEL-NIANN
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 sinele motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmemrt bers 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.
Revocable Perm t/Projecting Sign for Sabastian's Restaurant in Radisson Hotel
D-3,
Revised Request to Set Public Hearing for Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District on Weatherstone
Townhomes Project
D-4.
Proposed Settlement of Carnage Homes Lawsuit
D-5.
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
D-6.
Off -Sale 3.2% Beer License for Silver Lake Foods, Inc.
D-7.
Transfer of On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor (Exclusive) License from RSD, Incorporated to S&S Rochester, Inc.
D-8.
Approval of Accounts Payable
D-9.
Amend 2000 General Fund and Capital Improvements Fund Budgets due to Residual Assets from Police & Fire
Consolidated Pension
D-10.
ISD 535 Request for Fire Code Appeal
D-1 1.
Authorization to Advertise for Rescue Truck
D-12.
Appointments to Music Board
D-13.
License Fee/Companionship Sales/Escort Services
D-14.
Development Agreement/Century Hills Development
D-15.
Owner Contract/Western Walls/Diamond Ridge 16/17
D-16.
Acquisition of Needed Right of Way for 16d' Avenue SW Signalizabon Project
D-17.
Revocable Permit for 609 — 9" Street SW
D-18'
Development Agreement/Pinewood Meadows/Schoenfelder Property
D-19.
Proposal for Engineering Services for Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension to Serve 3010 Valleyhigh Dr. NW
D-20.
Professional Services for Stormwater Pond to Serve the Folwell Ridge Area
D-21.
Advertise for Bids/Traffic Signals at Intersection of 2nd Street and 16" Avenue SW
D-22.
Feasibility Report for Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay Northern Hills Court NE from Northern Hills Drive
NE to Cul-De-Sac
D-23.
Feasibility Report for Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10" Avenue SE from 16-1/2 Street SE to 19'" Street SE
D-24,
Feasibility Report for Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15`6 Street NW from Valleyhigh Dnve NW to West
End of Roadway
D-25.
Feasibility Report for Reconstruction of 9" Avenue SW from 2"d Street SW to 4d' Street SW
D-26.
Feasibility Report for Reconstruction of North -South Alley in 200 Block Between Broadway and 1" Avenue SW
D-27.
Feasibility Report for Reconstruction of North -South Alley in 300 Block Between Broadway and 1"Avenue SW
D-28.
Request Bids for Painting of Traffic Signals & Parking Ramps
D-29.
Funding for Local Share of Public Library Accessibility Grant
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 5
DATE: 120 60
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Administrator
Z.
i i cM DESCRIPTION Revocable Permit -- Projecting sign for Sabastian's Restaurant in
PREPARED BY:
Radission Hotel
T. Spaeth
The City has received a request from Schad Tracy to install a projecting sign over the public sidewalk in front
of the Radisson Hotel located at 150 South Broadway. The Land Development Manual allows for projections
over a public sidewalk in the Central Development Core District provided a revocable permit is approved by
the City Council.
The proposed sign is 8' wide and is attached to the wall of the Radisson Hotel. The bottom of the sign needs
to be a minimum of 8' above the sidewalk.
Public works staff has no objection to this request.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
I
Approval of a revocable permit for a projecting sign attached to the Radisson Hotel at 150 South Broadway
using the standard language and conditions.
I
COUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: second by: to:
7-0
/IH/(/✓��• 1 i i � � r s �
Y r �q,yW- 1 ��•� e r
t�t'':il���rl'r'y'�;ae��' . .'•�{:'h1F^. i���''1"kvr R��i tA'°".t%?iyi ?+.°a`
I Ii'rf„�
I
PROJECT
ALUMINUM HANGING SIGN
SCALE-,�- '
IDRAWN BY
CUSTOMER I t.
SABASTIAN'S RESTAURANT --
PARKIN
ADDRESS ;.;i
SALESREP.
x
STEVE M.
CITY -' STATE
DATE
ROCHESTER MN
9/21/99
FONTS USED: EMPIRE BT -- BINNER 0
FILE NAME I TRACKING #
5M-000077.CDR
CUSTOMER APPROVAL
DATE
S
m
U -
vGl
lvc-
an '
Vm 21 ,
QQ
17
LT. c.•. -
�. rJ
0,
63ER P05 f� �
nc_e
m
v
—v
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF
;;�0for��0I
323 MINNESOTA AVE. N. 1610 E. CUFF RP
ORONOCO, MN F5960 BURNSMLIE, MN ;M
PHONE / 307.367,2631 PHONE / 612-894,24:
FAX / 307.367,2633 FAX / 612,894-274
ORDER #: N/A
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Consent Agenda I City Administrator
_—A DESCRIPTION Revised Request to set a public hearing date for the establishment of a
Tax Increment Financing District on the Weatherstone Townhomes project
MEETiNG
DATE: 1 20.0Q
ITEM NO.
D-3
PREPARED BY:
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 17, 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 17, 2000 to consider the establishment of a Tax
Increment Finaning District on the Weatherstone Townhomes project.
,,vUNCILACTION: rnouonby: second
,A SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
MEETING
DATE: 03, 20/00
ITEM NO.
D-q
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CARRIAGE HOMES PREPARED BY:
LAWSUIT D�4VID M,GOSL
In the summer of 1999, the Council directed this office to initiate legal action against Carriage Homes for I
its failure to comply with the provisions of an agreement it entered into with the city for the completion of
the grading work at Meadowbrook. This complaint initially asked the district court to order Carriage
Homes to comply with the agreement by providing the performance bond identified therein. We
subsequently amended the complaint to request a declaration from the court that Carriage Homes had
breached the contract.
Carriage Homes initiated settlement discussions with the City's attorney in order to settle this matter
under the terms that you were previously informed of. Those terms are as follows:
1. Carriage Homes will pay the City $3500 for the City's costs of this litigation.
2. Carriage Homes will not initiate new developments in Rochester, but may complete the
Meadowbrook and Fox Ridge developments.
Carriage Homes will provide a $20,000 performance bond for the remaining work at
Meadowbrook. Last week David Kramer from Public Works inspected the area at Meadowbrook
where work is still needed to complete the grading plan. He prepared a detailed list of work items
remaining and this list was accepted by Carriage Homes. Public Works believes that a $20,000
bond will adequately cover the listed work items, even if problems are discovered.
4. The City, only after it receives Carriage Homes' performance bond, will dismiss the litigation without
an admission of liability by Carriage Homes.
Adopt the prepared resolution approving this settlement agreement and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the same on behalf of the City of Rochester. The terms of the agreement call for the
City to execute the agreement at such time that the agreement is executed by Carriage Homes and
only after the performance bond is provided.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING f
DATE: 3 , 20� 00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
D 5
_ 4 DESCRIPTION: LICENSES. BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DOM A J SCHOTT
The following licenses.. bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or
disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding
debts with the City of Rochester.
CHICKENS
Gregory & Helen McIntire
2006 7d' Ave NE
Rochester, Mn. 55906
SEWER AND DRAINS
Bedrock Sand & Gravel
Box 124
Oronoco, Mn. 55960
MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE
Mayo Clinic Cancer Center & American Cancer Society
National Cancer Survivors Day Picnic 6/4/00
Essex Park 2:00 PM to 5:30 PM
Paws & Claws Humane Society
Pet Walk 5/6i00
Stan at Silver Lake E. Pavilion to Civic Center Park 9:30 AM to 2:00 PM
S.E. Mn. Evangelistic Association
Celebration March (Approx. 20 Churches) 6/18/00
Downtown Rochester 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the above licenses and permits.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING I3
DATE: 3_0 00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
V — (p
�M DESCRIPTION: OFF SALE 3.2 % BEER LICENSE FOR SILVER LAKE
PREPARED BY:
FOODS, INC.
DONNA 1 SCHOTT
Application for an Off Sale 3.2% Beer License for the old MR. D's Family Markets located at 1402 North
Broadway has been received from Charles Pagenhart and Larry McConaughty. The new name of the business
will be Silver Lake Foods, Inc. It is scheduled to open April 1, 2000 under the new ownership.
License would be pending the required fees, insurance certificates and the completion of all city departmental
Approvals.
I
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the application. for an Off Sale 3.2% Beer License for Silver Lake Foods, Inc.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: i
(s
?0�00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Clerk
0.1
i i erW DESCRIPTION: Transfer of On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor (Exclusive) License -
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
John Tigner, former owner of RSD, Incorporated DBA CJ's Lounge, is transferring the On -Sale
Intoxicating Liquor (Exclusive) license to Steven F. Renaux, operating as S&S Rochester,
Incorporated.
A confidential investigative report has been satisfactorily completed.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to transfer the On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor (Exclusive) License from RSD, Incorporated
to S&S Rochester, Incorporated.
t.vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: sewnd by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 3/20100
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 $1,918,854.84.
Less: Any exceptions
1UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
rpm
Dale Martinson
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING Iq
DATE: 03/?0lf10
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Finance Department
_M DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Amend the 2000 General Fund and Capital Improvement Fund Budgets
D. Martinson
Due to Residual Assets From Police & Fire Consolidated Pension
On January 19, 2000, the Council approved the recommended plan for the expenditure of
residual assets derived from the merger of the Police and Fire Consolidated Pension Program
with PERA, pursuant to 1999 Minnesota Session Laws, Chapter 222, Section 10, Subdivision 7.
On January 26, 2000, the City of Rochester received a payment of $4,093,782 for the residual
assets, and established restricted accounts as required by section 2.1.1 of the adopted plan.
$377,513 is required to be used for Police related expenditures and $3,716,513 are to be used
for Fire expenditures.
Section 2.1.3 of the adopted plan requires that amounts are to be transferred from the restricted
accounts to defray Police and Fire expenditures during each month.
The approved plan also recommended that Council amend the 2000 budget and reallocate the
2000 General Fund tax levy in the amount received from the residual pension assets to the
Capital Improvement Fund.
The additional tax levy is to be appropriated to the following capital improvement projects:
Reimburse funding of LEC Communications Project (J1977)
borrowed from Central Maintenance Facility project-J2087 $968,548
Police Total Station Mapping System-J1970 15,000
Opticon Emergency Traffic Signal Preemption System-J6396 316,000
Relocation of Fire Station #3-J1973 843,500
Relocation of Fire Station #2-J1992 843,500
Construction of Fire Station #5-J1991 1,107,234
Total $4,093,782
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve a resolution to amend the 2000 adopted budget: increasing the total budget by
$4,093,782 from $112,933,790 to $117,027,572, decreasing General Fund property tax levy
from $10,103,486 to $6,010,064, increasing Miscellaneous Revenues from $8,804,184 to
$12,897,966, increasing Capital Improvement Fund property tax levy from $1,346,582 to
$5,440,364; increasing total Capital Project Fund revenues and appropriations from
$46,575,446 to $50,669,228, and to appropriate the additional amounts to the capital project
budgets specified.
)UNCIL ACTION: Motion byr Second by. to;
7..e.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING O`er(
DATE: 3/20/99
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Fire
D - 10
i t rM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
ISD 535 REQUEST FOR FIRE CODE APPEAL
Lyle Felsch
Independent School District 535 has requested an extension of time on State Fire Marshal orders regarding
Mayo High School. See attached documentation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval to grant extension of time to the School District 535 until September of 2001.
%..vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
State Fire Marshal Division
3 444 Cedar Street, Suite 145, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-51
Phone:651/215-0500 FAX:651.215.0525 TTY:651/282-65
Internet: http://www.dps.state.mn.us
a
February 14, 2060
Alcohol & Paul Bourgeois, CPA
Gambling Director of Business Services
Enforcement Rochester Public Schools
Bureau of Independent School District No. 535
Criminal 615 Southwest Seventh Street
Apprehension Rochester, Minnesota 55902
Capitol Security -
Driver & vehicle RE: Request for time extension -- Mayo High Sch
Services
Emergency Dear Mr. Bourgeois:
Management/
EmergencyResnse We have received our letter dated January25 2000
Commis on 30, 2000 deadline or compliance with Crrective O
dated January 19, 1993. As. I understand it, you are
State Fire 2001. The file number assigned to your request is 99
Marshal/ calling or writing us for information relative to this iss
Pipeline Safety
State Patrol As was the case with the School District's first tim
Marshal will consider this matter, the local governi
Traffic Safety need a notarized copy of meeting minutes showing tha
your request before we can proceed further.
Should you have any questions, please feel free t
Reintjes at 507-362-8034.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Imholte, Chair
Fire Marshal Code Advisory Panel
cc: School Board Chair, Independent School Distric
Philip Allmon, Administrator of Health, Safety &
Learning
Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief, Rochester Fire Dep
- Jon R. Nisja, Bureau Chief, Inspections and Cod
William A. Reintjes, Deputy State Fire Marshal -
RLI: FMCAP 99-005-T
SFM File #ED-55205022
oo
m
45
55
The Rochester Public Schools 023
independent School District MS
615 SW 7th Street • Rochester, Minnesota 55902 • Phone (507) 285-8592 • Fax (507) 287-1344
Business Senicas
January 25, 2000
Mr. Thomas Brace
State Fire Marshal
444 Cedar Street
Suite 145
St. Paul, MN 55101-5145
Dear W. Brace:
As you know, Rochester Independent School District 535 has been working very aggressively to
install fire protection in our buildings and comply with all of your orders for fire protection.
During calendar 2000, we are in the process of or will be making fire protection adjustments,
including sprinklers and other required changes to John Marshall High School, Kellogg Middle
School, Northrop Community Services Building and our Maintenance Service Building.
We also had Mayo High School scheduled to be completed this summer, but we have run into a
huge amount of asbestos in the ceiling tiles which has put our ability to install fire protection on
hold until all the asbestos is removed. The District had actually designed the fire protection
project and had received bids on the project. Normal testing for asbestos that is required for all
construction projects turned up asbestos in the ceiling tiles, which of course is in the area where
the fire sprinklers must be installed. The firm that we use for asbestos removal design - Institute
of Environmental Assessment - has estimated that it will take a minimum of two months working
double shifts for all the asbestos to be abated. Then, after the asbestos has been removed, we can
commence the installation of the fire sprinklers, new HVAC systems, and ceiling and lighting.
Needless to say, we will not be able to accomplish this in the summer of 2000. The District is
requesting a one year extension for the installation of the fire sprinkler system. We will have to
adjust the Mayo High School calendar in the fall of 2001 to start in October or perhaps
November, or possibly split shin the Mayo High School students to one of the other high schools
in the District. The planning for doing that, plus designing the asbestos abatement and
accomplish all the other architectural drawings will most likely take until September or October
of 2000.
It is the District's intent to finish off installing fire protection as quickly as possible. We have
been moving very quickly to comply with the fire protection orders. if you are able to grant us a
one year extension at Mayo High School, after the summer of 2000 projects are completed, ISD
535 will only have sprinkler installations remaining at Mayo High School and Hawthorne and
Holmes Elementary Schools, all of which already have partial sprinkler installations already (See
attached list.)
Finally it is also the District's intention that once we have met all fire marshal orders, we are
going to return to all of our elementary schools that currently have smoke detectors and install
sprinklers in them also, so that 100% of all District facilities have fire protection via sprinklers.
We have those elementary schools budgeted in our Major Maintenance 10 Year Plan that is
annually approved by the State.
Your assistance is issuing us a one year extension for the orders at Mayo High School would be
greatly appreciated. Again, it is our intent to make sure the fire protection is installed as quickly
as possible upon removal of the asbestos in the summer of 2001 if you approve.
Thank you for your consideration.
Si i
61L -
Paul Bourgeois, CPA
Director of Business Services
Rochester Independent School District 535
Cc:
LL Dennis Olson
Fire Marshal
Rochester Fire Department
201 Fourth Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
William Rientjes
444 Cedar Street
Suite 145
S. Paul, MN 55101-5145
Rochester Public Schools
Fire Marshal Repair Needs Summary
As Of September 1, 2000
Estimated
School Maior Item Cost Status
Elementary
Bamber Valley
UP TO CODE
UP TO CODE
Bishop
Churchill
UP TO CODE
Elton Hills
UP TO CODE
Fohvell
UP TO CODE
UP TO CODE
Franklin
UP TO CODE
Gage
UP TO CODE
Gage East
Golden Hill
UP TO CODE
Hawthorne
Sprinkle Building (Corridors done)
$300,000 Summer 2001
Hohnes
Sprinkle 1964 section (Corridors done)
$100,000 Simmer 2001
Dead end corridors 1917 Section
s20o,00o Pending Bond Election
UP TO CODE
Hoover
UP TO CODE
Jefferson
UP TO CODE
Lmcoln�}a Mann
UP TO CODE
Longfellow
UP TO CODE
Pinewood
UP TO CODE
Sunset Terrace
UP TO CODE
Washington
as
01/25/00 03:53:09 PM fire marshal compliance update as of sept 12000.123 prb 1 of 2
Rochester Public Schools
Fire Marshal Repair Needs Summary
As Of September 1, 2000
Estimated
School
Maior Item Cost
Status
Elementary
Middle Schools
Friedell
UP TO CODE
John Adams
UP TO CODE
Kellogg
UP TO CODE
Willow Creek
UP TO CODE
High Schools
Century UP TO CODE
John Marshall UP TO CODE
Mayo Sprinkle Building -Phase 1- 55%- Gym, Auditorium UP TO CODE
Phase 2 - 45% - Classroom Areas $700,000 Summer 2000 Project
Other Buildings
Burr Oak
Northrop
Edison
ESC
MSB
Total Estimated Cost
1 300 000
UP TO CODE
UP TO CODE
UP TO CODE
UP TO CODE
UP TO CODE
01/25/00 03:53:10 PM fire marshal compliance update as of sept 12000.123 prb 2 of 2
bl
°°° ROCHESTER
DAVID A. KAPLER. Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507) 295-8256
TO THE .APPELLANT:
In accordance with the procedural rules for an appeal to the Rochester Fire Code, the
Fire Marshal is required to examine each appeal to determine if it is sufficient under the
ruses for a hearing by the Common Council.
In accordance with the rules, the application for appeal is required to meet one of the
following criteria:
a.) The application proposes a valid alternate material or method of
construction. The Common Council is not authorized by ordinance or State
Law to grant a variance or waiver of a Fire Code provision, unless the
alternate is equal to or better than the Fire Code provision.
b.) The application requests an interpretation of an unclear or vague Fite Code
requirement_ The Common Council is not authorized to modify the Fire
Code, but may modify the interpretation of the Fin Marshal if that
interpretation clearly violates the Fire Code or exceeds his authority.
Le the appeal application does sat mcet the criteria above, the Fire Marshal is authorized
to notify the appellant of such insufficiency and withhold a hearing until the application
is corrected.
It if is questionable whether the application data meets the rules, or if the appellant
strongly insists that a hearing be held, the Fire Marshal is authorized to contact the City
Administrator to request consideration of a hearing.
An zq-'opport fy Te005-
Is
ROCHESTER
ilEaFi
AI/f
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Rim Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904.3726
(507) 285-8072
FAX #(507) 285-8256
Please check one:,
I. �/ This is an application to use alternate materials or methods of
construction.
II. This is an application for an interpretation of the Fire Code.
III. Applicant: Name N R r ) Ay u S g , -za ren,m CaoX o, �l CJA
Address la S E 9 ! — S-t r �-
City, State, Zip M M > S9 a 7
Phone S°% - 7_37- I ( ; i
Applicant is
er, �
tArrchoited/Fn&= ✓ Other
IV. Bldg Owner. Nam _ �,asf�- }-lw�D c 3,L441s
Address G r s' S tti 1-t>`
City, state, Zip IZA. 44e, M•
Phone 5'0? - 2.3 5- 7 S* 9 Z
V. B1dgAddress: 11; D ) (41, S6 (mAYo 141614 - cCgWIL)
VI. Violation Notice#
Date
VII. section of Fire Code affected by application
An Equato"OE�Tfoyff
M
page 2
Fire Code Appeals
Application
(Check one and complete; use reverse side if necessary)
Description of proposed alternate materials or methods of construction
(Item I):
Description of specific Code provision for which an interpretation is
requested (Item In:
ie rL�hlz !S YZ4'Lui i
aA 'P NY'0 W G H SCN3r)L , (SEE A7rAC-4Eb LETTEP Tn
E 4:?iQE MAQS44AL) Vie- 0."k-
"A kjL SU.mnmay o� ZJr'� I .
VA
IIvkC2(te\ gACjUr)G3 uor291NA7
J SD —53S � -1 g a03)
30
page 3
Fire Code Appeals
Application
Application data approved: % to to aterials/methods (Item n
interpretation of the Code (Item In
Interpretation of Fire Code:
The Rochester Fire Department supports the correction of the requirements cited
by the State Fire Marshal Division in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire
Code and have no objection to the granting of this appeal.
As stated in the request letter, ISD 535 has made substantial progress in
complying with the original orders which included substantial work in all school
buildings including installation of sprinklers and upgrading fire alarms system.
The work pending at Mayo High School essentially is the last building in the
compliance process aside from the Holmes/Hawthome relocation bond issue
pending.
z -z2- a:2
Date
I hereby appeal the decision of the Fire Department.
3-3- "3a
Date
Signed
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING .3t
DATE: 3/2C/2000
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Fire
ITEM NO.
0 —' I
EM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Authorization to Advertise for Rescue Truck
AC Stutz ,�1 /
Approval was given in the 2000 budget to purchase and equip a new rescue truck for the Fire Department.
There is $125,000 in the budget. The Fire Department requests approval to advertise for bids on this truck.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval to advertise for bids on a new rescue truck and equipment.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEE7NG 33
DATE: 3/20/C
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
Consent agenda/
Organizational Business Mayor's Offic
EM DESCRIPTION:
Appointments to Music Board
ITEM NO.
a-1a
PREPARED BY:
I hereby submit for your approval the following appointments to
the Rochester Civic Music Board:
Linda S. Birnbaum
4142 57th Street Ln. NW
Replacing Elizabeth Johnston; term expires 12/31/2002
Martha J. Riley
2 NW Viking Village
Replacing Kurt Osmanski; term expires 12/31/2002.
DUNCIL ACTION: mouan ny 8aaon4 by to:
z°uas?sa ' r'�s
Sfavor Chuck Canfield W"
201 4th Street SE - Room 281 f `" Ep"' n
Rochester, MN 55904.3782 1 1
Phone: (507) 285.8080 Fax: 007) 287-7979
CITY OF ROCHESTER
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
NAME: 1 ,YVIIC�C�1
ADDRESS: t ((tj u)
PHONE: BUS. 73'"12161HOME a$i- 23i
DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES ) NO
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: IR fr
I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON ,{i CCc INS�tL' G\Jv C ,�'IU51C &tr
BECAUSE: i T(� lti�' lVetl t i t '\ 4"1\CEG1
( i'a- Czry1V'('(2y21 E CI_C�lr��1ES, Cl L�� C1`�'0.L
PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL
INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional information, if desired.
CAL �� ? �t . r�vt/E� C�`�s�� �IS�c.r C_El%�t-t-,e ti1p�s '71ti 1�1�
I�SE� ��1ec.}r�caC �t-,C\i�,Cev inC,� U� ✓�� 19g5
n
4ti!F)l; u,v ee'l (�WY1eV o� iletr�q t3�s Hess IQ73 - lq��
1 �,NY 19$9 - Pneseo,t-
��
DATE SUBMITTED: i to
SIGNED:
Hat lsrckek
Return to: Office of the Mayor
201 4th Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904-3782
•i+�+#++++tiff_++++, �.�t t�.*� +#+#.fed+Y++++++#ii+++++++++++++tit+f+,Fi+++#
GAM 05 APM:M11CRi
a' -S
... •'f. _ 1. �•Fai. . l�4 {4iaM�� -..
�C6�
>la�ur Chuck Cantirld
901 4th 5tmet JF - R(x)tn 281
R,Aheaer. %1N 55yU4-3782
Phone r�507 2a:i-1,080 Fay7,07r 287-7979
CITY OF ROCHESTER
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
NAME:
ADORES
P4CNE:
BUS . ;53-S%j%Z HOME - O 35`l
00 YOU
RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY
LIMITS?
YES4 NO_
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: S$ Y?l nn
I AM SEEKING //VOL//UNTARY SERVICE ON
BECAUSE:T %e.l,'GI/t noeke-Svfl.e. MiGS.0 B&N
PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS,
AC'r.IEVE-NENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional
;�fcrmation, if desired.
ix,�BcG//yes,�e�e.,�er/ot�+-�e8�5 /
�J u5 i Ne 5S C_:cH-6 A&dV At �r.tL /Z' Bhl ee �+r /o G s$K( ,25Y/'e's
DATE SUBMITTED: / .3 AA9d
Return to:
SIGNED:
office of the —Mayor
201 4th Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904-3782
♦«rr«rrrr+ar++rrrrrr««««ra+a aarrrrarrrr rrr rrr rrrrarra+aaa•+aa+rrr
DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
TERM EXPIRATION:
OTHER DATA:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 3, 20;
AGENDASECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
I ORIGINATING DEPT:
Police Department
ITEM NO.
D � ( i
ITEM DESCRIPTION: License Fee - Companionship Sales, Escort Set ices
PREPARED BY:
Sgt. Dan Pulford.
On February 23, 2000, the Common Council approved the Ordinance for Companionship Sales
and Escort Services licensing. The Ordinance noted that the license fee shall be set by resolution
of the Common Council.
The Police Department is recommending the following license fees be established:
Companionship Sales/Escort Services Licenses $775.00 per year
Individual Escort License $ 200.00 per year
Individual Private Dancer License S 200.00 per year
The license fee shall be one-half the cost if six months or less remain of the license year expiring
on December 31.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution setting license fees for Companionship Sales/Escort
Services, Individual Escort and Private Dancer Licenses.
%,vUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: second by: to:
N
ROCHESTER
�izrLefata
March 9, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
ROGER PETERSON
Chief of Police
Rochester Police Department
101 4th St, S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904-3761
A request to adopt a city ordinance licensing businesses that qualify as Companionship Sales/Escort Services was
approved by council members at the February 23, 2000 council. It is the recommendation of the Rochester Police
Department that a license fee of $775.00 be set for Companionship Sales/Escort Services. The fee breakdown is
listed below:
City Clerk's Fee
Police Department Fee
background check
yearly enforcement investigation
Total cost
$75.00
$200.00 (multiple owners would be assessed S200 per person)
$500.00
775.00 ($575 plus S200 per background check)
The following services would not be performed in a majority of cases and have not been added to the license fee.
Fire Inspection Fee
$75.00
Building & Safety Fee
permit
$22.00
inspection @ $75.00/hr
$75.00
Health Department Fee
hourly consultant fee when needed
$75.00
The fee would be for a business license only. Over the past two years, the Police Department has found that
generally a couple has owned Companionship Sales or Escort Services. If, however, the Companionship
Sales/Escort Service is owned by a corporation, the Police Department will re-evaluate the cost of investigating the
corporation versus the dual owners.
There would be a separate license fee assessed for a person employed by a Companionship Sales/Escort Service or
as an adult dancer. The fee of $200 per employee would entail the cost of a background investigation.
I hope that the above information will assist you in arriving at a fair and reasonable license fee.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ro er Peterson
Chief
/mjg
An'Equof Opportunity Employer
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3q
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
i i cM DESCRIPTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works D � 14
Agreement — Century Hills Development PREPARED BY:
M. Nigbur%
The Developers of the Century Hills Development 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.
• Construction of a Secondary Access.
• Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, and Parkland
Dedication.
• Options for providing storm water management.
• Park Dedication requirements
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have executed
the agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Payne Development
Company for the Century Hills Development.
%,JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING II(
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works D -17/
aM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract; Western Walls - Diamond Ridge 16117 PREPARED BY::r -
M. Nigbur7�04
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
• Diamond Ridge 16 & 17 - Western Walls Inc. (Owner) & Elcor Construction (Contractor) are
requesting a City / Owner Contract J9593 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve Diamond
Ridge 16 & 17 Subdivision".
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9593
"Basic Construction to Serve Diamond Ridge 16 & 17 Subdivision"
.. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEE T iNG Y3
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENTAGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works D. 1
—M DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Acquisition of needed Right of Way for 16" Avenue PREPARED BY: r(.�
SW Signalization Project J.6394 M. Nigbur may!
The City is currently in the process of designing a signalization project located at 2n° Street SW and 16'"
Avenue SW. This project is needed to better manage the traffic flows in the area. To allow this project to
continue Staff would request authorization to acquire the needed land rights for the project. Much of the
needed right of way is currently in City control. However, there is a limited amount of area needed from
several parcels to facilitate this project. Staff anticipate the impact on the abutting owners will be limited to
5 —7 feet of additional right of way within the project area.
Staff would recommend the Council authorize the acquisition of the needed land rights, for the 16" Avenue
Signal Project, through negotiations and, if needed, through the use of the 90 Day Quick Take
Condemnation process. Staff would request authorization to acquire the needed property at a value not to
exceed 10% above the appraised value and to retain the needed consultants on the project.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize Staff to acquire the needed land rights, for the 161 Avenue Signal Project, through negotiations and, if
needed, through the use'of the 90 Day Quick Take Condemnation process. Staff would request authorization to
acquire the needed property at a value not to exceed 10% above the appraised value and to retain the needed
consultants on the project.
_—UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 45S
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
i i tM DESCRIPTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works Q -1 7
PREPARED BY:
M. Niobur-1
The Owner of 609 9'° Street SW has asked the City of Rochester for a Revocable Permit for the
existing encroachment of a portion of the structure that lies within the 9' Street right of way. The
Owner has also recently received a Variance to allow the subdivision of the non -conforming property.
One of the conditions of the Variance approval was the Owner must receive a Revocable Permit from
the City for the existing building encroachment.
Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit for the
existing 6.0 feet encroachment subject to the standard Revocable Permit conditions. In addition to the
standard conditions the permit should also state that the encroachment area is not allowed to be
expanded and the encroachment is only allowed as long as the existing dwelling remains.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Direct the City Attorney to prepare a revocable permit to allow the existing structure located at 609 9'"
Street SW to encroach 6.00 feet within the right of way.
%,UUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETiNG Tq
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
i i tM DESCRIPTION:
Property.
Agreement —
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works I D-(g
PREPARED BY: i}'t
M. Nigbur
The Developers of the Pinewood Meadows/Schoenfelder Property 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.
• Annexation of the entire property within 7 years.
• Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Substandard
Roadway, 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 ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Schoenfelders South
Star Inc. for the Pinewood Meadows/Schoenfelder Property.
L,%jUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second
ir-1
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
MEETING
DATE: 3 0/00
ITEM NO.
o -rq
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Proposal for Engineering Services for Sanitary Sewer and PREPARED BY:
Watermain Extension to Serve 3010 Valleyhigh Drive NW, J9595 (lug J. Loehr fC
The City of Rochester received a petition from the owner of property located at 1010 Valleyhigh Drive
NW. On April 19, 1999 the City Council referred the petition to the Department of Public Works for
preparation of a Feasibility Study. The Department of Public Works is finalizing an Agreement with a
consulting engineering firm to provide engineering services for the following local improvement project:
Project No. 9918, J9595 Consulting Engineer: Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve 3010 Valleyhigh Drive NW"
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates is capable of providing the desired level of Preliminary
Project Analysis, Design and Construction Engineering Services.
The Department of Public Works recommends that Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates be
initially retained to provide Preliminary Project Analysis for the respective projects. Compensation is
proposed at the actual cost and expense fee structure.
After the completion of the Preliminary Project Analysis and selection of design alternates and the
scope of the project are determined the Department of Public Works may determine that the
consultant's services are required for the design and construction of the project. If the consultant's
services are required the Department of Public Works will negotiate Design and Construction
Engineering Service Agreements with the consultant for the project. Compensation for Design services
is proposed at a "Lump Sum" amount as negotiated for the project. The "Lump Sum" amount will be
based on the extent of engineering services required for the project. Construction services will be
compensated on actual costs with a not to exceed provision.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of Engineering Service Agreements with Bonestroo,
Rosene, Anderlik & Associates to provide engineering services for:
a. Preliminary Design Analysis (actual cost and expense fee structure) for project J9595.
b. Design Services ("Lump Sum" as negotiated by the Department of Public Works) for project
J9595.
c. Construction Services (actual cost with a not to exceed provision as negotiated by the Department
of Public Works) for project J9595.
Attachments: Location Map
Engineering Service Proposal
Petition
COUNCIL ACTION: "notion by: Second by:
' % 1
� � YL' �i � �'f L2S ; 5 i�-' T u. Z S i-, ✓lj �[ s-i� i.`i 0.7e r' Ctrt ,4
For 4e roP��� �Lt Ebto Vn4je, �-A
�� G eel ,4,� 4A-L f
s n�¢ only u.'oulc� �- m(.q.ie- C4111Uenren
for O"r �enaa,,k b,Q" is Cilso 6L4��r �� ie en U��en.���t
n Lo/s•,n . (,W2 WOCOd ctst
Vzr�zs Cosf Cuhen /h2�,� Vocc� Cfec.sco/�_
�1cL�t�Cc�O ?pr u0L) r ddVZL [✓>
Limits
205
203
201
333 ti
204
315
7
303
310
301
300
Project No. 9918, J9595
Sanitary Sevin- and Watermain Extension
to Serve 3010 Val leyhigh Drive N. W.
Watemiain
# 3010
Valleyhim
Drive
# 301'
t -t Sanitary Sewer l
51 JA 13onestroo
0 Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
January 17, 2000
Dees A Beene. >E. 2 ara a vrr _ wear 'd _ -• _,rs..�v_ t;
+smcsre' �ncaais �c.vzra a San rara. _ <e;�. > _ r. _ >ace•� x � s_- _
",'I'd u =aerer �avm O '_Ma Ota.'_. A•q
�i cnae7 <P"e�d 15. fe^.neon C
areY % amicn. P . .cert t rt^ Aq, m T i a a t ct .cl'.T, '_.
.JR¢s St ,,' ccnester. ASilmar and t. _: cud. NN N' auaee Ni
?ocnesre• 31a111 Wanager Oale A Grave. ?E.
weasrte: www aanestrooeam
Mr. Jim Loehr
City of Rochester Public Works Dept.
201 4th Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Proposal for Engineering Services
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main to Serve 3010 Valleyhigh Dr. NW
City Project No. M9918 (J9595)
Dear Mr. Loehr,
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates is pleased to submit a proposal for Engineering
Services for the 3010 Valleyhigh Drive Project. The project includes the extension of
sewer and water main to serve the area as part of the City's Water Quality Protection
Program.
Engineering Services have been separated into three phases for the project. Phase 1
consists of preliminary data collection, layout of alignment alternatives, review with City
Staff, and soils exploration work.
Detailed design, preparation of specifications and bidding are included under Phase 2 of
the project. Phase 3 consists of Construction Services for the project.
Scope of Woric
The following scope of work provides the specific tasks that are to be completed for the
project.
Phase 1 - Preliminary Analysis
Tie in existing dwellings, well and/or septic locations
Determine foundation/basement floor elevations
Determine alternative alignment options (gravity flow is preferred)
Determine alternative alignment profile elevations
• Obtain soil data and rock elevations through soil borings
Provide Engineers preliminary estimates based on alignment alternatives
Attend design meeting with property owners (if needed)
117 7th Street N.E. • Rochester_ MN SS906 ■ S07-282-2100 • Fax: 507-282-3100
63
Phase'_ - Desien
• Complete detailed survey work based on alignment option chosen under Phase
• Determine final sewer & water main locations and elevations
Submit easement legal descriptions
Submit applications for sewer and water construction to City
Submit 50% complete plans and specifications for City review
• Submit revised Engineers estimate at 50% design completion
Submit final plans and specifications for City review and approval
• Submit final Engineers estimate at 100% completion
• Assist City Staff in bidding process
Phase 3 - Construction
Perform construction survey and staking
Coordinate Soils & Materials testing
• Perform Construction Inspection
Preparation of Record Drawings
Project Schedule
The following preliminary project schedule is provided based on the project being bid
this spring for start of construction early in the 2000 construction season.
Preliminary site survey and data collection Feb. 7, 2000
Meet with City Staff to review alternative alignments Feb. 23, 2000
Complete Soils Exploration Work March 6, 2000
Meeting with property owners (if needed) March 13, 2000
Submit 50% completed plans and specs to City Staff March 20, 2000
Submit final plans and specs for review and approval April 10, 2000
Council Authorization for Bid April 17, 2000
Project Bid Date May 17, 2000
Council Award of Contract June 5, 2000
Start Construction June 19. 2000
Substantial Completion July 28, 2000
a
Protect Team
Bonestroo & Associates will provide a project team dedicated to completion of the
project. Mike Lynch will provide project management and engineering services for the
project. Survey Crew Chief Bob Bradley will provide field survey services. Terry Ward
and Dale Grove will provide technical support and review of final plans and
specifications.
Compensation
The proposed compensation for Engineering Services during the Phase 1 - Preliminary
Analysis of the project is hourly plus expenses. Attached is the fee schedule that would
apply to the project. Engineering Services would be billed monthly at the rates indicated
on the schedule. The estimated Engineering Services cost for the Preliminary Analysis is
$4,650.00. The estimated expenses for the Preliminary Analysis is S300.00
Bonestroo & Associates will review the project area to determine the locations of needed
soil borings for the project. We will obtain quotes from qualified soils exploration firms
and submit this information to the City for review. All soils exploration fieldwork will be
coordinated by the Engineer. The City will administer the contract with the soils firm.
The estimated cost for soils exploration work is $1.500.00.
The proposed compensation for Phase 1 - Design and Phase 3 - Construction will be
determined after completion of the preliminary analysis. A separate proposal for this
work will be submitted to the City upon request.
We would welcome the opportunity to further discuss our proposal with you. Please feel
free to call if you have any question or need additional information.
Sincerely,
BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
��e4-..4'z
Michael C. Lynch, P.E.
Attachments: Figure 1 - Project Site
Fee Schedule
Estimated Hours and Costs
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 55
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works I D-alO
i i tM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services for Stormwater Pond cc-p4.3 to serve the 1 PREPARED
Folwell Ridge area. (J-2460)
D. Kram
Construction of regional stormwater pond cc-p4.3 has been proposed to serve a portion of proposed
Folwell Ridge subdivision, portions of future Orchard Hills development, as well as existing
development in the Hillcrest subdivision area. Waterway capacity problems currently exist from the
proposed pond site north to 2no Street SW. Construction of the pond is needed to alleviate these
existing capacity problems as well as to mitigate the increased runoff from additional development.
Yaggy Colby Associates proposes to provide preliminary engineering services for the analysis and
design of the pond, as well as the waterways both upstream and downstream of the pond, on an hourly
basis not to exceed $20,500.00. Staff recommends a professional services agreement be entered with
Yaggy Colby for preliminary engineering services.
Funding for the preliminary engineering services will be from J2137, collected Stormwater Management
Area Charges. The pond construction and any waterway improvements are anticipated to be funded
partially by collected Stormwater Management Area Charges, and partially by the Folwell Ridge
developer, as will be outlined in a future development agreement.
.111110■■111 ■i
11. 11�' -•
SITE
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Yaggy Colby Associates
for preliminary engineering design services associated with Stormwater Pond cc-p4.3, J-2460, for an
amount not to exceed $20,500.00.
ACTION: Motion by: Second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1""-t
DATE: 3i20100
AGENDA SECTION,
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING ❑EPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works D —421
I I EM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: Traffic Signals at Intersection of 2nd PREPARED BY:
Street and 16th Avenue SW (J6394) R. Kelm;
This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project:
SAP 159-106-15
Project No. 9859 (J6394)
Traffic Signals at Intersection of 2nd Street and 16th Avenue SW
The Signal project, engineering and construction will be funded with Municipal State Aid funds
The project is included in the 1999.2004 Capital Improvement Program budget ( item 9, page 36).
iryle 91W,Y �, IMvwagn p 2q lbN M 1!w yw 9W
.P 4\1p.1!
L
A 'apt-�
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid
opening on April 12,2000 at 11:00 AM.
Note to City Clerk;
Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning March 20, 2000.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
101
MEETING 5-7 Ile
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
I I EM DESCRIPTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT!
Public Works
"Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay Northern Hills Court NE
from Northern Hills Drive NE West to Cul-De-Sac" (J9622)
This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6921-00, (J9622)
ITEM NO.
D -az
PREPARED
R. Kelm
Project Name
Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay Northern Hills Court NE from Northern Hills Drive NE West to Cul-
De-Sac
Estimated Proiect Costs
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $100,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 15,000
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 34,500
Total $149,500
Project Cost Distribution
Special Assessments — Frontage .............. $ 26,766.15
Special Assessments — Sidewalk .............. $ 4,705.80
City Share ................................................... $118,028.05
Total........................................................... $149,500.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5%
annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt the resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt the resolution ordering a Public Hearing to be held May 1, 2000.
3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing May 1, 2000.
Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, Budget and Assessment Schedule
-7UNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Report On Feasibility Of
Proposed Local Improvement Project
Project No. 6921-00 J. 9622
Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay
Northern Hills Court NE
from Northern Hills Drive NE West to Cul-De-Sac
Date: March 20, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay Northern Hills Court NE
from Northern Hills Drive NE West to Cul-De-Sac" was referred to the Public Works Department on January 19,
2000 for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report.
Engineer's Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction.
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1970 and is due for resurfacing.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive
Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective, cost-effective program for the
nreservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at
its time for this street, which has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 36, is rehabilitation. Work
..icludes resurfacing of the street, the addition of concrete curb and gutter and appropriate storm water
drainage structures.
The property owners direct contribution for rehabilitation is $15.00 per assessable foot (Residential), and
$22.50 per assessable foot (Commercial) frontage.
The estimated costs for the street rehabilitation, made without completed plans or survey are as follows:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $100,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 15,000
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 34,500
Total $149,500
Assessment Basis for Rehabilitation
The cost of rehabilitation as established by City Council Policy is:
$15.00 per assessable foot (Residential)
$22.50 per assessable foot (Commercial)
Estimated assessable Residential frontage (1,784.41') x $15.00 per foot $26 766.15
Estimated assessable Commercial frontage (0') x $22.50 per foot__
Total frontage assessments $26 766.15
Assessment Basis for Sidewalk Replacement
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed directly to the
abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk (residential) $6.00 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial) $5.75 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches) $6.50 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) $7.00 per square foot
Estimated assessable 4"
Sidewalk =
913.60 x $5.00
per square foot
$4,568.00
Estimated assessable 5"
Sidewalk =
0 x $5.75 per square
foot
$0.00
Estimated assessable 6"
Sidewalk =
21.20 x $6.50 per
square foot
$137.80
Estimated assessable 7"
Sidewalk =
0 x $7.00 per square
foot
$0.00
Total Sidewalk assessments
$4,705.80
Assessment Basis for Drive Approach Upgrades -Extra Widths
Upgrading of drive approach width is assessed by the square yard and is assessed directly to the property
owner at the following rates:
6" Concrete Drive Approach (Residential) $31.68 per square yard
7" Concrete Drive Approach (Commercial) $34.95 per square yard
Since the extra width drive approach upgrade is entirely at the property owner's request, only the rates are
given.
Total Estimated Funding Distribution
Special Assessments — Frontage
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
City Share
Total
(C I,
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
$26,766.15
$4,705.80
$118,028.05
$149,500.00
Doug Nelson, PE
Manager of Engineering
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6921-00
J No: J9622
State Aid Project No
Date: March 20, 2000
43
Description:
Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay Northern Hills Court NE from Northern Hills Drive
NE West to Cul-De-Sac
Project
Budget
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading, Paving, Curb & Gutter
$100,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$15,000
Watermain Replacement
Engineering, Interest, & Contingency
$34,500
Total Construction & Expense
1 $149,500
Distribution:
Special Assessments — Frontage
$26,766.15
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
$4,705.80
Special Assessments — Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
City Share
$118,028.05
TOTAL
$149,500.00
Notes:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING s
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION.
ORIGINATING DEPT-
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D, 2
11M DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report for:
"Concrete
PREPARED BY:
Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE from 16 %2 Street SE
R. Kelrrix
to 19th St SE" (J9639)
P�
This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6310-2-00, (J9639)
Project Name
Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE from 161/2 Street SE to 1 EP St SE
Estimated Project Costs
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $103,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 32,000
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 40,500
Total $175,500
Project Cost Distribution
Special Assessments — Frontage .............. $ 20,414.10
Special Assessments — Sidewalk .............. $ 0.00
City Share ................................................... $155,085,90
Total........................................................... $175,500.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5%
annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
1. Adopt the resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt the resolution ordering a Public Hearing to be held June 5, 2000.
3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for June 5, 2000.
Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, Budget and Assessment Schedule
`)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second try: to:
Concrete Curb & Gutter on
10th Avenue SE
from 16'/z Street SE to 19 Street SE
Project No. 6310-2-00
J9639
P:\PR OJ ECTSU-P ROPJ963u1Dc si gn\Ducs;rc a-map.dw
Report On Feasibility Of
Proposed Local Improvement Project
Project No. 6310-2-00 J. 9639
Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE
from 161/2 Street SE to 19`h Street SE
Date: March 20. 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting "Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE from 16 1/2
Street SE to 191h Street SE" was referred to the Public Works Department on January 19, 2000 for preparation
of the Engineer's Feasibility Report.
Engineer's Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction.
Sections of the existing street were constructed with bituminous curbing in 1968 and additions were made in
1969 and 1976. The entire length is due for resurfacing
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive
Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective, cost-effective program for the
preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at
his time for this street, which has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of mid 40's, is rehabilitation. Work
ncludes resurfacing of the street, the addition of concrete curb and gutter and appropriate storm water
drainage structures.
The property owners direct contribution for rehabilitation is $15.00 per assessable foot (Residential), and
$22.50 per assessable foot (Commercial) frontage.
The estimated costs for the street rehabilitation, made without completed plans or survey are as follows:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $103,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 32,000
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 40,500
Total $175,500
Assessment Basis for Rehabilitation
The cost of rehabilitation as established by City Council Policy is:
$15.00 per assessable foot (Residential)
$22.50 per assessable foot (Commercial)
Estimated assessable Residential frontage 1,360.94' x $15.00 per foot
$20,414.10
Estimated assessable Commercial frontage 0' x $22.50 per foot
$0.00
Total frontage assessments
L$20,414.10
Assessment Basis for Sidewalk Replacement
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed directly to the
abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk (residential)
5" Sidewalk (commercial)
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches)
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)
$5.00 per square foot
$5.75 per square foot
$6.50 per square foot
$7.00 per square foot
Estimated assessable 4"
Sidewalk =
0
x $5.00
per square foot
$0.00
Estimated assessable 5"
Sidewalk =
0
x $5.75
per square foot
$0.00
Estimated assessable 6"
Sidewalk =
0
x $6.50
per square foot
$0.00
Estimated assessable 7"
Sidewalk =
0
x $7.00
per square foot
$0.00
Total Sidewalk assessments
$0,00
Assessment Basis for Drive Approach — Extra Widths
All drive approaches will be replaced (at the existing width) with a concrete drive approach meeting current
design standards. Additional width is assessed by the square yard and is assessed directly to the property
owner at the following rates:
6" Concrete Drive Approach (Residential) $31.66 per square yard
r Concrete Drive Approach (Commercial) $34.95 per square yard
Since the extra width of the drive approach upgrade is entirely at the property owner's request, only the rates
are given.
Total Estimated Funding Distribution
Special Assessments — Frontage
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
City Share
Total
1LL'
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
$20,414.10
$0.00
$155,085.90
$175,500.00
Doug Nelson, PE
Manager of Engineering
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6310-2-00
J No: J9639
State Aid Project No
Date: March 20, 2000
Description:
Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE from 16 1/2 Street SE to 191h Street SE
Project
Budget
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading, Paving, Curb & Gutter
$103,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$32.000
Watermain Replacement
En ineerin , Interest, & Contin enc
$40,500
Total Construction & Expense
$175,500
Distribution:
Special Assessments — Frontage
$20,414.10
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
Special Assessments — Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
City Share
$155,085.90
TOTAL
$175,500.00
Notes:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 3/100
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D.614
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report for: PREPARED BY: 1
"Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from R. Kelm'x
Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway" (J9609)
This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6215-4-00, (J9609)
Proiect Name
Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of
Roadway
Estimated Project Costs
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $110,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 10,000
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 36,000
Total $156,000
Proiect Cost Distribution
Special Assessments — Frontage .............. $ 31,603.05
Special Assessments — Sidewalk .............. $ 8,608.11
City Share ................................................... $115,788.84
Total........................................................... $156,000.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5%
annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt the resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt the resolution ordering a Public Hearing to be held June 5, 2000.
3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Rail.
4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for June 5, 2000.
Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, Budget and Assessment Schedule
UNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
q�--
Concrete Curb & Gutter in
15th Street NW
from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway
Project No. 6215-4-00
J9609
,*73 .
Report On Feasibility Of
Proposed Local Improvement Project
Project No. 6215-4-00 J. 9609
Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in
15th Street NW
from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway
Date: March 20, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from
Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway" was referred to the Public Works Department January 19, 2000
for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report.
Engineer's Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. The existing street was constructed with
bituminous curbing in 1958 and is due for resurfacing.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive
Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective, cost-effective program for the
preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at
this time for this street, which has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 68, is rehabilitation. Work
icludes resurfacing of the street, the addition of concrete curb and gutter and appropriate storm water
rainage structures.
The property owners direct contribution for rehabilitation is $15.00 per assessable foot (Residential), and
$22.50 per assessable foot (Commercial) frontage.
The estimated costs for the street rehabilitation, made without completed plans or survey are as follows:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $110,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 10,000
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 36,000
Total $156,000
IAssessment Basis for Rehabilitation
The cost of rehabilitation as established by City Council Policy is:
$15.00 per assessable foot (Residential)
$22.50 per assessable foot (Commercial)
Estimated assessable Residential frontage 902.82' x $15.00 per foot
$13,542.30
Estimated assessable Commercial frontage 802.70' x $22.50 per foot
$18,060.75
Total frontage assessments
$31-603.05
Assessment Basis for Sidewalk Replacement
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed directly to the
abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk (residential)
5" Sidewalk (commercial)
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches)
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)
$5.00 per square foot
$5.75 per square foot
$6.50 per square foot
$7.00 per square foot
Estimated assessable 4"
Sidewalk =
111.38
x $5.00
persquare foot
$556.90
Estimated assessable 5"
Sidewalk =
768.00 ft2
x $5.75
per square foot
$4 416.00
Estimated assessable 6"
Sidewalk =
53.82
x $6.50 per
square foot
$349.83
Estimated assessable 7"
Sidewalk =
469.34
x $7.00
per square foot
$3 285.38
Total Sidewalk assessments
$8 608.11
Assessment Basis for Drive Approach — Extra Widths
All drive approaches will be replaced (at the existing width) with a concrete drive approach meeting current
design standards. Additional width is assessed by the square yard and is assessed directly to the property
owner at the following rates:
6" Concrete Drive Approach (Residential) $31.68 per square yard
7" Concrete Drive Approach (Commercial) $34.95 per square yard
Since the extra width of the drive approach upgrade is entirely at the property owner's request, only the rates
are given.
Total Estimated Funding Distribution
Special Assessments — Frontage
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
City Share
Total
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
$31,603.05
$8,608.11
$115,788.84
$156,000.00
Doug Nelson, PE
Manager of Engineering
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6215-4-00
J No: J9609
State Aid Project No
Date: March 20, 2000
l�
Description:
Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to
West End of Roadway
Project
Budget
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading, Paving, Curb & Gutter
$110,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$10,000
Watermain Replacement
Engineering, Interest, & Contingency
$36,000
Total Construction & Expense
$156,000
Distribution:
Special Assessments — Frontage
$31,603.05
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
$8,608.11
Special Assessments — Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
City Share
$115,788.84
TOTAL
$156,000.00
Notes:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 077 /
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works () •a S
n tiM DESCRIPTION: "Feasibility Report for:
Reconstruction of 9th Avenue SW from 2nd Street SW to 4th
Street SW" (J9524)
This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6309-3-99, (J9524)
Proiect Name
Reconstruction of 9th Avenue SW from 2nd Street SW to 4th Street SW
Estimated Protect Costs
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$98,000
Sidewalk Replacement
$7,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$10,000
atermain Replacement
$55,000
Sanitary Replacement
$30,000
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies
$60,000
otal
$260,000
Proiect Cost Distribution
Special Assessments — Frontage
$38,501.4
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
$6,416.2
Special Assessments — Service Replace
$1,600.0
Water Utility Funds
$58,310.0
Sewer Utility Funds
$37,485.0
City Share
$117,687.3
OTAL
$260,000.0
EPARED BY:,iy
R. Kelm
I
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5%
annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt the resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt the resolution ordering a Public Hearing to be held May 1, 2000.
3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for May 1, 2000.
Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, Budget and Assessment Schedule
IUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
q 0
r
Concrete Curb & Gutter in
Reconstruction of 9th Avenue SW from 2"d Street SW to 4ch
Street SW
Project No. 6309-3-99
J-9524
7�
Report On Feasibility Of
Proposed Local Improvement Project
Project No. 6309-3-99 J. 9524
Reconstruction of
9th Avenue SW
from 2nd Street SW to 4th Street SW
Date: March 20, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain request for "Reconstruction of 9th Avenue SW from 2nd Street SW to 4th Street
SW" was referred to the Public Works Department on January 19, 2000 for preparation of the Engineer's
Feasibility Report.
Engineer's Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. Record plans of the existing street are
unavailable. W atermain construction in this section is dated 1887 and 1949. The entire length is due for
resurfacing.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive
Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective, cost-effective program for the
oreservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at
his time for this street, which has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 20, is reconstruction. Work
.ncludes grading, watennain, sewer, resurfacing of the street, the addition of concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk
and appropriate storm water drainage structures.
The property owners direct contribution for reconstruction is $30.00 per assessable foot (Residential), and
$48.00 per assessable foot (Commercial) frontage.
The estimated costs for the street reconstruction, made without completed plans or survey are as follows:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$98,000
Sidewalk Replacement
$7,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$10,000
atermain Replacement
$55,000
Sanitary Replacement
$30,000
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies
$60,000
otal
$260,000
�D
Assessment Basis for Reconstruction
The cost of reconstruction as established by City Council Policy is:
$30.00 per assessable foot (Residential)
$48.00 per assessable foot (Commercial)
Estimated assessable Residential frontage (450.10') x $30.00 per foot $13,503.00
Estimated assessable Commercial frontage (520.80') x $48.00 per foot $24 99H 40
Total frontage assessments $38 501 40
Assessment Basis for Service Replacement
..
It is expected that water line services may be replaced as part of the project. Replacement of watermain is
funded 100% by the Water Utility. However, the City of Rochester's Watermain and Sewermain Policy adopted
by the City Council on October 20, 1997, requires than any lead or galvanized water services must be replaced
with copper as part of watermain replacement. Cost of service replacement charges for water and/or sewer will
be billed directly to the property owner. If the service replacement charge is unpaid the City may levy the unpaid
charge against the property as a special assessment. Payment of this assessment is required over a period not
to exceed 5 years. Interest is charged at 7.5% annually from the date the service replacement is billed to the
property owner at the following rates:
Water
5/8" -in
$ 800
1 '/z"- 3"
J$1,000
Sewer
4"- 6"
1 $ 800
8" —12"
J$1,200
The estimated assessable cost based on (2) properties in the area that may require a 1" water service
connection is $1,600.
Assessment Basis for Sidewalk Replacement
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed directly to the
abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk (residential) $5.00 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial) $5.76 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches) $6.50 per square foot
7' Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) $7.00 per square foot
" Sidewalk residential
1,053.21
SO. FT
$5.00
$5,266.0
Sidewalk commercial
0.00
SO. FT
$5.75
$0.0
" Sidewalk at residential drive approaches)
176.96
SO. FT
$6.50
$1,150.21
" Sidewalk at commercial drive approaches)
SO. FT
$7.00
$0.00
Sub Total Sidewalk
$6,416.2
Assessment Basis for Drive Approach — Extra Widths
UI drive approaches will be replaced (at the existing width) with a concrete drive approach meeting current
lesign standards. Additional width is assessed by the square yard and is assessed directly to the property
owner at the following rates:
6" Concrete Drive Approach (Residential) $31.68 per square yard
7" Concrete Drive Approach (Commercial) $34.95 per square yard
Since the extra width of the drive approach upgrade is entirely at the property owner's request, only the rates
are given.
Total Estimated Funding Distribution
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
Special Assessments — Frontage
$38,501.401
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
$6,416.2
Special Assessments — Service Replace
$1,600.
Water Utility Funds
$58,310.
Sewer Utility Funds
$37,485.
City Share
$117,687.3
OTAL
1$260,000.00
Doug Nelson, PE
Manager of Engineering
�OL /
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6309-3-99 Date: March 20, 2000
J No: J9524
State Aid Project No
Description:
Reconstruction of 9th Avenue SW from 2nd Street SW to 4th Street SW
Project
Budget
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$98,000
Sidewalk Replacement
$7,000
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$10,000
Watermain Replacement
$55,000
Sanitary Replacement
$30,000
Engineering, Interest, Contin encies
$60,000
Total
$260,000
Distribution:
Special Assessments — Frontage
$38,501.40
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
$6,416.25
Special Assessments — Service Replace
$1,600.00
Water Utility Funds
$58,310.00
Sewer Utility Funds
$37,485.00
City Share
$117,687.35
TOTAL
$260,000.00
Notes:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. 1. R. Fund
r J, :',,m OFS CM.DCCS ^oc^,g9t&A ".ed.JCC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEET NG S3
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION*.
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works V •ab
Feasibility Report for: PREPARED By:
"Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway R. Kelm
and 1st Avenue SW" (J9512)
This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project:
Project Number
63001/2-3-99 J-9512
Project Name
Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway and 1 st Avenue SW
Estimated Proiect Costs
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$63,500.00
Sidewalk Replacement
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$10,500.06
atermain Replacement
Sanitary Replacement
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies
$22,200.06
otal
$96,200.00
Project Cost Distribution
Special Assessments — Frontage
$9,908.70
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
Special Assessments — Service
Replace
Water Utility Funds
Sewer Utility Funds
$10,500.00
City Share
$75,791.3
OTAL
$96,200.0
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5%
annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt the resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt the resolution ordering a Public Hearing to be held May 15, 2000.
3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for May 15, 2000.
Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, Budget and Assessment Schedule
t,JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
RECONSTRUCT NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN 200 BLOCK BETWEEN
BROADWAY AND 1ST AVENUE SW
Project Location
Project No. 6300 1/2-3/99
J9512
I
L___ ' S4
Report On Feasibility Of
S�
Proposed Local Improvement Project
Project No. 63001/2-3/99
J-9512
Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW
Date: March 20, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing, "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW",
was referred to the Public Works Department on January 19, 2000 for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility
Report.
Engineer's Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. The date the majority of roadway sections
were constructed could not be determined, however a portion of the existing Alley was reconstructed with
watermain in 1978.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive
Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS).
The Alley will be reconstructed with concrete pavement, which will provide a long lasting, durable well -drained
surface.
he property owners direct contribution for reconstruction of the Alley is $15.00 per assessable foot
There will be no assessments for sewer repairs,
The estimated costs for the Alley, made without completed plans or survey are as follows:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$63,500.00
Sidewalk Replacement
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$10,500.00
atermain Replacement
Sanitary Replacement
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies
$22,200.00
otal
$96,200.00
Assessment Basis for Alley Reconstruction
The cost of reconstruction as established by City Council Policy is:
$15.00 per assessable foot (Alley)
Estimated assessable Commercial Alley frontage 660.58 x $15.00 per foot I$9,908.70
Total Estimated Funding Distribution
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
Special Assessments — Frontage
$9,908.70
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
Special Assessments — Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
Sewer Utility Funds
$10,500.00
City Share
$75,791.30
OTAL
$96,200.0
Doug Nelson, PE
Manager of Engineering
s"7
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6300 1/2-3-99
J No: 9512
Date: March 20, 2000
Description: "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway and 1 st
Avenue SW"
Project
Budget
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$63,500.00
Sidewalk Replacement
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$10,500.00
Watermain Replacement
Sanitary Re lacement
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies
$22,200.00
Total
$96,200.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments — Frontage
$9,908.70
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
Special Assessments — Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
Sewer Utility Funds
$10,500.00
City Share
$75,791.30
TOTAL
$96,200.00
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 8 1_�
DATE: 3/2 /00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT! ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public Works Ib .0117
ITEM DESCRIPTION: r-easlomty rteporu: PREPARED BY:
"Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway R. Kelm, �r<
and 1st Avenue SW" (J9511)
This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project:
Project Number
63001/2-3-98 J-9511
Proiect Name
Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW
Estimated Protect Costs
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$58,367.00
Sidewalk Replacement
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$2,400.00
atermain Replacement
Sanitary Replacement
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies
$18,230.6-0
otal
$78,997.00
Project Cost Distribution
Special Assessments - Frontage
$10,035.00
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
Special Assessments - Service
Replace
Water Utility Funds
Sewer Utility Funds
$2,400.0
City Share
$66,562.0
OTAL
$78,997.0
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5%
annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt the resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt the resolution ordering a Public Hearing to be held May 15, 2000.
3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for May 15, 2000.
Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, Budget and Assessment Schedule
ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
19
RECONSTRUCT NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN 300 BLOCK
BETWEEN BROADWAY AND 1ST AVENUE SW
Project No. 63001/2-3-98
J9511
I
Report On Feasibility Of
Proposed Local Improvement Project
Project No. 6300 1/2-3-98
J-9511
Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW
Date: March 20, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing, "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW",
was referred to the Public Works Department on January 19, 2000 for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility
Report.
Engineer's Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. The date the majority of roadway sections
were constructed could not be determined, however a portion of the existing Alley was reconstructed with
watermain in 1978.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive
Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS).
The Alley will be reconstructed with concrete pavement, which will provide a long lasting, durable well -drained
surface.
he property owners direct contribution for reconstruction of the Alley is $15.00 per assessable foot
There will be no assessments for sewer repairs.
The estimated costs for the Alley, made without completed plans or survey are as follows:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$58.367.00
Sidewalk Replacement
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$2,400.00
atermain Replacement
Sanitary Replacement
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies
$18,230.06
otal
$78,997.00
Assessment Basis for Alley Reconstruction
The cost of reconstruction as established by City Council Policy is:
$15.00 per assessable foot (Alley)
Estimated assessable Commercial Alley frontage 669.00 x $16.00 per foot I $10,035.00
Total Estimated Funding Distribution
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
Special Assessments — Frontage
$10,035.00
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
Special Assessments — Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
Sewer Utility Funds
$2,400.00
City Share
$66,562.00
OTAL
$78,997.00
Doug Nelson, PE
Manager of Engineering
a3
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6300 1/2-3-98
J No: 9511
Date: March 20, 2000
Description: "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway and 151
Avenue SW"
Project
Budget
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$58,367.00
Sidewalk Replacement
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$2,400.00
Watermain Replacement
Sanitary Replacement
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies
$18,230.00
Total
$78,997.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments — Frontage
$10,035.00
Special Assessments — Sidewalk
Special Assessments — Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
Sewer Utility Funds
$2,400.00
City Share
$66,562.00
TOTAL
$78,997.00
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
95�
3/20100
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENTAGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM NO.
a 42
M DESCRIPTION: Request Bids for Painting of Traffic Signals & Parking Ramps
PREPARED BY
D. Rossma
This is a recommendation to set a bid date for 2 City Projects those being:
1. City Project No. (J-6399) "Year 2000 Traffic Signal Painting Program ". This project is listed
on page 326 of the 2000 City budget. The work consists of painting poles, mast arms, signal hardware,
and controller cabinets at 10 intersections.
2. City Project No. (J-4961) "Year 2000 Painting of Parking Ramps" This project is the annual
painting of various items in the 5 City Parking ramps. The areas designated for painting this year are the
stairtowers in the Center Street Ramp and First Street Ramp, all the office areas and doors. This work is
funded in the Parking Operating Budget.
These two projects will be combined as one bid package to provide efficiency and better prices.
The bids are requested for April 12, 2000 with Council approval of bids at the April 17th meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing a bid date of 4-12-00 for; " City Project No. (J-6399) )
"Year 2000 Traffic Signal Painting Program " and City Project No. (J-4961) "Year 2000 Parking Ramp
Painting"
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
NEE`YG
DATE. 3
Ifq ?
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITYADMLNISTRATOR
D,O-A
u cM DESCRIPTION: FUNDING FOR LOCAL SHARE OF PCBLIC LIBRARY
PREPARED BY:
ACCESSIBILITY GRANT
S. KVENVOLD
The Rochester Public Library has applied for a grant to make some accessibility improvements at the Library
(see attached).
The grant funds are $8,408 and would be matched by local funds of S8,408. The Library is requesting that the
City Council appropriate the local share to match the grant funds.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion appropriating $8,408 from the Future Construction Account (301-1994) to provide the local
share of this project.
%,vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
RochesterPubhc Memo
Lim
101 SECOND STREET SE
ROCHESTER, MN 55904
5071285-8000
FAX 507/287.1910
CONNIE JO OZINGA
DIRECTOR
To:
Steve Kvenvold
From:
Audrey S. Betcher
Date:
March 8, 2000
Subject:
Accessibility Chant
M.
www.d.rochester.mn.us/library The Library has applied to the state for a Public Library Accessibility Grant to do
the following projects:
Door openers on the public restrooms in Information Services and in the
Children's area.
Door openers on the staff restrooms near the training room on the second
floor. (The public uses the training room on a regular basis.)
Assistive listening devices added to the F.A. system in the auditorium.
The grant will pay up to 50% of the costs, the remaining 50% of the cost must be
locally matched. Attached is a copy of the spreadsheet showing costs.
As part of the grant process we did an ADA self -evaluation. I am also including a
copy of the "Building Transition Plan" which resulted from that analysis. Once the
grant items have been completed, the remaining issues are minor.
Per our conversation, the local dollars portion would come out of the City's
Contingency Fund. Based on the grant timelines, the projects will begin in late
May. Though the grant has not been formally approved, we've had verbal
communication that indicates that it will be.
If you would like any additional information or if you have any questions, please
let me know.
Rochester Public Library
Income and Expenses
Accessibility Grant
Attachment 8
q ra=
Expenses
Local Dollars
Grant
By type of work
Electrical Work
Automatic Doors, hardware and installation
Assisted Listening transmitter, 3 receivers, and installation
By project:
Public restrooms door openers
Staff restroom door openers (2 on second floor)
Assistive listening system add -on to the auditorium's PA system
Total Expenses
$8,408.00
$8,408.00
$16,816.00
$1,800.00
$14, 021.00
$995.00
$10,240.00
$5, 581.00
$995.00
$16,816.00
a
Rochester Public Library
AAA Building Transition Plan
Accessibility Grant
Attachment 4
Areas of non-compliance from the Building Access Survey:
• All bathrooms have floor to ceiling doors which are heavy and difficult to open for
handicapped persons.
Part of grant request (2000)
• No assistive listening system in auditorium.
Part of grant request (2000)
• No van accessible signage on handicapped parking
Purchase sign (2000)
• Handrail on one side only for the back hallway on the first floor
Evaluate situation and recommend changes (2000)
• No service cart available
Purchase service cart (2000)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING t.
DATE: 3-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
I ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING E .
ITEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #149 Hidden Oaks Valley
PREPAREMitzi
AB
A.
j March 16, 2000
NOTE., This GDP was previously continued to allow the applicant additional time to submit a revised GDP. A i
revised GDP was submitted reflecting some of the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission. In
response to the revised GDP, staff suggests revisions to the conditions and modifications recommended by the
Planning Commission. The revised changes are identified with sttikethFauo text for text to be deleted and
underlined text for text to be added.
Staff would like to note that after the Planning Commission meeting, the County Board approved amendments to the
County Land Use Plan that include this property. Amendments to the 25 year Urban Service Area result in all of the
undeveloped portions of this property being within the 25 year Urban Service Area. Since this decision has been
made, the Council may want to remove the language "if platted within the City", from the first bullet under condition
#1.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation,
Motion by Schultze, seconded by Slaver to approve GDP #149 with the following conditions and modifications, motion
carried 7-0.
t. The GDP be revised to:
• Show the "66' Future Access and Utility Easement" as public right-of-way to the north property line, which will be
dedicated at the time of platting, if platted within the Clty
o.
- PFOVICIA A 30' molde FRid Weak pedestnap rURROGIIGA WORN the anialh sid@ Of the FROM SOW!hQFIY east west Feadway,
dei;ignation�".
the stubbed roadway leading mouth ffen; che fWtWF6
G0119WOF, OF SO that With tha ReFthiso-th roadway
read W tWQ QQFA9r that w 11 be pladed with suladivismeR ;mix:
The revised GOP shall be riled with the Planning Department
2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating
to, but not limited to, substandard street charges, storm water management park dedication, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities, right-ol-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure.
3. At the time of platting, controlled access must be provided along Bandel Road, with the exception of the public road shown
on the GDP, and also within 50' of the intersection with Bendel Road, consistent with an access study being completed for
that roadway. At the time of platting, controlled access shall be provided along the right-of-way for the road labeled Yuture
65i8 Street,' consistent with an access study being completed for that roadway. When platted, the area shown as the'66'
future access and utility easement` shall be dedicated as public right-of-way to the north property line.
............Conditions are continued on next page
c.vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: jr""Ilt ;, 3 7
Page 2/�
RCA
March 1 , 2000
4. Roadway names shown on the GDP may not meet the roadway naming standards of the LDM. The applicant shall coordinate
with the City and Planning Department G1S staff to determine appropriate roadway naming designations.
5. In order to provide adequate water supply for this development, the development will either need to be timed so that the NW
High Level Water System is available to this property concurrent with infrastructure improvements on -site. Or, a temporary
booster pump station shall be installed by the developer to improve water service to the property and the station be
removed at the time the NW High Level System is made available.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated February 4, 2000
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, it should instruct
the City Attorney to prepare a resolution, with findings, for Council approval.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated February 4, 2000
2. Minutes of February 9, 2000 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. McGhie & Betts, Inc.
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday March 20. 2000 in the Council / Board Chambers in the
Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
rct:
f
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
1 15100
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
REVISED 3115100
(o 5�
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
2010 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507.281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the revised application for General
Development Plan #149 on the Big DE (Hidden Oaks Valley) property. The following are
Public Works comments on the proposal: Note: Revised comments are shown in bold,
all others were included in our comments dated 212/00.
Storrs Water Management must be addressed provided for this
development. On -site detention is shown on the proposed GDP plan. Any
on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain
private, and execution of a long term maintenance & ownership agreement
will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed
concurrent with the initial stages of development.
2. Controlled access must be provided along the right-of-way for the future 65"
St NW, as determined by the City Engineer. Controlled access will also be
required along Bandel Rd NW with the exception of the single proposed
access right-of-way. Additional controlled access will be required for private
driveways within 50 feet from the intersections of any new road(s) with W
Ave NW, of Bandel Rd NW.
3. The connection shown as '66' Future Access & Utility Easement", between
the north/south cul-de-sac should be shown as public right-of-way and
dedicated at the time of platting.
4. Developer agrees to dedicate the needed right of way for 650 street NW,
estimated to be 120.00 feet total (60 feet each side of centerline).The
required right-of-way shall be reserved with the first phase of this
development. Dedication shall be outlined in the Development
Agreement.
CITE M PNGOP 149Rev3-00. doc
lob ROCHESTER
Minnesota
3/15,00
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
5. Pedestrian facilities will be required along both sides of all new public roads
abutting this property, and along all the east side of Bandel Rd NW. A 10 foot
bituminous bike path may be required, along the east side of Bandel Rd NW.
6. Specific routing of sanitary sewer lines will be reviewed further during the
platting stages.
7. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of
public infrastructure.
8. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that
outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to,
substandard street charges, stormwater management, park dedication,
traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and
contributions for public infrastructure.
9. The amended access location from the south to the future alignment of
65 h St NW addresses Public Works prior comment. The aliqRFF16Rt Of the
+LW -
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property
(rates are subject to annual review and change):
Sanitary Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per
developable acre.
Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre.
•3 A proportional share of the costs to reconstruct Bandel Road NW.
Sanitary Sewer & Water Connection Charges for the frontage along
Bandel Road.
•S Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division.
C:VTEMP\G OP 149Rev3-00.doc
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS OR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
TO:
City Planning and Zoning Commission
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285.8232
PLANNING
GI&ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232
FROM:
Mitzi A. Baker, Planner
MAPPING
NouslNGrrIRA 507/285-8224
DATE:
February 4, 2000
BUILDING CODE 5071285.8213
WEUJSEPnc 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
RE:
General Development Plan #149 to be known
as Hidden Oaks
Valley
Planning Department Review:
Appllcant/Owner:
Consultants:
Summary:
Big DE Development
PO Box 247
Byron, MN 55920
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
This property is located east Bandel Road NW, near 650 St. NW. A GDP for this property was
approved by the County in May 1999 that included 160 acres. The large lots shown at the very
northern and northeastern portions of the property have been platted in the County. When the
County approved the GDP, the alignment of a future collector road had not been studied.
ROCOG has since initiated the process to amend the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to identify
a future collector road extending east from Bendel Rd. NW at W St. NW to 181° Ave. NW. This
GDP identifies the future alignment of this roadway, as it will be planned through this property and
includes approximately 101.5 acres of land.
Environmental Review: At the time the County reviewed the GDP for this property, it was
noted that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) would need to be completed for the
development of this property. in accordance with the Minnesota Rules, 4410.4300 subp. 36, the
proposed development of this property would require preparation of a Mandatory Environmental
Assessment Worksheet since it consists of the conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural land
to a more intensive land use, i.e. residential and potentially commercial development. At this
time, an EAW has not bee submitted to the Planning Department for this property
�t�
Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation:
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted
regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999.
Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any
differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously
with a rezoning or plan amendment request.
The portion of the GDP showing low density residential development is
consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designation for
this area which is "low density residential". The portion of the site labeled "future
commercial development" is not consistent with the Land Use Plan.
Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation
are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent
property.
The density and lot sizes for the residential portion of the property appear
consistent with the land use designation and the R-f zoning of the property
already annexed into the City.
The GDP should be revised to reflect the future re -alignment of Bendel Rd. NW
showing a 90° intersection with the future collector road (labeled 650 St. NM.
Pedestrian facilities also need to be reflected on the Plan and should be shown
along Bendel Rd. NW and the future collector road. Sidewalk will also be
required along both sides of all new roads. It should be noted that the future
collector road will not likely be named 6e St. NW and should not be shown as
such on the GDP.
A portion of the GDP is labeled "future single family development 18-54 lots"
The ability to serve this area with municipal services will impact the density. A
cul-de-sac within this area will need to be platted with right-of-way to the north
property line at the time of platting.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
The development density is consistent with a Low Density Residential land use
designation of the Land Use Plan and is consistent with the Housing Plan and
the standards for the physical and social environments of residential
neighborhoods. The whole GDP, including that portion already platted in the
County, provides for varied lot sizes for single family detached homes.
Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and
streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement
Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation
Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City.
Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and
projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses
shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
goy
The GDP identifies a needed future collector road that will extend east from
Bendel Rd. NW, at 650 St. NW, to 18i° Ave. NW. ROCOG has initiated the
process to amend the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to identify this collector
road.
The GOP will need to be revised to identify a pedestrian system along both
Bendel Rd. NW and 65" St. NW.
Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the
development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will
provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those
adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance.
Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely
accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and
proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking
that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as
identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity
from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the
assessment of adequacy.
A portion of the GDP is labeled 'future single family development 18-54 lots" A
cul-de-sac within this area will need to be platted with right -of --way to the north
property line at the time of platting.
The GDP should be revised to reflect the future re -alignment of Bandel Rd. NW
showing a 900 intersection with the future collector road (labeled 6e St. NW).
Pedestrian facilities also need to be reflected on the Plan and should be shown
along Bendel Rd. NW and the future collector road
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or
that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area
of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the
City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements
(contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to
ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the
applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no
development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until
concurrency has been evidenced.
Sewer is available at Bendel Rd. NW and will be extended to serve the area of the
Plan which shows urban sized single family lots. The area lying north and east of
these lots may need to be served by another line which would be extended to this
property from the VOA property located south and east of this site (at the
intersection of 550 St. NW and 1r Ave. NM.
Water service to the site is currently limited. In order to provide adequate pressure
for domestic use, the Northwest High Level Water System will need to be extended
to this property from the Orchard Ridge development on the west side of TH 52. An
alternate option, approved by RPU Water, is the installation of a temporary booster
pump station that would be removed at the time the higher pressure from the NW
High Level System is made available.
(10
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service
standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development.
The GDP proposes a storm water detention facility within the area labeled as
"future open space". The location, size and design of these facilities will require
further review.
Detailed construction plans will need to be approved for all infrastructure
improvements.
The GDP will need to be revised to identify pedestrian facilities along 8andel Rd.
NW and the future collector road. Sidewalk will be required along both sides of all
new roadways. The design of the single family urban lots and roads shown along
the south property boundary results in a 985' long block with no mid -black
pedestrian connections. A 30' pedestrian easement should be provided within this
block to provide for pedestrian connections between this development and future
development on the adjacent property, consistent with Section 64.227, A of the
LOU
Re -alignment of Bendel Rd. NW to intersect with the future collector road at 900
should also be reflected on a revised Plan.
A 40 acre parWschool site is located south and east of this site. Park dedication
requirements for this development should be met via cash dedication in lieu of
land.
Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through
normal engineering and construction practices. or that, at the time of land
subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to
solve unusual problems that have been identified.
The GDP proposes a storm water detention facility north of the area that
identifies urban single family lots. The location, size and design of this facility will
require further review.
Criteria G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for
residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards
contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned
development of adjacent parcels.
The design of the single family urban lots and roads shown along the south
property boundary results in a 985' long block with no mid -block pedestrian
connections. A 30' pedestrian easement should be provided within this block to
provide for pedestrian connections between this development and future
development on the adjacent property, consistent with Section 64.227, A of the
t-DM.
A portion of the GDP is labeled "future single family development f 8-54 lots"
The ability to serve this area with municipal services will impact the density. A
cut -de -sac within this area will need to be platted with right-of-way to the north
property line at the time of platting.
The GDP will need to be revised to eliminate the "future commercial
development' designation since the property is not designate for commercial
uses on the Land Use Plan. The other option is to label that area for 'non-
residential uses permitted in a low density land use designation" since that
tit
location may meet the site location criteria for some non residential uses in the
low density residential zoning districts.
An open space area was shown on the original GDP for this property, in part
because of development limitations dictated by topography and limited ability to
serve that area with City services. The original GDP did not include the future
collector road, now identified on the Plan. Staff questions whether the area
designated for "future open space" is an appropriate designation given the
infrastructure facilities that will abut the property in the future. The applicant and
consultant should consider the infrastructure planned to abut this property in the
future and determine whether development of a portion of that property would be
possible as a result of this change.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed this GDP according to the applicable regulations and criteria and recommends
the following conditions or modifications:
t. The GDP be revised to:
• Identify the future alignment of Bandel Rd. NW with a 90' intersection with the future
collector road;
• Provide a 30' wide mid -block pedestrian connection along the south side of the most
southerly east -west roadway;
• Re-4abel the area currently shown for "future commercial development". That area
shall either be labeled "non residential uses permitted within a low density residential
land use designation" or "low density residential", consistent with the Land Use Plan
designation for this property;
• Identify future pedestrian trails along the east side of Bandel Rd. NW and the south
side of the future collector road;
• Show the'66' Future Access and Utility Easement" as public right-of-way to the north
property line, which will be dedicated at the time of platting;
• Minimize access to the future collector road by re -aligning the most southerly east -
west road so that it intersects with the stubbed roadway leading south from the future
collector, at the extreme southeast comer of the property;
The revised GDP shalt be filed with the Planning Department.
Z 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, franc Improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication,
and contributions for public Infrastructure.
3. At the time of platting controlled access must be provided along the right -of --way for
the future 650 SL NW and also along Bandel Rd. NW, with the exception of the one
public road access shown on the GDP. When platted, the area shown as the "66'
Future Access and Utility Easement" shall be dedicated as public right-of-way to the
north property line.
4. Roadway names shown on the GDP may not most the roadway naming standards of
the LDM. The applicant shall coordinate with the City and Planning Department GIS
staff to determine appropriate roadway naming designations.
5. in order to provide adequate water supply for this development, the development will either
need to be timed so that the NW Nigh Level Water System is available to this property
concurrent wii Infrastructure improvements on -site. Or, a temporary booster pump station
shall be Installed by the developer to Improve water service to the property and the station be
removed at the time the NW Nigh Level System is made available.
113
FROM: Planning Department, Transportation Division
Cloy
Prel Plat 99-
48
; The final plat for this subdivision should have a no access restriction
Bandel North
included on the west side of Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 13 of Block 4,
First
Outlot B should be either dedicated as right of way or a condition should
be included in the Development Agreement that will
accompany
development of this subdivision to he effect that if the City
determines to
proceed with the construction of 65 St Outlot B wiil be deeded to city for
right of way purposes. The standard policy of the city is to require
dedication of local and collector street right of ways as part of the plat
approval process.
City
GDP 149
Hidden Oaks
The main issue in regards to this General Development Plan is the
Valley
identification of a future corridor to allow for the extension of 65'" St.
eastward from Bendel Road to 18`n Ave. The need for this corridor has
been identified through on -going discussions and review of street systems
needs in the area. The corridor addresses two key needs:
1. As a general rule of thumb, typically urban development intensities
require collector and/or arterial streets to be providing on or about A
mile spacings in order to provide an adequate amount of major street
capacity (thus relieving traffic from local streets) and to provide
adequate overall connectivity. Prior to this time north of 55'" St. there
have been no major east -west streets planned. In part this was a
response to the thought that urban intensity development would not
extend north of where a 65'n St. extension would be located. However,
with the urban growth boundary expansion being discussed it appears
that urban intensity development will extend further north and
infrastructure accommodations need to be planned for.
2. A second concern is that with a planned overpass of TH 52 at 65'" St.
envisioned as the minimum improvement at that intersection, there is
the potential for additional traffic from the west side of TH 52 being
funneled into the intersection of the Bendel Rd/East Frontage Rd and
55 St. The extension of 651n St. to 181n Ave. will reduce this impact
and relieve the level of congestion that would otherwise occur there by
providing for a better overall dispersion of traffic throughout this area.
ROCOG has initiated the process to amend the Long Range Thoroughfare
Plan to reflect the extension of 65'11 St, as a collector street between
Bendel Road and 18' Ave. The City has retained the firm of McGhie &
Betts to evaluated alternative alignments for the 651n St. corridor. Their
preliminary analysis has been reviewed with the staffs of City and County
Public Works, MnDOT and Planning's transportation staff. Of the
alternatives evaluated, which included corridors that would have went
south of the Hidden Oaks area, the corridor reflected on the plan appears
to provide the most logical location in terms of road alignment, function
and minimizing the division of current property ownerships. When this
alignment leaves the Hidden Oaks site heading eastward there are some
alternative options which are being reviewed with landowners, which
include the School District and Park Department on a 40 acre site
immediate)y to the southeast.
u�
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 65'" St. alignment. This realignment is
recommended in order to create a cleaner, 900 intersection with the future
65"' St. and a potential extension of Bendel Road to the north and to
i
provide additional spacing between the end of any bridge structure over
the highway and the first intersecting street.
t'. N_
we pledye, we deliver
January 28, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: General Development Plan #149 by Big DE Development to be known as Hidden
Oaks Valley, which is the Bandet North area.
Dear Ms. LaPalm:
Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow:
1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The
Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the
applicability of these fees.
2. The majority of this property is serviceable from the Northwest High Level Water System, which
is currently available approximately one mile to the west at the North Park Water Tower. There
are preliminary plans however to extend this water system to the east with the Orchard Ridge
Development and a feasibility study has been prepared by the City Public Works Department to
bring it the balance of the way to serve this area.
3. The other option that has been discussed and approved by us is the installation of a temporary
booster pump station by the developer to provide adequate pressure for domestic use and a
limited amount of water available for fire protection. This would then be removed at the time the
higher pressure from the NW High Level System was made available.
4. 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,
p
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Big DE Development
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
(1"
ALL-AWMG CRY
`!V,
ROCHESTER
DATE: January 28, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning
From: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
�9j YFDyCGU SS....
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: General Development Plan 99-149, Hidden Oaks Valley., located east side of
Bandel North First Subd, in cascade Township adjacent to the City of Rochester
The majority of this project is outside of the City of Rochester and will receive fire
protection as contracted with Cascade township. The portion within the city is beyond
the 4 minute fire response standard of the Rochester Fire Department and will will add
66 single family residential lots on 28.66 to the in -city response area of the Rochester
Fire Department The following are the requirements of the fire code:
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 submittal does not address water supplies for the township portion, so it is
assumed fire protection water will be tanked to the site by the fire department.
Due to the close proximity to the Bandel Water tank (not a tower), the portion within
the city presently has marginal water pressures and booster pump(s) may be
necessary to insure adequate fire protection water supplies. Refer to comments
from Donn Richardson, RPU Water Division.
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.
3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any
residential buildings.
r.
Page 7
City Planning and Zoning Commission !Minutes
Heanng Date: February 9, 2000
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
General Development Plan #149 by Big DE Development to be known as Hidden Oaks
Valley. The County approved a GDP for this property in May 1999 that included 160
acres of land, a portion of which would be developed in the City and a portion which
would be developed In the County. That GDP also includes an area that may be
developed either in the City or County depending on the availability of City services it
the future. The GDP now Includes an allenmant fnr n enllar+nr rnnrl ti,.i ,,.ai e..�....,i ...
110
The property is located east of Bandel Road within Sections 4 and 9 Cascade Township
Ms. Baker presented the General Development Plan staff report, dated February 4, 2000, to the
Commission. The Staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Baker presented a map of the GDP and stated that the County approved a GDP for a
portion of the property last year. She stated that at that time, the future alignment of a Collector
or Arterial road that will connect from Sande( Road to 180 Avenue NW hadn't been established
and it prompted the City to have McGhie & Betts to look at that alignment. Alternative
alignments were presented to ROCOG and City and County staff, and it appears as though the
alignment of the portion of the roadway through the proposed GDP has been pretty much
determined. Ms. Baker reminded the Commission they will need to make separate motions for
the GDP and plat.
Ms. Baker referred to the staff -suggested findings and stated that staff recommends approval
subject to five conditions. She explained that number 1 is a list of items that need to be
changed on the GDP and the applicant's consultant is aware that it will be recommended that
the Council not take action on the GDP or plat until these revisions are submitted to staff. Ms.
Baker suggested rewording condition number 3 to state, "At the time of platting, controlled
access must be provided along Sande] Road, with the exception of the public road shown on
the GDP, and also within 50' of the intersection with Bendel Road. At the time of platting,
controlled access shall be provided along the right-of-way for the road labeled "future 65"
Street," consistent with an access study being completed for that roadway, and when platted,
the area shown as the fib' future access and utility easement shall be dedicated as public right-
of-way to the north property line." She pointed out the reason for this is a study will determine
where the access point should be along the future roadway and controlled access should be
provided consistent with what the study determines, which she has discussed with the
applicant.
Mr. Werven asked if an EAW has been submitted for the property.
Ms. Baker answered no, and explained that the development triggers a mandatory EAW, so
that will need to be done in the future.
IN Page 8
City Planning and Zoning Commission :Minutes
Hearing Date: February 9, 2000
Mr. Quinn referred to the last bullet on number 1 and asked that the change be pointed out on
the map.
Ms. Baker explained this, and stated that the consultant is aware of that condition. She also
pointed out where the 66' future access and utility easement will need to be shown as public
right-of-way.
Ms. Schultze asked if there was any discussion of looping the road and eliminating a cul-de-sac
on the east.
Ms. Baker stated there was not any discussion on that issue.
Harvey Ratzloff, the applicant, addressed the Commission and made himself available for
questions.
Representing the applicant, Bill Tointon McGhie & Betts, Inc. addressed the Commission. He
presented a color map showing the development, and explained that the portion in the County
will be developed as suburban subdivision. The applicant agreed with staff to leave the portion
in the middle vacant from development because they don't know if City services will be
extended. He explained how sewer can be extended to serve this property. Mr. Tointon stated
that an EAW has been prepared and will be submitted to the Planning Department this week.
He noted that his firm was retained by the City to prepare some alternative routes for 65"' Street
from Bendel Road to 18'h Avenue, and the alignment of 65" Street through the Big De
development is fairly well fixed, so they can proceed with platting.
Mr. Tointon referred to the conditions, and stated they have several issues to raise:
Regarding the second bullet on number 1 - their concern is if they accommodate that 30'
strip for a mid -block sidewalk, there will be safety issues with the grade, noting it is currently
8%. He suggested they move the pedestrian traffic, which he pointed out on the map.
2. Regarding the third bullet on number 1 — labeling the future commercial development. He
explained that no matter what this area becomes, there is opportunity for commercial use
on the property and the condition indicates they should relabel it to "Low Density
Residential." He suggested they should put in parentheses "potential future commercial
use," which would inform buyers of lots in the development to be aware of the possibility of
commercial uses on that comer parcel.
3. Regarding the 5" bullet on condition number 1 - Mr. Tointon stated that under the approved
County GDP, they left this as an easement for utilities to come through from the north and
left an access corridor in case it is developed under City standards. He commented they
should leave the plan the way it is currently.
4. Regarding condition number 3 — He understands that the controlled access would be
designated when they finish the study of 65 h Street, and he asked if there would be access
to Sandal Road.
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearutg Date: February 9, 2000
Ms. Baker stated that the way it is worded, access to Bandel Road would be limited at the one
public roadway shown on the GDP.
Mr. Tointon requested that be determined when the study is completed on 65' Street, and have
the condition state that.
Mr. Tointon presented a map of the plat. Regarding the pedestrian way to the south, they
would like to promote the one going to the north that goes to the open space and they would
have a connection to the open space in the far north. He stated his clients are willing to
dedicate the right-of-way of 650 Street, and Mr. Freese has told them if the applicants along the
route are willing to dedicate the route, there would be no charge for the construction of the
roadway, since it is a major road system. Mr. Tointon commented they are in agreement with
the other conditions, and they will make their revisions before the Council meeting. He added
that there is a provision -in Section 64.227 of the Land Development Manual where the need for
mid -block sidewalks can be waived due to topographic conditions.
Ms. Schultze ask if adding "if grade appropriate" to the condition, would be acceptable.
Mr. Tointon stated that would be acceptable to Mr. Ratzloff and himself.
Ms. Baker suggested a condition that would require the mid -block pedestrian connection
"unless found unfeasible by the City Engineer due to topographic constraints."
Mr. Brede asked if the green area shown is potential parkland.
Mr. Tointon explained that part of it will probably be developed, and part will remain as open
space. The Park Department most likely will not accept that as a public park.
Ms. Schultze referred to the 66' future access easement, and stated since they do not know yet
what will happen it might make sense to show it.
Mr. Tointon stated it is labeled as a potential future access. He suggested rewording to say it
be dedicated if platted in the City.
Ms. Baker noted that to be consistent with what staff recommended in the County's review, the
future right-of-way should be shown as right-of-way that will be dedicated in the platting stages
of roadway. They feel it should be shown as road right-of-way all the way to the north property
line, and if it develops in the County, the County has made the decision that the access
easement is acceptable. She stated that it is staffs recommendation that it be revised as
stated in the report
Ms. Schultze commented that she feels it would be in the best interest of the City to have it
shown as right-af-way.
Mr. Tointon stated if it were platted in the City, it would not be a 66' roadway, so there need to
be changes made to make it a City -style development. He suggested adding that if it is platted
in the City, it has to be a connected roadway.
Discussion ensued regarding the area !abed "future commercial development."
( Page 10
City Planning and Zoning Cornmission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 9, 2000
Ms. Baker referred to the labeling of the "future commercial development," and stated that staff
is comfortable with it being labeled with an existing land use of Low Density Residential and
have in parentheses "potential future commercial use." She noted that at the intersection of
those types of roadways, you can have non-residential uses and commercial uses in the
residential zoning districts.
Terry Peterson, 6420 Sande] Road NW, addressed the Commission. He pointed out his
property on the map, and asked if it was going to be annexed into the City.
Ms. Baker stated that at this time, the property is not 100% surrounded by the City, so the City
couldn't take action for annexation. She explained that typically, annexation occurs when the
property owner requests it, but if the property becomes 100% surrounded in the future, the City
may take a look at whether it would be beneficial to annex the property.
Mr. Peterson asked what the plans are for the property between his and Bendel Road.
Mr. Ratzloff readdressed the Commission, and stated they don't know at this time. They are
trying to let the people know that there is potential for some different uses in that area other
than single family residential. He stated they will work with Mr. Peterson on that.
Mr. Tointon pointed out there is a condition on the GDP that talks about the need to connect the
road to the south. As they have been studying the future 65`" Street route, they have
determined that the connection to 65" out of Bandel North needs to be in a particular location,
which he pointed out on the map. He pointed out the connections that should be made and
recommended that the condition, the last bullet on number 1, should be changed.
Discussion ensued.
Mr. Reiter stated that what Mr. Tointon has described, which creates a common intersection,
will meet the intent of what the staff is attempting to accomplish in terms of access control. He
commented that staff wants to see only two connections instead of three.
With no others wishing to speak, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearings for both the
preliminary plat and the GDP.
Ms. Schultze made a motion to approve General Development Plan #149, to be known as
Hidden Oaks Valley, with staff -suggested findings and conditions as modified: Add to
the second bullet on condition number one "unless determined to be topographically
unfeasible by the City Engineer;" bullet 3 of condition number 1 to state, "Relabel the
area currently shown for commercial development. That area shall be labeled existing
land use 'Low Density Residential' (potential future commercial use permitted within
"Low Density Residential" land use designation)."
Mr. Tointon noted that because of the possibility of that portion of property being rezoned in the
future, that rather than tie it to any land use, it be labeled as existing "Low Density Residential"
with "potential future commercial use." He stated he wants to make sure they don't deceive
people who buy lots.
J
Page I I
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 9, 2000
Ms. Baker explained that the language Mr. Tointon proposed is acceptable. She pointed out
that if a land use plan amendment and zone change are requested, a revision to the GDP may
be required.
Ms. Schultze continued with her motion, adding to the 5t' bullet of condition number 1,
"If platted within the City;" the 6w bullet of condition number 1 "limiting accesses to the
Collector road to two intersections in the southeast corner that will be platted with
subdivision lots;" condition 3 to state, "At the time of platting, controlled access must be
provided along Bendel Road, with the exception of the public road shown on the GDP,
and also within 50' of the intersection with Bandel Road, consistent with an access
study being completed for that roadway. At the time of platting, controlled access shall
be provided along the right-of-way for the road labeled 'future 651° Street,' consistent
with an access study being completed for that roadway. When platted, the area shown
as the'66' future access and utility easement' shall be dedicated as public right-of-way
to the north property line." The motion was seconded by Mr. Slaver, and carried 7.0.
Conditions:
1. The GDP be revised to:
• Identify the future alignment of Bandel Rd. NW with a 900 Intersection with the
future collector road;
• Provide a 30' wide mid -block pedestrian connection along the south side of
the most southerly east -west roadway, unless determined to be
topographically unfeasible by the City Engineer;
• Relabel the area currently shown for commercial development. That area shall
be labeled existing land use "Low Density Residential" (potential future
commercial use permitted within "Low Density Residential" land use
designation).
• Identify future pedestrian trails along the east side of Bandel Rd. NW and the
south side of the future collector road;
• Show the "66' Future Access and Utility Easement" as public right-of-way to
the north property line, which will be dedicated at the time of platting, if
platted within the City;
• Minimize access to the future collector road by re -aligning the most southerly
east -west road so that it intersects with the stubbed roadway leading south
from the future collector, or so that it intersects with the northisouth roadway
located north of the future collector, and, at the extreme southeast corner of
the property, limiting accesses to the Collector road to two intersections in the
southeast corner that will be platted with subdivision lots;
The revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department.
Z 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, right-of-way dedication,
and contributions for public infrastructure.
3. At the time of platting, controlled access must be provided along Bandel Road, with
the exception of the public road shown on the GDP, and also within 50' of the
19/9 Page 12
City Planning and Zoning Cotnmission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 9, 2000
intersection with Bendel Road, consistent with an access study being completed for
that roadway. At the time of platting, controlled access shall be provided along the
right-of-way for the road labeled 'future 65t° Street,' consistent with an access study
being completed for that roadway. When platted, the area shown as the '66' future
access and utility easement' shall be dedicated as public right-of-way to the north
property line.
4. Roadway names shown on the GDP may not meet the roadway naming standards of
the LDM. The applicant shall coordinate with the City and Planning Department G1S
staff to determine appropriate roadway naming designations.
5. In order to provide adequate water supply for this development, the development will
either need to be timed so that the NW Nigh Level Water System is available to this
property concurrent with infrastructure improvements on -site. Or, a temporary
booster pump station shall be installed by the developer to improve water service to
the property and the station be removed at the time the NW High Level System is
made available.
Ms. Baker clarified that condition number 6 on the preliminary plat should state, "Parkland
dedication for this property shall be met via cash in lieu of land."
Ms. Schultze moved to approve Preliminary Plat #99-48, to be known as Bandel North
Subdivision, with staff -suggested findings and conditions, with the 40, bullet of condition
number 1 modified to add, "unless determined to be topographically unfeasible by the
City Engineer," and condition 6 modified as stated above by Ms. Baker. Mr. Staver
seconded the motion, which carried 7.0.
Conditions:
f. The Plat be revised as follows:
• Outlot "B" shall be shown as right-of-way
• Controlled access be provided along Bandel Rd. NW and along the westerly
50' of the south property line of Lot 13, Block 4; along the westerly 50' of the
north property line of Lot 1, Block 1 and along both sides of the collector road
(currently shown as Outlot B).
• A 20' utility easement shall be provided between two of the lots within Block 4,
as requested by RPU Water Division in the attached memo dated January 28,
2000.
• A 30' easement shall be provided for a mid -block pedestrian connection along
the south side of the road labeled "66"' St. NW", between Bandel Rd. NW and
the road labeled "26`" Ave. NW," unless determined to be topographically
unfeasible by the City Engineer.
• Roadway names shall be revised and the future collector road shall be named
with names and roadway types approved by the City and Planning Department
GIS Division.
Page l3
City Planning and Zomng Cotntnisston Minutes
Hearing Date: February 9. 2000
(al3 '
A. storm water management must be provided for this development. Any facility
serving 50 or less developable acres will remain private and will require execution of
long term maintenance agreements and easements. j
3. Easements for off site utilities and a temporary turn -a -round at the east end of "66a'
St. NW" shall be executed prior to recording the Final Plat Documents for this
property.
4. In addition to construction of sidewalk along both sides of all new public roads, a f 0'
wide bituminous pedestrian facility is required along Bandei Rd. NW.
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, storm water management,
park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication,
and contributions for public infrastructure.
6. Parkland dedication for this
Mr. Brede asked if
Mr. Tointon replied
operate.
shall be met via cash in lieu of land
are a lot of booster pumps in the City.
are not a lot of them,, fnd he provided an explanation of how they
Wedgewood Hills Subdivisions.
Ms. Baker presented the staff report, deAd February 4, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester-OlmstrgdNlanning Department.
Ms. Baker presented a map and exp fined t location, noting the property consists of just
under 80 acres to be developed wit law dense residential uses. The number of lots in the
south 40 acres will depend on the tension of \-d
nd water. She stated that staff is again
recommending mid -block pedest " n connectiohe revised Subdivision Regulations
contain specific criteria for when a mid -block ons should be required. The
topography on this site may po some challenroviding those, so similar language can
be included to state "Mid -block nnections be unless determined to he unfeasible by
the City Engineer,due to topo raphic constrainker explained that the applicant is
also proposing a Substantial and Alteration ani d out the area on the map that will
need to be re -graded. She ated they are not g t haul material off -site and there will
not be any grades steeper an 3:1 when finishBa r commented that the knob of the
hill will be removed, leavin oiling terrain, and she pointed out the area where the fill will be
deposited, stating that areas of hydric soils will need to be evaluated before any filling takes
place. She explained that staff recommends approval subject to 7 conditions and added an 8'
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 3A-00
GENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #99-48 to be known as
IPREPAREDBY:
Sandal North First Subdivision.
. Baker,
March i 6, 2000
NOTE: This Plat was previously continued to allow the applicant additional time to submit a revised GDP and
Preliminary Plat. A revised Plat, addressing some of the revisions, was submitted to the Planning Department on
March 8, 2000. In a recent discussion with the consultant, staff was informed that the revisions should have
included dedication of right-of-way for the future collector or arterial road and that the consultant would submit
another revision reflecting that dedication. Another revised Plat was submitted on March 16, 2000.
The future collector or arterial road right-of-way dedicated with this plat is a partial dedication of the right-of-way
needed. Although this is considered partial dedication, this will be a regional roadway that will need to be
coordinated and planned for by the Public agencies with cooperation from property owners. Some of this right-of-
way may need to be acquired through means other than dedication during platting. Since this is not a roadway that
is necessary to serve this development, at this time, and since it will be a regional roadway coordinated by Public
agencies which will likely involve other types of right-of-way acquisition, staff suggests that partial right-of-way
dedication can be accepted.
In response to the revised Plat, staff recommends revising the conditions that were recommended by the Planning
Commission. The revised changes are identified with stfiitethmagq text for text to be deleted and underlined text for
text to be added.
ity Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission considered this preliminary plat at a public hearing on February 9, 2000. The Planning
Commission found that this preliminary plat needs to be modified to conform to the criteria listed in the Land Development
Manual and recommends approval of this preliminary plat subject to modifications and conditions.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of Preliminary Plat #99-40, subject to the following modifications
and conditions.
i. The Plat be revised as follows:
- OW1106 I'M,. shall he shown as FiSh! Of way
N
WAfGaGiblg by the City rRg*FIQQN
• Roadway names shall be revised and roadway types approved by the City and Planning Department GIS Division prior to f
final plat submittal, per the attached GIS memo dated March 15, 2000.
2. Storm water management must be provided for this development Any facility serving 50 or less developable acres will
remain private and will require execution of long term maintenance agreements and easements.
-. Lj� ��// /
Z2 C 1p'�c fn;.":7eS OAL YIPUC
CONDITIONS ARE CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE a � I"r f- '4- P re v "0'41 6 D"
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: ro;-__J��' U
Page 2 RCA l p,6.(J / 1/ _
03/16/00
3. Easements for off site utilities and a temporary turn -a -round at the east end of `Bandel Drive" shall be executed prior to
recording the Final Plat Documents for this property.
4. In addition to construction of sidewalk along both sides of all new public roads, a 10' wide bituminous pedestrian facility is
required along Bendel Rd. NW.
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, storm water management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and
contributions for public infrastructure.
6. Parkland dedication for this property shall be met via cash in lieu of land.
8.
9. The applicant shall provide the necessary watermain extension between Lot 3 and Lot < Block 5 as required by RPU Water
division.
Council Action Needed:
The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit.
The Council must make findings of fact as a basis for the decision.
Attachment:
1. Staff Report dated February 4, 2000
2. Minutes of February 9, 2000 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
i. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attomey
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday March 20, 2000, in the CouncillBoard
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
7. McGhie & Betts, Inc.
/
I�Eu�sED 3•Ib`00
b
tm
i r e!
�ti IJ
at
1•l
j/ter/.f/
:'n's_--
.. •rrr I�ti. ,
�� tier;.;tt.•.. �l7 r , .
D
V
r
PC
M
! � 1
(�J I
\Il
%E
11 Al it
' II
0
PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: 3-15-2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
CC:
RE: BANDEL NORTH FIRST PP REVISED
A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following address related issues:
Roadway designations:
26 Avenue NW: The position of this roadway falls between the 28`" and 291" grid lines, certainly
not the 26" grid line. The future configuration for this roadway, beyond the scope of this plat,
leaves some doubt as to the roadway type that should be applied.
RECOMMENDATION: Designate the roadway as 28 Avenue NW. For now, the roadway
designation will be established to reflect the information supplied to our staff by McGhie and
Betts regarding proposed plans for the Goodman property. The short north / south future
configuration of the roadway and the proximity to the 28" grid suggests the designation to be 28
Avenue NW. This recommendation has been presented to staff at McGhie and Betts for
incorporation into the final plat.
i
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
3rt5;00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
*REVISED* 3/15/00
iaq
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
Preliminary Plat 9948 on Bandel North First Subdivision (Big DE Development
ro ert . The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: NOTE:
Revisions to our comments on 212/00 are indicated in BOLD:
Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. As
shown on the Preliminary Plat, a detention pond is proposed for this
development. If this facility is to serve 50 or less acres, it will remain
private, and execution of a Declaration for long term private
maintenance and ownership will be required, as well as, dedication of
easements le the Sity for maintenance and repair.
2. 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.
3. Easements for off site utilities, needed to serve this development,
will be required prior to recording the final plat.
4. A temporary tum-around, and associated easement will be required at
the eastern end of W S' NIN Bandel Dr NW.
5. Pedestrian facilities shall be located and constructed along all public
roadways, including within and abutting the plat (including Bandel
Road) consistent with City standards, concurrent with this
development. Pedestrian facilities along the east side of Bendel Rd
NW shall consist of a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path.
Execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Contribution Agreement is
recommended for facilities required along Bendel Road NW.
C:\TEMP\PP9948Ftev3-00AOC
fP
ROCHESTEIZ
Minnesota
3i 15:'00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
2010 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
Dedication of controlled access is required on the Final Plat, along the
west lot line of Lot 13, Block 4 & Lot 1, Block 1. Additionally, access
control on these two lots shall extend easterly 50 feet from the Bandel
Rd NW ROW.
7. 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.
8. 0,
(it'ssouth of @5u' 51 NVIV). Too many roads are named "Bandel
", which can be confusing.
9. The required right-of-way necessary for construction of the future
collector / arterial (65th St NW), shown as Outlot B on the
preliminary plat, shall be reserved with the first phase of this
development. Dedication shall be outlined in the Development
Agreement.
C:1TEM P\P P9948Rev3-00. doc
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
3! 15- 00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
(3(
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
2010 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507.281-6216
10.The size of the returns should be reviewed at Bandel Road so that
a design vehicle can turn right without crossing the centerline.
The culverts at this intersection should be extended beyond the
ROW so that future pedestrian facilities can be installed.
11. Capacity improvements will be needed on Bandel Road to serve
this development, including left and right turn lanes. The
property may be subject to a Substandard Street Capacity Charge
as established by the Council in conjunction with future
improvements to Bandel Road.
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property:
Sanitary Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per
developable acre.
Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1605.50 per developable
acre.
A proportional share of the costs to reconstruct Bandel Road
NW.
Sanitary Sewer & Water Connection Charges for the frontage
along Bandel Road.
•:• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic
Division;
(3) Stop Signs
(1) Speed Limit Sign
(1) Trunks Prohibited Sign
(9) Street Name Signs
C 1TEMPIP P9948Rev3.00.doc
"r w-,
we pledge. we deriver
March 10, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: REVISED 3/8/00 Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat 499-48 by Big DE
Development to be known as Bandel North First Subdivision.
Dear Ms. Baker:
Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow:
A 20' public utility easement has been shown between Lots 3 and 4, Block 4 as previously
requested for a water main to serve the unplatted land to the northwest of this plat. The actual
water main within this easement however is not shown on this submittal nor are the previous
revisions that were sent to the applicant's engineering firm on the proposed water system
layout incorporated.
2. The balance of the previous comments will still apply to this submittal.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly you((rss,���
"-AA WU�
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher. Fire Prevention Bureau
Rochester Public Utilines, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE
ROCHESTER, MN 55904
FAX (507) 287-2275
Date: March 9, 2000
To: Agencies Indicated Below
From: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department
Subject; REVISED 3-8-00; Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary
Plat) #99-48 by Big DE Development to be known as Bandel North First
Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide 28.66 acres of land into 66
single family residential lots and three Outlots. The Plat also dedicated
right of way for four new public roads. The property is located along the
east side of Bandel Road NW, adjacent to the City of Rochester water
tower site.
If you have any comments or concerns, please contact Mitzi Baker at
285-8232 or e-mail, baker. mitzitiuCo. olmsted.mn.us, by March 15, 2000.
Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated,
City Aaencles
1. Public Works
Richard Freese
2. Fire Oepanment
Lyle Felsch
3. RPU Water Division
Donn Richardsan
4. Park & Recreation
Denry Stolz
5. Transportation Planner
U-5 L'Dcs�
-Il'� &V 4 LA T. e
County Agencles
S. Public Works
7. GiS Division
Other' Aaencles
a. Us West
Dean Erdmann
a s toe a L a ta_4—i Zv%-S , 11 ct AS u fte%
V'So fa_1oca�iar. eos*S,
LL)t C'E�ui et- cr.Y, kx9&# +70AcJ X;Zo
e-aS e-e^ d-.%+ ex 1 01, q /Th � v�nr � Si d
I�Q,-1 d-r +ct L.�c.4 - J_s -in 4ti, 54 r V t 4/I1
off' +4 Q
are= ,
NOTE: CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY ENGINEER: PLEASE INDICATE IF THE
STREET IDENTIFICATION IS CORRECT IF THE ATTACHED IS A PLAT.
2—'08-200 ''0:35AM FA
(3�
t \\
\\ 1
\
\
1
t
a A ry
♦ tea,
A
[..t, as i9! leer. Y � orb xv � eW x..weae
Gus+..r, .ia.e N.rt4 � deiros u suurb to sane. bee 'I'Y aW m.tA
LLe.. aMO1 4eL Ve.a.. ]oaY W a.0ev .l wYeta Y wsv.e [eee, s✓tip
re.l; 1Lvee S..H li a,.e. a Wyse !a s web hs[ X Q.
tb (es� Y 1ae
e..m Iry Y.x .o.,l w hell of aH .Ra�l Over: amod 9oel! m
d.{.ea >D nbrea 1, .eemd. feLL .iy sW .w1Y Lbw 151LOi !ed Y Lb.
wuehws er.ee tha.ef, [2ev ll..ei a daps. as nWxv I, ..ed. �sl
14a.N Na b tlY pwa e< 1spe�,
c .taws 2iaa .eaex . o I
BANOEL NORTH
FIRST
SRE DATA SUMMARY
TOTAL ACREAGE
26.66
ACREAGE DEVOTED
TO PUBLIC USE
*4.5
NUMBER OF LOTS
E6
R-1 ZONE
NUMBQ OF OVROTS
(7.Oa ACRES)
3
1
a
66tk STREET N.W. t
it a
e
w �
D2
Rl
i
i 10
i-_-a
kiJUHESTER,frj 3
A� Vs
r
�R 7 TED•AUGUSZ'S•�
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission M avDNc ESSING/ 507/285-8232
HOLSINWIRA 507/285-8224
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner BUILDING CODE 5071285.8213
WELLlSEPTIC 507/285-8345
DATE: February 4, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275
RE: Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #99-48 by
Big DE Development to be known as Bandel North First Subdivision.
The Plat proposes to subdivide 28.66 acres of land into 66 single family
residential lots and three Outlots. The Plat also dedicated right of way
for four new public roads. The property is located along the east side of
Bandel Road NW, adjacent to the City of Rochester water tower site
Planninq Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Big DE Development
PO Box 247
Byron, MN 55920
SurveyorslEngineers:
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments:
Rochester Department of Public Works; Planning
Department Transportation Division; Rochester Park
& Rec. Dept.; RPU Water Division; Rochester Fire
Department; Planning Department, GIS Division
Report Attachments:
1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Referral Comments (5 Letters)
3. Copy of Preliminary Plat
Development Review:
Location of Property:
This plat is located east of Bandel Rd., south of 65"
Y#►PPI
Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family).
Proposed Development: This development consists of 28.66 acres to be
subdivided into 66 lots for single family residential
development and 3 Outlots.
�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
February 4, 2000
Streets: The plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for three
(3) new roads and will also dedicate right-of-way for
Bandel Road.
Outlot B on the Plat is the planned alignment for a
future collector road. The Plat will need to be revised
to dedicate the right-of-way for this roadway.
Roadway named need to be revised. The applicant
will need to coordinate with the City and Planning
Department GIS staff to determine appropriate
names.
Utilities: Sewer is available at Bandel Rd. NW and will be
extended to serve this Plat.
Water service to the site is currently limited. In order
to provide adequate pressure for domestic use, the
Northwest High Level Water System will need to be
extended to this property from the Orchard Ridge
development on the west side of TH 52. An alternate
option, approved by RPU Water, is the installation of
a temporary booster pump station that would be
removed at the time the higher pressure from the NW
High Level System is made available.
Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along the streets being dedicated in this plat.
A 10' pedestrian trail will also be required along the
east side of Bendel Rd. NW.
Drainage: The property generally drains to the north. The Plat
labels a "detention pond area" in the northerly portion
of Outlot A. Storm sewer is proposed to capture and
convey run off, from a majority of the site, to Outlot A.
A small portion of the property drains to the
southwest. That run off is proposed to be captured
by storm sewer which will extend to Bandet Road.
Specific grading and drainage plans will need to be
reviewed and approved by the City prior to submittal
of a Final Plat application.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be
reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils.
There do not appear to be hydric soils on this portion
of the property according to the Soils Survey.
Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this
development would be 79 parking spaces. The
proposed roadways should be adequate to
accommodate the required spillover spaces.
Parkland Dedication: The Park & Recreation Department recommends that
dedication requirements be satisfied by cash in lieu of
land. There is a 40 acre Park/School property
Page 3
February 4, 2000
General Development Plan:
southeast of this property.
This property is included within the Hidden Oaks
Valley GDP which is being reviewed concurrent with
this Plat.
Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LOM
Sections 61.225 (effective 5/15/199). In order to meet the criteria, approval of this plat should
require the following conditions or modifications:
13q
The Plat be revised as follows:
• Outlot °B" shall be shown as right-of-way
• Controlled access be provided along Sandal Rd. NW and along the westerly 50' of the
south property line of Lot 13, Block 4: along the westerly 50' of the north property line
of tot 1, Block 1 and along both sides of the collector road (currently shown as Outlot
B).
• A 20' utility easement shall be provided between two of the lots within Block 4, as
requested by RPU Water Division in the attached memo dated January 28, 2000.
• A 30' easement shall be provided for a mid -block pedestrian connection along the
south side of the road labeled '660 St. NW" between Bandel Rd. NW and the road
labeled "26f8 Ave. NW".
• Roadway names shall be revised and the future collector road shall be named with
names and roadway types approved by the City and Planning Department G1S
Division.
2. Stormwater management must be provided for this development. Any facility serving
50 or less developable acres will remain private and will require execution of long term
maintenance agreements and easements.
3. Easements for off site utilities and a temporary turn -a -round at the east end of 11660 St.
NW 'shall be executed prior to recording the Final Plat Documents for this property.
4. In addition to construction of sidewalk along both sides of all new public roads, a 10'
wide bituminous pedestrian facility is required along Bendel Rd. NW.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the
obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management,
park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication,
and contributions for public infrastructure.
6. Parkland dedication for this property shall be me via cash in lieu of land.
`Staff recommends that the City Council not take action an this Plat until the GDP for this
property and this Preliminary Plat have been revised and revised plans have been riled
with the Planning Department.
Page 4
February 4, 2000
REMINDER TO APPLICANT:
• This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15,
1999. Approved construction plans and an executed Development Agreement will
need to be submitted with the final plat application, if the developer wishes to record
the Plat prior to completion of improvements.
• Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract
that requires the developer to construct the public roadways and utilities.
CRITERIA FOR LAND SUBDIVISION PERMIT (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
Effective May 15, 1999
61.225Findings 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.
S. 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 residential zoning district, -addresses the need for
spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426.
H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are -provided for the
purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the
development.
I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with
adopted plans, policies and regulations.
Page 5
February 4, 2000
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;
M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all
lots are developable for their designated purposes.
N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
O. That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and
Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that
the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil
and rock formations with severe limitations 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.
r
FROM: Planning Department, Transportation Division
City
Prel Plat 99-
48
Bandel North
First
The final plat for this subdivision should have a no access restriction
included on the west side of Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 13 of Block 4.
Outlot B should be either dedicated as right of way or a condition should
be included in the Development Agreement that will accompany
development of this subdivision to the effect that if the City determines to
proceed with the construction of 651h St Outlot B will be deeded to city for
right of way purposes. The standard policy of the city is to require
dedication of local and collector street right of ways as part of the plat
approval process.
City
GDP 149
The main issue in regards to this General Development Plan is the
Hidden Oaks
identification of a future corridor to allow for the extension of 651h St.
Valley
eastward from Bendel Road to 18'h Ave. The need for this corridor has
been identified through on -going discussions and review of street systems
needs in the area. The corridor addresses two key needs:
1. As a general rule of thumb, typically urban development intensities
require collector and/or arterial streets to be providing on or about Aa
mile spacings in order to provide an adequate amount of major street
capacity (thus relieving traffic from local streets) and to provide
adequate overall connectivity. Prior to this time north of 551" St. there
have been no major east -west streets planned. In part this was a
response to the thought that urban intensity development would not
extend north of where a 65th St. extension would be located. However,
with the urban growth boundary expansion being discussed it appears
that urban intensity development will extend further north and
infrastructure accommodations need to be planned for.
2. A second concern is that with a planned overpass of TH 52 at 65`h St.
envisioned as the minimum improvement at that intersection, there is
the potential for additional traffic from the west side of TH 52 being
funneled into the intersection of the Bendel Rd/East Frontage Rd and
55'h St. The extension of 651h St. to 18'h Ave. will reduce this impact
and relieve the level of congestion that would otherwise occur there by
providing for a better overall dispersion of traffic throughout this area.
ROCOG has initiated the process to amend the Long Range Thoroughfare
Plan to reflect the extension of 65 h St. as a collector street between
Bendel Road and 181h Ave. The City has retained the firm of McGhie &
Betts to evaluated alternative alignments for the 651h St. corridor. Their
preliminary analysis has been reviewed with the staffs of City and County
Public Works, MnDOT and Planning's transportation staff. Of the
alternatives evaluated, which included corridors that would have went
south of the Hidden Oaks area, the corridor reflected on the plan appears
to provide the most logical location in terms of road alignment, function
and minimizing the division of current property ownerships. When this
alignment leaves the Hidden Oaks site heading eastward there are some
alternative options which are being reviewed with landowners, which
include the School District and Park Department on a 40 acre site
immediately to the southeast.
we pledge, we deliver
January 28, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: REVISED Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat 0#99-48 by Big DE Development
to be known as Bandel North First Subdivision.
Dear Ms. LaPalm:
Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. This property is serviceable from the Northwest High Level Water System, which is
currently available approximately one mile to the west at the North Park Water Tower. There
are preliminary plans however to extend this water system to the east with the Orchard Ridge
Development and a feasibility study has been prepared by the City Public Works Department
to bring it the balance of the way to serve this area.
2. The other option that has been discussed and approved by us is the installation of a temporary
booster pump station by the developer to provide adequate pressure for domestic use and a
limited amount of water available for fire protection. This would then be removed at the time
the higher pressure from the NW High Level System was made available.
3. A 20' public utility easement is needed between 2 of the lots in Block 4 for a water main to
serve the unplatted land to the northwest of this plat. We previously sent review comments to
the applicant's engineering firm on the actual alignment of this water main and with other
comments on the proposed water system layout. These previous comments will still apply to
this submittal.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
R
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Big DE Development
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280.1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
park a
recreation
ROCHESTER PARK AND I CREATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROC14ETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 29, 1999
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
Planning
RE: Bandel North First Subdivision
Preliminary #99-48
Acreageof plat..........................................................
28.66 acres
Number of dwelling units .............................................
66 units
Densityfactor............................................................
.0244
Dedication...............................................................
1.61 acres
Fair market value of land .............................................
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met
via cash in lieu of land. Schmidt Park, 40 acre site jointly owned by City/School District is
located SE of the plat.
Is Outlot A intended to be public or private and is the purpose of the outlot stormwater
detention?
N:\PARK\DSTOTZ\1999\DEDICATI\NN 2999\RWOSI. HILLS NORTH.DOC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING- V /
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
NTINUED PUBLIC [-I.E.aRIlVGS
PLANNING
.3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase I, Final Plat #00-08 to be known as Yate's First
PREPARED BY:
Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately one acre of land into
Theresa Fogarty,
three lots for single family dwellings. Located west of 23f0 Avenue SW and south of
Planner
5'hStreet SW.
/
3 NOTE
March 16, 2000
Planning Department Review and Recommendation:
1. See attached staff report dated March 2, 2000, revised March 16, 2000.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land
subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact based on the
criteria included in the staff report. A motion to deny must include
supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the fifteen findings
`
for denial in paragraph 61.225 can be made.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator Af�
Dew
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division alt c, 4*
10
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on M nda , March�6, in
the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Gregory G. Griffin (GGG)
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion br second by: to.
TO: Rochester Common Council
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285.8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGYIRA 507/285-8224
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
DATE: March 1, 2000 REVISED: March 1ffAE000 507/287.2275
RE: Type III, Phase I, Final Plat #00.08 to be known as Yate's First Addition.
The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 1 acre of land into three
lots for single family dwellings. The parcel to be subdivided is legally
described as Lot 22, Hillcrest Subdivision less the west 150 feet thereof
and is located west of 23rd Avenue SW and south of 5' Street SW.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners:
Surveyors ! Engineers:
Bertha Yates
501 SW 23r0 Avenue
Rochester, MN 55902
GGG (Geoffrey G. Griffin)
241 North Winona Street
Chatfield, MN 55923
Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division
2. Planning Department, Addressing Staff
3. Rochester Public Works
4. Rochester Park & Recreation
Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (4 )
2. Copy of Final Plat
3. Vicinity Map
Plat Data:
Location of Property: The property is located west of 23r° Avenue SW and south of
5" Street SW.
Existing Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on
the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: This development consists of approximately one acre of land
to be subdivided into 3 lots for single family dwellings.
There is an existing home on Lot 1.
��
AN
mi PAS
nOo Qn 1M1 vJAcmousnvc Ac nu c 01 nvco
Page 2 15
Final Plat 00-08
Yate's First Subdivision
March 16, 2000
Roadways: This plat does not dedicate the right-of-way for any new public
streets. The Plat does however, dedicate right-of-way for the
existing roadways 5" Street SW and 23'° Avenue SW.
The Planning Department Addressing Staff have indicated
there may be a problem with the designation of 23'0 Avenue
SW, as illustrated in this plat. The existing 23' Avenue Sw
will connect to a future roadway in the Cook / Thompson GDP
whose roadway designation is unknown at this time.
Additionally, a roadway designated as 23' Avenue SW exists
nearby. These two roadways (both 23rtl Avenue SW) will not
connect. The potential for emergency response confusion will
be created. When more information regarding the designation
of the future roadway is available, a decision regarding the
appropriate designation will be made and documentation will
be created to change all plats affected.
At this time, it is recommended to leave 23f0 Avenue SW as
indicated on the proposed final plat.
Wetlands:
The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were
reviewed for the presence of wetlands. These maps do not
indicate the presence of wetlands or hydric soils on this site.
Public Utilities:
Water and sewer are available to serve this subdivision.
Pedestrian Facilities:
Pedestrian facilities are required for this development along
the entire frontage of 5" Street SW and 2V Avenue SW.
Since 23r° Avenue SW is planned to be reconstructed in the
next 3 - 5 years, the owner will need to execute a Pedestrian
Facilities Agreement or make a contribution toward the future
sidewalk costs in lieu of installing the sidewalk concurrent with
the development of the lots.
Drainage:
Storm Water Management must be addressed for this
development and a stormwater management fee will apply, if
on -site detention is not provided.
Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development
must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors.
This development requirement 3.6 spillover parking stalls. It
appears as though the additional parking can be
accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private
driveways, as well.
Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department recommends that
dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the
amount of $850. Payment is due prior to recordation of the
plat.
Page 3
inal Plat 00-08
Yate's First Subdivision
March 16, 2000
General Development Plan: According to Section 61.211, Paragraph 1 of the Land
Development Manual: A General Development Plan shall not
be required for any portion of an area for which a general
development plan has previously been approved by the
Council or where the Zoning Administer determines that new
proposed streets need not continue beyond the land to be
subdivided in order to complete an appropriate street system
or to provide access to adiacent property.
Since the property is adjacent to a road right-of-way along 23"
Avenue SW and located adjacent to developed property
which there will not be a roadway connection to, staff
determined that a GDP would not be required for this property.
PI-eliminary Plat:
There is no preliminary plat for this property. Since no right-of-way is being dedicated, a preliminary plat is
not necessary.
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval contingent upon the execution
of an approved development agreement.
REMINDER TO APPLICANT.
Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for
construction of the utilities.
This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15, 1999.
Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed Development Agreement
will need to be submitted with the final plat application, if the applicant intends to record the
final plat documents prior to completion of infrastructure improvements.
Page 4
Final Plat 00-08
Yate's First Subdivision
March 16, 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 63.426.
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.
M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are
developable for their designated purposes.
Effective May 15, 1999
Y7/
Page 5
U Final Plat 00-08
Yate's First Subdivision
March 16, 2000
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
i
L— —
s�
ff i
_ HAON
MS @AV P103
� No x 3 0;;'I El—��-
7C S CO
*I I C\2 I I. w
E rll IIN Ey rI Im E wl
t�Chi
ZI I' a0 zl II^
I [ l'SBZ I I I I I rn
I M lZ.ti4.00f� I C 1 I 00 a Cy
J L, �00_09 J AO_09 . J Z m o
m
,Y. 1O'LLf10
,9-O'8l£ 3..LZ,ti-V.00S o; V
�e ^ I
iV
r.
r-
<
OD
OD
3, ZZ:.CGS
,30'ZZE = Swl
CO Z72 = ta;
t
t i
r
U—
IS
M
f6D
H
�
>1
V
z
N
Z
w
ti
O
N
v
N
U
❑❑
m
m
N
U
7 lA ❑
N
❑
X
N
m
V
❑
°
ammmU
CL
xxx���
a
N
L
O
T
r
V
O
a
x
w
L
a
W
w
III
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
29/00
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
Final Plat #00-08 on the Yate's First Addition property. The following are Public
Works comments on the proposal:
Storm Water Management must be addressed for this development,
and a stormwater management fee will apply if on -site detention is not
provided.
2. Pedestrian facilities are required for this development along the entire
frontage of 5d' St SW and 23 d Ave SW. Since 23`d Ave SW is planned
to be reconstructed in the next 3 to 5 years, the owner should execute
a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement, or make a contribution toward the
future sidewalk costs.
The owner shall provide a 20 foot wide temporary construction
easement for the planned reconstruction of 231d Ave SW, along the
westerly right-of-way of 23" Ave SW, through a separate easement
document.
The owner will be required to make a Substandard Street
Reconstruction Charge contribution toward the future reconstruction of
23rd Ave SW.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City
that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited
to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for
public infrastructure.
6. Any new building sites shall be graded to conform to the proposed
street grades / sections for the future reconstruction of 23`d Ave SW &
5d' St SW.
C \TEMPIFP#00-08.doc
( �-
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
2129/00 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 following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property:
•:• There are Sewer & Water Connection Charges, as well as,
Water Availability Charges pending on this property that are due
at the time of service connection. A Utility Connection
Agreement must be executed for this property.
•:• Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge for 23rd Ave SW @
$30.00 per foot of frontage.
❖ Substandard Street Sidewalk Charge @ $9.00 per foot of
frontage
Stormwater Management fees @ $1,983.50 per acre, in on -site
detention is not provided.
C:\TEMP\FP#00-08.doc
1,53
ROCHESTER PARK AND (._CREATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 1, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
Planning
RE: Yates First Addition
Acreage of plat.......................................................... 1.0 a
Number of dwelling units ............................................. 3
Density factor............................................................ .0244
Dedication............................................................... .05 a
Fair market value of land ............................................. $17,0001a
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met
via:
Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $850 (.05a x $17,0001a). Dedication is required for only
the increase in the number of possible dwelling units.
Payment due prior to recordation of the plat.
Applicant:
Bera:a Yates
501 23 Avenue SW
N:\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2897\YATES 1ST.DOC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 3-20-00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zone Change Petition #00-02 by Payne Company to amend the zoning PREPARED BY:
district for 5.93 acres of land located along the south side of Viola Road NE (CSAH 2), east Brent Svenbv,
of Century Hills Drive NE. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning designation Planner
from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) District to the R-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra) District.
March 13, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 23, 2000, to consider a zone change request to
rezone 5.93 acres from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the R-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra).
The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report and recommended
approval, with staff suggested findings.
Ms. McGowan made a motion to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-02 by Payne Company, based on staff.
suggested findings. Mr. Stever seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated February 18, 2000.
ncii Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Councll's:decision must be supported by findings. based on
the criteria list in the staff report If. the Council wishes to proceed -with the:zone:chang-e:as petitioned„iCshould.
instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted. supported by findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
' I
Attachments:
1 Staff Report dated February 18, 2000
2. Minutes of February 23, 2000 CPZC Meeting
3.
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department— GIS
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 20, 2000 in the Council I Board
Chamber at the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
6. Yaggy Colby Associates
elf
wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by to: _
1 ( `7-0-
� �lr
3JNdHJ3NO2
4p{e
EMIIIH
i'; g�:3{VLO53NNIW`d3 3HJOM !��1�: ; QaIH153WOHNM01 SIIIH Abf11N3J111I911 ; (! i 1 r-
J
INI v a /
Una lN3Wd0l3A30 N3N3J
35uu<11 1 S-llIH Asn-LN3:) Ili �rl�!I3
(59 ,.
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904.4744
ADMINISTRA71CW 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GISIADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGMRA 5071285-8224
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285.8213
WEWSEPTIC 507/285-8345
DATE: February 18, 2000 FAX 507/287.2275
RE: Zoning District Amendment #00-2 by Payne Company to amend the
zoning district for 5.93 acres of land located along the south side of
Viola Road NE(CSAH 2), east of Century Hills Drive NE The applicant is
proposing to change the zoning designation from the R-1 (Mixed Single
Family) District to the R-IX (Mixed Single Family Extra) District.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner/Owner: Payne Company
1700 Northwood Drive NE
Rochester, MN 55903
Location of Property: The site is located along the south side of Viola
Road NE, east of Century Hills Drive NE.
Requested Action: The petitioner is requesting that the property in
question be rezoned from the R-1 (Mixed Single
Famiiy) to the R-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra)
district.
Existing Land Use: This property is vacant land that is zoned R-1
(Mixed Single Family). A portion of the property
is in Olmsted County and has been petition to
be annexed.
Proposed Land Use: The applicant would like to develop this site with
townhomes. The approved GDP for Century
Hills does indicate this property being developed
for townhomes. Townhome developments were
a conforming and permitted use in the R-1
zoning district prior to the City's decision in
October of 1998 to remove all townhouse,
duplex and accessory apartment uses from the
R-1 zone. The City then added the R-1x district
�� AN EQUAL CPPORTUNITYlAFFIRMATIVE ACrON EMPLOYER
Page 2
Zone Change 00-02
February 18, 2000
as the most restrictive zoning allowing
townhouse development.
A neighborhood meeting was held on February
10, 2000 to discuss this project with area
residents and landowners.
Adjacent Land Use and North: Across Viola Road is Century High
Zoning: School zoned R-1.
South: The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural
Urban Expansion) district on the Olmsted
County Zoning Map.
East: The property is currently petitioned to be
annexed into the City of Rochester and will be
zoned R-1.
West: Across Century Hills Drive, is a
townhome development zoned R-1 x in the City
of Rochester.
Transportation Access: Access to this property would be 215' Street NE
once the roadway is platted.
Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department — Transportation
2. Planning Department — Wetlands
3. RPU Water Division
4. RPU Operations Division
S. Minnesota Department of Transportation
6. City of Rochester Public Works Department
7. Fire Department
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. General Development Plan Map
3. Referral Comments
4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Analysis for Zoning District Amendment.,
Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual,
the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an
application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the
following criteria:
Gq
(�W Page 3 /
Zone Change 00-02
February 18, 2000
1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map
filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following
criteria:
a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of
the Comprehensive Plan;
b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or
administrative error;
c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with
the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2-and 3 of the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10
of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or
d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the
public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or
redevelopment of the area.
The proposed R-1x zone better furthers the policies of the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan by promoting a mixture of low -density land uses. At the time the GDP was
approved for the property, townhome developments were a permitted use in the R-1
zoning district. Since the approval of the GDP, townhome developments have been
removed from the R-1 zoning district and the R-1x zoning district was created
allowing townhome developments.
2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning
map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the
following criteria:
a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be
appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent
properties and the neighborhood; and
b) the proposed amendment does not Involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning
involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district
which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for
reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the
state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state).
The permitted uses in the R-ix zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and
compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning since it is consistent with the policies of
the Comprehensive Ptah.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the above -mentioned findings, it would appear that this zoning district
amendment would meet the above criteria. Staff would recommend approval of this
request.
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
2/7/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
2010 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for ZONE #00-
02,on the Payne Company (Century Hills) property. The following are Public
Works comments on the proposal:
There is currently only one access available to Viola Road. The
projected trip generation exceeds 1,200 trips that would be allowed
with a single access.
eau
CATEMP20NE#00-02.doc
EXPIX4CR! /
���' Ai[MiT4 CTS
3JPY EYCR9
February 15, 2000
Ms. Mitzi Baker
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904 0
LANOSCAPE ARCXITECT!
RE: Summary —Neighborhood Meeting PLANNER!
Century Hills Townhomes Third Zone Change
Dear Ms. Baker:
A neighborhood meeting was held February 10, 2000 at Yaggy Colby Associates' office
regarding the Century Hills Townhomes Third zone change application. Four neighbors
were in attendance as well as Mr. Roger Payne, Mr. David Schwartz and myself (please
see attached sign -in sheet). The layout and zone change areas were discussed, as well as
individual neighbor concerns.
There were questions regarding where 21'A Street NE would go to the east in the future,
and the connection of Century Hills Drive NE south to the access road connecting to East
Circle Drive. These two streets and the connections to adjacent properties were shown on
the General Development Plans for both Century Hills and Shannon Oaks at the meeting.
There was also some discussion regarding a Box -Elder tree that will be removed by the ROCHESTER OFFICI
first phase of the development (the five buildings on the west side).
717 Third Avenue 5
Overall, the neighbor's opinion of the project was good and the park was favorably
received. Rochester, MN 55904
Sincerely, 507-288-6464
r-YAGGY COLB�SOCl/ATES Fax 507-288-505!
Denny Christopherson
Project Manager
MASON CITY OFFICE
DC 515-424.634,
YCA #6890
Attachment Fax 515-424.
cc Roger Payne
717 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHE.JST - ROCHt_ _R. MINNESOTA 55904 - (307) '88-1,4Ga - F,\X i5,,...18-5058
MEETING - ATTENDANCE SHEET
DATE: /q.,Z oo TIME: v 0 PROJECT ;#: �o891J
BY: &ztg�� CC:1�
LOCATION: / I�eN•
PROJECT: e�^� `J /�;1�5 7&,vt ok.1e5 3^9
SUBJECT:
TO TAKE:
ATTENDEES:
NAME:
YAGGY
DCOLBY
ASSOCIATES
E�C- PCHITEC';
SL W1 t`4Y - PL>\%E::
L ARCH UCTi
edeld
AFFILIATION: PHOINE \O.:
%tkrnLJ tM4At hUQAl l a$ 8- 517 6
4yticcv.
215 NORTH ADA.MS - MASON CITY, IOWA 50401 - (515) 424-6541 - FAX (515 4Z4-0551 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
EMPLOYER
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 23, 2000
Avenue NW a the south side of 65"' Street N and the proposed phasing of the
development.
13. Staff may recoNnntend additional conditi when the GDP is heard at the Council.
PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Ms. Petersson moved Ircontinue P urinary Plat #00-01, to be known as Northern
Heights East Commegral Park, to the rch 22, 2000 meeting. Mr. Quinn seconded the
motion, which cam 7-0.
Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated February 18, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby explained the location and noted this is a request to change the zoning district to R-
1 x. He pointed out that the approved Century Hills GDP shows this area for low -density
townhomes or condos. Mr. Svenby stated that a portion of the property is within the City limits
and the applicant has petitioned to annex the remainder of the land to the east. He explained
that the applicant would like to develop the property with townhomes, which were a permitted
use in the R-1 district prior to October 1998 when townhomes were removed from the R-1
district and the R-1x district was created. He referred to the staff -suggested findings to the
criteria and noted that staff recommends approval based on those findings.
Ms. Petersson left the room at this time.
Representing the applicant, Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the
Commission and made himself available for questions.
With no one wishing to address the Commission, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Ms. McGowan moved to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-02, by the Payne
Company, based on staff -suggested findings. Mr. Slaver seconded the motion, which
carried 6-0.
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Conarrussion Knutes
Hearing Date: February 23, 2000
The proposed R-Ix zone better furthers the policies of the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan by promoting a mixture of low -density land uses. At the time the GDP was
approved for the property, townhome developments were a permitted use in the R-1
zoning district. Since the approval of the GDP, townhome developments have been
removed from the R-1 zoning district and the R-1x zoning district was created,
allowing townhome developments.
2. The permitted uses in the R-Ix zoning district will be appropriate on the subject
property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
3. The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning since it is consistent with
the policies of the comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Petersson returned to the
Mr. Svenby presented the staff report,
report is on file at the Rochester-Olms
Mr. Svenby explained the location an t�
plat consists of one lot and one outl e o
pointed out that the applicant will d ype I
a final plat, at which time each tow me will
Representing the applicant, V
Commission. He stated they
location and size. He noted t
grading and the Park Departr
playground. Mr. Dumond not
in the next month or so.
Mr. Slaver stated he is a little
aware an egress will be crest
in and out. He commented tt
entry to Emerald Hills and thi
Mr. Dumond stated they
to be constructed this sut
initially, and then plat the
constructed.
February 17, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
nning Department.
plat will dedicate one roadway. He noted the
will be parkland dedicated to the City. He
`[mance Residential for the property and then
be platted on a separate lot.
imond, Yaggy Associates, addressed the
et with Denny S and he is in agreement with the park
work with the PaAftipartment regarding drainage and
I supply them with Us for the ball diamonds and
the Performance Re ntial application will be submitted
�tcemed about the primary a of Century Hills Drive. He is
to East Circle Drive, but note re will still only be two ways
Century Hills Drive could get v usy and it is across from an
is entry for Century High Schoo
ibmitted the construction plans tXthther
c Works for 21" Street
He noted they will probably onlyat the first five units
ling units and park next year aftconnection is
67 MEETING 1 j
REQUESTFOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE 3-20-00
IENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT.
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
S _S
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #00.02 by Payne Company to be known as Century
PREPARED BY:
Hills Townhomes Third. The Plat proposes to subdivide 13.14 acres of land into 1 lot for a
Brent Svenby,
future townhome development and 1 outlot to be developed as a park. The property is
Planner
located along the south side of Viola Road NE (CSAH 2), east of Century Hills Drive NE.
March 13, 2000
City Plannina and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 23, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat for the
property. The proposed subdivision consists of 13.41 acres to be subdivided into 1 lot for a future townhome development
and 1 outlot to be developed as a park.
The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual and
recommends approval of this preliminary plat with the following modifications or conditions:
1. Storm water management must be provided for this development.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations the
of
applicant relating to, but no limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure.
A temporary turnaround must be provided at the east end of 21" Street NE.
4. Pedestrian facilities along the east side of Century Hills Drive and the south side of Viola Road must be
constructed concurrent with this development. The pedestrian facility along the south side of Viola Road must
be a 10 foot bituminous path and designed to accommodate an eastlwest pedestrian crossing of Century Hills
Drive at the normal stop bar location.
5. The final plat documents must dedicate controlled access along Viola Road (CSAH 2) and Century Hills Drive.
6_ 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
7. The development agreement for this plat shalt include requirements and agreements for the developer to
construct the secondary access to East Circle Drive concurrent with the development of this property_
Motion by Petersson to approve Preliminary Plat #00-02 to be known as Century Hills Townhomes Third, with
the staff suggested conditions; seconded by Staver. The motion carried 7-0.
„ ...s. ..de'
C'ouftcitA"coon Need
.. r�'Y/��r+11 Nr'i/ �i'�" ~?.Y. ...rpyy{,g4 • •..etVlia-�„a..'.i.1♦
1) The Councii'mayapprove, approvmWitt*conditrons'ocdett' th�iand'subdrvisl"ctrpermitr
The CounciCmustmake.ftndtn%s of"factbased:omthe cdteriaihcluded_in theestaf lreparlL
Amottoritexdan mustlbclijdiwsup tlhs asoniifor:aiconndustoifthiiatleast!onoof=
the:fiitbere rdi`ng fo deniai.imP2FagFaptgW-22W atW' -M`
IUNCIL ACTIO : Motion br Second er_A t r to: GL1i �
'j_o
t7�a�' .LN3WdOl3A3a iUN39
Q0 z
SIIIH Amn1N3D 4!I ,ill l
Fi la',;c OfPARFNEM
r
Mol
UI mJ
Ilk
�. _m.._.._., ..,m—_._.._,._�.
---$#-V.
rschft
CENTURY HILLS TOWNHOMES THIRD
f ROCHESiER 1NFNNFSOTA
d PRELIMINARY PLAT IN
/
IID r
&V (;RESTER. NrY
JF'.......... yPP
G'QA Ten•A UGU>T•�
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232
PLANNING
GISIADDRESSINGf 507/285-8232
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPING
HOUSINGlHRA 5071285-8224
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner BUILOING CODE 507/285-8213
WELUSEPnC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
DATE: February 17, 2000
RE: Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit #00-02 (Preliminary
Plat) to be known as Century Hills Townhomes Third.
Planninq Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Payne Company
1700 NE Northwood Drive
Rochester, MN 55906
SurveyorslEngineers: Yaggy Colby Associate
717 3 d Avenue SE
Rochester. MN 55904
Referral Comments: RPU Operations Division
RPU Water Division
Rochester Park & Rec.
Planning Dept. -Transportation Staff
Planning Dept. — Wetlands
Planning Dept. - Addressing
MnlDOT
Rochester Fire Department
Rochester Public Works Department
Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Referral Comments (5letters)
3. Location Map
4, Copy of approved GDP
5. Copy of Preliminary Plat
Dlevelonment Review:
Location of Property: The property is located south of Viola Road (CSAH
2), east of Century Hills Drive NE.
Zoning: The western portion of the property is zoned R-1
(Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester
�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITWAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Century Hills Townhomes V
February 17, 2000
Proposed Development:
Zoning Map. The eastern portion of the property has
been petitioned to be annexed into the City. The
applicant has filed a zoning district amendment on Lot
1 to the R-tx (Mixed Single Family Extra) district.
This development consists of 13.14 acres of land to
be subdivided into 1 lot and 1 outlot. The lot is
proposed to be developed with townhomes and the
outlot will be dedicated to the City as parkland. The
applicant will need to go through the Performance
Residential development process in order to develop
the townhomes.
Streets: This plat dedicates right-of-way for one roadway. The
roadway "Z1" Street NE', is the east -west street.
This roadway will continue to the east once the
adjacent property is developed. This street is
designed with a 60' right-of-way with a 37' surface.
Public Works has commented that when the
townhome development is proposed, the private
roadways and public roadways intersecting 21 v Street
NW will need to line up across from each other at 90-
degree angles or be separated by 200 feet.
Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along both sides of all of the new streets in
the subdivision.
Drainage: The elevations of this site range from 1,254' in the
northeast corner of the plat to 1,236' in the southwest
corner of the plat. The property drains in a
southwesterly direction. A drainage report and
grading plan will have to be approved prior to final plat
approval.
Wetlands:
The Soil Survey and National Welland Indicator maps
were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The
maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this
property.
Public Utilities:-
Water and sewer services are installed within the
proposed right-of-way of 21" Street NE
Spillover Parking
As per Section 63.426 of the I -DM, all residential
development must provide spillover parking for
service vehicles and visitors- Parking requirements
will be reviewed when a townhome development is
proposed for the property.
Parkland Dedication:
GutlotA on the plat is proposed to ba-dedicate to the
City. This dedication of 5.9 acres will meet the
dedication requirements of this plat plus the deferred
dedication requirements for Century Hills 1 ", Zn°, V,
I7!
In
Page 3
Century Hills Townhomes 3r0
February 17, 2000
General Development Plan:
CIC 154 and CIC 158.
The Council approved an amended General
Development Plan for this property in June 1998.
This plat is generally consistent with the approved
GDP.
Staff Review and Recommendation:
Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the criteria which must be considered by
the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application.
In addition, Section 61,226 lists the findings which must be made for the denial of a land
subdivision permit. These sections are attached for your information_
The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM
Sections 61.225 and 61,226. The staff recommends that the following modifications or conditions
be imposed on this preliminary plat in order to insure that the above -mentioned criteria are met:
1. Storm water management must be provided for this development
2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the
obligations of the applicant relating to, but no limited to, stormwater management,
park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication,
and contributions for public infrastructure.
3. A temporary turnaround must be provided at the east end of 21" Street NE.
4. Pedestrian facilities along the east side of Century Hills Drive and the south side of
Viola Road must be constructed concurrent with this development The pedestrian
facility along the south side of Viola Road must be a 10 foot bituminous path and
designed to accommodate an east/west pedestrian crossing of Century Hills Drive at
the normal stop bar location.
5. The final plat documents must dedicate controlled access along Viola Road (CSAH 2)
and Century Hills Drive.
6. The developer agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs
for parkland and that dedication of Outtot A will fulfill the dedication obligation of this
plat
T. The development agreement for this plat shall Include requirements and agreements
for the developer to construct the secondary access to last Circle Drive concurrent
with the development of this property.
REMINDER TO APPUCANT.•
• This plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15,
1999. Approved construction plans and an executed Development Agreement will
need to be submitted with the final plat application, if the developer wishes to record
the Plat prior to completion of improvements.
• Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract
that requires the developer to construct the public roadways and utilities.
CITY OF ROCHESTER
ZONING ORDINANCEAND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
EXCERPTS
61.225 Findings for Land Subdivision:
The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit
authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed
development are made:
A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and
variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance.
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.
0. 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 vehlcular, service and
emergency amass, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each
lot for planned uses.
F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other
Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of
the subdivision-
G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, -addresses the need for
spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426.
H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are -provided for the
purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facility needed to serve the.
development
1. 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.
* 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:
Efffective May 15, 1999
M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all
lots are developable for their designated purposes.
N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
Q. That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and
Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use
and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate
drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations 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 a development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving
body shall consider and may Impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such
modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61,225.
Effective May 15, 1999
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
2/14/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
107�
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
2010 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
Preliminary Plat 00-02 on Century Hills Townhomes Third Payne Company)
property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development.
2. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this
property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure and
utilities to serve this subdivision.
3. A temporary turn -around will be required at the eastern end of 21st St
NE
4. Pedestrian facilities shall be located and constructed concurrent with
this development, along all new public roadways, the east side of
Century Hills Dr, and the south side of Viola Road (as shown on the
preliminary plat, facilities along the south side of Viola Road will be a
10 foot bituminous path instead of a concrete sidewalk).
5. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City
that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited
to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for
public infrastructure.
6. Private and public roadways intersecting 21st St NE shall either lineup
across from each other at 90 degree angles, or be separated by 200
feet.
C.1TE MP\PPoF00-02. doc
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
2/l4roo
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 40 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287.7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The 10 foot bituminous pedestrian path, and the 5 foot concrete
sidewalk along the east side of Century Hills Drive shall be designed to
accommodate a east I west pedestrian crossing of Century Hills Drive
at the normal stop bar location.
Charges & fees for the following are applicable for the development of this
property:
J9218 "Silver Creek Trunkline Sanitary Sewer'
13.14 acres @ $1,403.17 per acre = $18,437.65
485 feet @ $46.00 per foot = $22.310.00
(This amount will be deducted from the remaining pre -paid
balance)
J9288 "High Level Water Tower in NE Area"
13.14 acres @ $1,021.46 per acre = $13,421.98
plus 7.5% interest from 514/98
❖ J9379 "Trunk Watermain to New High Level Water Tower"
One-half of remaining balance of $39,692.93 = $19,846.47
plus 7.5% interest from 5/4198
(Note: the remaining principal of $19,546.46 plus 7.5% interest
from 5/4198, will be charges to the future development
immediately south of Century Hills 3rd Townhomes)
Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic
Division.
CATEMPWP#D0-02.doc
TRANSPORTATION S1.
v�
ABASE -1998
FEBRUARY 2000REFERRACS
(071 '
I
City
Cond Use 00-2
No comment
Willow Creek
Golf Course
City
I P1
No comment
RascUDoR•k-
City
Fin Plat 99.8
No comment
Spruce
Meadows
City
Prc1 Plat 00.4
No comment
Orchard Hills 4
City
Prel Plat 00-3
No comment
Emerald Hills
Second
City
Prel Plat 00.2
Cent Hills
Townhomes3
The final plat documents should reflect dedication of access control along Viola
Rd and Century Hills Drive
City
ZC 00-2
No comment
Payne Co
City
Annex 00.5
No comment
Payne Co
t,
. r
park &
recrea!ion
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT-
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Febr .ary 1, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
Planning
RE: Century Hills Townhomes 3rd
Preliminary Plat #00-02
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Density factor...........................................................
Dedication...............................................................
30 units
.0244
.73 acres
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via: Dedication of the 5.9 acreOutlot A will meet dedication requirement for this
plat plus meet the deferred dedication requirements for Century Hills 1A, 2nd. 3d, CIC 154
and CIC 158.
Applicant
Payne Company
1700 NoM1hwood Drive NE
\\City_of_rochester\cityha11\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICAT10N\NE 2896\CENTURY HILLS TOWN 3RD.DOC
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 23, 2000
The propos -1x zone better furthers the s of the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan by promo a mixture of low -de d uses. At the time the GOP was
approved for the erty, townho iopments were a permitted use in the R-f
zoning district. Sinc a appr he GDP, townhome developments have been
removed from the R-f z in ct and the R-Ix zoning district was created,
allowing townhome dev nts,
Z The perlandc
the R-fx 'ng district will be appropriate on the subject
propertible with adja properties and the neighborhood.
3. The prodment does not involve spot zoning since it is consistent with
the pollomprehensive Plan.
Type 111, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-02 by Payne Company to
be known as Century Hills Townhomes Third The Plat proposes to subdivide
approximately 13.14 acres of land into 1 lot for a future townhome development and 1
outlot to be developed as a park The property is located along on the south side of
Viola Road NE (CSAH 2) east of Century Hills Drive NE
Ms. Petersson returned to the meeting.
Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated February 17, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby explained the location and stated the plat will dedicate one roadway. He noted the
plat consists of one lot and one outlot. The outlot will be parkland dedicated to the City. He
pointed out that the applicant will do a Type I Performance Residential for the property and then
a final plat, at which time each townhome will most likely be platted on a separate lot.
Representing the applicant, Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the
Commission. He stated they have met with Denny Stotz and he is in agreement with the park
location and size. He noted they will work with the Park Department regarding drainage and
grading and the Park Department will supply them with plans for the bail diamonds and
playground. Mr. Dumond noted that the Performance Residential application will be submitted
in the next month or so.
Mr. Slaver stated he is a little concerned about the primary entry of Century Hills Drive. He is
aware an egress will be created to East Circle Drive, but noted there will still only be two ways
in and out. He commented that Century Hills Drive could get very busy and it is across from an
entry to Emerald Hills and the bus entry for Century High School.
Mr. Dumond stated they have submitted the construction plans to Public Works for 21" Street
to be constructed this summer. He noted they will probably only final plat the first five units
initially, and then plat the remaining units and park next year after the other connection is
constructed.
($'Page 10
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 23, 2000
Mr. Quinn asked if condition number 7 refers to the dotted line shown across the park area on
the plat map.
Mr. Dumond explained that it refers to the Development Agreement that is being worked out
with Century Hills 4`' Subdivision. It is being worked out with Public Works to provide that
access point. Mr. Dumond referred to condition number 4, and noted that in previous
townhome developments to the west, the requirement was that the trail be graded, not that it be
a bituminous path, so the applicant would like to request that be changed.
Mr. Svenby stated he can look into that issue and address it before the Council meeting.
Mr. Dumond noted the ordinance has changed since the previous developments were platted.
Mr. Suk commented that it looks as like they would fall under the rules of the current ordinance
that says it must be bituminous.
With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Petersson moved to approve Preliminary Plat #00-02, to be known as Century Hills
Townhomes Third, with staff -suggested conditions. Mr. Staver seconded the motion.
The motion carried 7-0.
Conditions:
1. Storm water management must be provided for this development.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the
obligations of the applicant relating to, but no limited to, stormwater management,
park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication,
and contributions for public infrastructure.
3. A temporary turnaround must be provided at the east end of 21" Street NE.
4. Pedestrian facilities along the east side of Century Hills Drive and the south side of
Viola Road must be constructed concurrent with this development The pedestrian
facility along the south side of Viola Road must be a 10 foot bituminous path and
designed to accommodate an east/west pedestrian crossing of Century Hills Drive at
the normal stop bar location.
5. The final plat documents must dedicate controlled access along Viola Road (CSAH 2)
and Century Hills Drive.
6. The developer agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the Clty's needs
for parkland and that dedication of Outlot A will fulfill the dedication obligation of this
plat.
7. The development agreement for this plat shall include requirements and agreements
for the developer to construct the secondary access to East Circle Drive concurrent
with the development of this property.
AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TING DEPT:
PLANNING
MEETING ' g /
DATE 3-20-00
:M NO.
F, .(
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat i#00-03 to be known as Emerald Hills Second PREPARED BY:
Subdivision Mitzi A. Baker,
March 10, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission considered this preliminary plat at a public hearing on February 23, 2000.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of Preliminary Plat #00-03, subject to the following modifications
and conditions. Motion carried 7-0.
1. Outlot A shall be revised to be a minimum of 30 feet in width and shall include a trail or sidewalk to be
constructed by the applicant.
2. Any necessary easements outside of the Plat that may be needed for utilities, drainage or temporary turn -around
be provided prior to or concurrent with final plat recording.
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, right-of-way dedication, infrastructure improvements and contributions for public.
infrastructure.
The cul-de-sac on "Kathleen Lane NE" shall be signed "No Parking - Fire Cane" since the diameter is not
sufficient to provide the needed turn -around radius with parking ar the cul-de-sac radius shall be increased to
allow for both parking an the needed turn -around radius.
5. Additional hydrant(s) be provided as required by the Fire Department and RPU Water division.
6. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via a reduction in existing dedication credits (2.63 acres) from the
1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the Century High School Site was purchased.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision
permit. The Council must make findings of fact as a basis for the decision.
COUNCILACTION: mobonbr. Second bto: W G
I
CGNT%A y
fF�ut} st+loot
Q
w
Jm:
��-
O�
}Vz
G �--__�i
1�1�i_-�_.-. r-. yy
i8�
�I p ' lYld kSYNl. 'dd - e
� NOISInlaB(1S aNOJ35 SIIIH 01b'l13W3
A
y s
L~ C j
N i I 100HOS' HJIH AH N30
f �';I-AV-'iil
v�
r
All
/, 1
at
n
�
art.
\
r;
N N
T.
1
1
4
A
�
3f,'
19s
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: February 17, 2000
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS OR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/
507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGIHRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELUSEP11C
5071285.8345
FAX
5071287.2275
RE: Type III Phase 11 Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-03
by Fred Schmidt to be known as Emerald Hills Second
Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 15.54
acres of land into 42 lots for single family development and 1
Outlot. The Plat also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for three
new public roads. The property is located north of Century High
School and west of Cassidy Drive NE.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner. Fred Schmidt
3200 SE W Ave.
Rochester, MN 55904
Surveyors/Engineers:
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments:
1. Rochester Department of Public Works
2. Rochester Park & Rec. Dept.
3. Rochester Fire Prevention
4. RPU Water Division
Report Attachments:
1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Referral Comments (4 Letters)
3. Copy of Proposed Emerald Hills General
Development Plan
4. Copy of Preliminary Plat
Development Review:
Location of Property:
This plat is located north of Century High School, east
of East Circle Drive.
Zoning:
Most of this property is in the City and is zoned R-1
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNrrY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2..
February 17, 2000
(Mixed Single Family).
Proposed Development:
This development consists of 15.54-acres to be
subdivided into 42lots for single family residential
development and one Outlot.
Streets:
The plat dedicates right-of-way for three (3) public
roadways including one cul-de-sac.
Utilities:
Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from
their present ends within Emerald Hills Subdivision
and the School property. This development will be
served by a private lift station, which was installed
with Emerald Hills Subdivision.
Sidewalks:
In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along the streets being dedicated in this plat
Drainage:
The elevations range from 1,234' in the southeastern
portion of the Plat to 1,170' in the northwest comer of
the Plat. The property generally drains to the
northwest. Storm sewer is proposed within this plat to
capture runoff. Two outlets are proposed at the
western boundary of the Plat. The adjacent property
to the west is also part of the Emerald Hills GDP and
will be platted for single family development in the
future. A stormwater pond located north and west of
this plat for stomwater detention which will handle the
drainage from this plat.
Wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be
reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils.
There do not appear to be hydric soils within this plat.
Spillover Parking:
The spillover parking requirements for this
development would be approximately 50 parking
spaces. The proposed roadways should be adequate
to accommodate the required spillover spaces.
Parkland Dedication:
Parkland dedication for this plat should be met
through a reduction of existing dedication credits from
the 1996 dedication of 5 acres when the Century High
School site was purchased.
General Development Plan:
This property is included within the Emerald Hills
General Development Plan which was originally
approved irr 1996 and amended in 1999.
Page 3
February 17. 2000
Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM
Sections 61.225 (effective 5/151199). In order to meet the criteria, approval of this plat should
require the following conditions or modifications:
1. Outlot A shall be revised to be a minimum of 30 feet in width and shall include a traitor
sidewalk to be constructed by the applicant.
2. Any necessary easements outside of the Plat that maybe needed for utilities, drainage
or temporary turn -around be provided prior to or concurrent with final plat recording.
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, right-of-way dedication,
infrastructure improvements and contributions for public infrastructure.
4. The cul-de-sac on "Kathleen Lane NE" shalt be signed "No Parking —Fire Lane" since
the diameter is not sufficient to provide the needed tum-around radius with parking or
the cul-de-sac radius shall be increased to allow for both parking an the needed turn-
around radius:.
5. Additional hydrants) be provided as required by the Fire Department and RPU Water
division.
6. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via a reduction in existing dedication
credits (2.63 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the Century High
School Site was purchased.
REMINDER TO APPLICANT:
•, Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract
for construction of the public roadways and utilities.
e, This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15,
1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed
Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the final plat application if the
applicant Intends to record the final plat documents prior to completion of
infrastructure improvements.
i go?
(q � Page 4
February 17, 2000
CRITERIA FOR LAND SUBDIVISION PERMIT (PRELIMINARY PLAT)
Effective May 14 1999
61.225Findings 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 residential zoning district, -addresses the need for
spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426.
H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are -provided for the
purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the
development.
1. 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;
M. That the sots, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all
lots are developable for their designated purposes.
Page 5
February 17, 2000
N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
O. That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and
Ficodway 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 limitations 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.
i�
park s
recreation
DATE: February 1, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
Planning
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
RE: Emerald Hills 2r"
Preliminary Plat #00-03
Number of dwelling units ............................................. 42 units
Density factor............................................................ .0244
Dedication............................................................... 1.02 acres
Fair market value of land ............................................. NA
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met
via:
Reduction in existing dedication credits (2.63 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0
acres when the Century High School site was purchased.
My interpretation of Section 64.227 Trail Thoroughfares and Sidewalk section of the
revised LDM is that the applicant is to dedicate a 30' wide access to the school site (Outlot
A) with the trail or sidewalk to be constructed by the applicant.
Applicant
Fred Schmidt
3200 60 Ave SE
Rochester Mn 55904
i
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
?n 0/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE -
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 40 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
Preliminary Plat 00-03 on Emerald Hills Second Subdivision (Fred Schmidt)
property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. Storm Water Management will be provided for this development by
detention facilities that were required for Emerald Hills First
Subdivision.
2. A grading plan for this phase of Emerald Hills must be submitted and
approved.
3. 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.
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, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for
public infrastructure.
5. Outlot A is shown on the plat with a width of 20 feet. A 5 foot utility
easement is needed on both side of the Outlot.
6. Pedestrian facilities shall be located and constructed concurrent with
this development, along both sides of all public roadways.
Charges & fees for the following are applicable for the development of this
property:
•:• Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per acre
:• J9288 "High Level Water Tower in Northern Heights Area" @
$1,021.46 per acre, plus 7.5% interest from 514/98
:• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic
Division. 4 Street Name Signs
1 Street Ends Sign
CATEMP1PPp00-03Aoc
ROCHESTER
DATE: February 10, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning
FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
f
4�CC 0.�1'GU3S•.••
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904.3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507) 285-8256
SUBJECT: Type III, Phase 11 Land Subdivision Preliminary Plat #00-03, Emerald Hills
Second, located north of century High School and west of Cassidy Dr NE.
This project is beyond the 5 minute fire response standard and is adding 42 residential
lots on 15.54 acres, to the fire protection area of the Rochester Fire Department. With
that regard the fire code 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. Hydrant shall be in place prior to commencing building construction.
There appears to be a required hydrant missing along Colleen Street NW between
lots 21 and 22.
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 on Kathleen drive is not large enough to allow parking around it's
perimeter. A diameter of at least 96' is necessary to provide sufficient turn -around
radius with parking. If constructed as drawn, this cul-de-sac must be posted "No
Parking — Fire Lane".
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 To Avenue SE, Rochester, Mn. 55904
Fred Schmidt,3200 60"' Ave. SE, Rochester, Mn. 55904
_-7 h!m
platted.
Mr. Suk commented that it oks as like they would fall un er the rules of the current
ordinance that says it must bituminous.
With no others wishing to spea Mr. Suk clos the public hearing.
Ms. Petersson moved to approve relimina Plat #00-02, to be known as Century
Hills Townhomes Third, with staff -s gges d conditions. Mr. Staver seconded the
motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Conditions:
1. Storm water management
2. The applicant shall enter i
outlines the obligations 91
stormwater managemeqf,
facilities, right-of-way e
3. A temporary turnar<
4. Pedestrian facilities
5.
C�
7
side of Viola Road
The pedestrian fa
bituminous path ,
crossing of Cen h
The final plat d cu
(CSAH 2) and ens
di
ust be provided for this development,
to a develop ent agreement with the City that
the applicant r ating to, but no limited to,
park dedication, ffic improvements, pedestrian
cation, and contri tions for public infrastructure.
yhd must be provided at t east end of 215t Street NE.
Along the east side of Centu Hills Drive and the south
lust be constructed concurre with this development.
'ty along the south side of Viola oad must be a 10 foot
( designed to accommodate an a t/west pedestrian
Hills Drive at the normal stop bar I cation.
ents must dedicate controlled acce along Viola Road
ry Hills Drive.
The develop r agrees that this subdivision will have an im#qc
needs for p�rkland and that dedication of Outiot A will fulfill
obligat
Thion f this plat.
e deve pment agreement for this plat shall include requires
agreem nts for the developer to construct the secondary accc
Circle rive concurrent with the development of this property.
upon the City's
dedication
and
East
Type III Phase If Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-03 by Fred Schmidt
to be known as Emerald Hills Second Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide
approximately 15.54 acres of land into 42 lots for single family development and 1
Outlot. The Plat also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for three new public roads.
The property is located north of Century High School and west of Cassidy Drive NE.
Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated February 17, 2000, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
r r ..r r c a; Ginn l 1. ok\
\Sa;c6 3 Sfim3tes ...� .; : n r=-.,• —_ ....... ....-.
cad '
Mr. Svenby explained the location and presented a map of the approved GDP, pointing
out the area that has already been platted. He stated the proposed plat consists of 15.54
acres to be divided into 40 lots for single family residential development, including one
outlot. Mr. Svenby reviewed the roadways and utilities, and commented that staff
recommends approval with the six conditions listed in the report.
Mr. Quinn asked if the only access in and out is off of Cassidy Drive
Mr. Svenby stated that currently it is. He explained that the ordinance limits the number of
lots to 120 on one access, and the City Engineer has the authority to waive that
requirement. He noted that this plat will bring the total number of lots in this subdivision to
84.
Mr. Staver asked if is there a threshold that will make the intersection become signalized.
Mr. Svenby stated that when certain warrants are met, options such as signalization are
considered, but that wouldn't be addressed until the warrants are met.
Mr. Burke asked if it is common to have a private lift station.
Mr. Dumond explained that typically those are always private. In this case the developer
worked out an arrangement with Public Works for some extra land to be dedicated, as
well as some money for maintenance. The reasoning for this agreement is that the
developer probably didn't want to have the requirement of a homeowners association for
maintenance.
Mr. Dumond stated they are in agreement with the conditions and he is available for
questions. He noted that regarding the number of units with only one access, this GDP
was approved prior to the new ordinance that contains the 1200 trips per day stipulation.
He commented that it will probably be a long time before the roadway is extended to the
north, but they will work this issue out with Public Works.
Mr. Burke noted that staff is recommending a 30' wide outlot instead of 20', and he asked
if that is considered parkland.
Mr. Dumond stated that some credit can be used, but he doesn't think it is part of the
parkland credits. He noted that the green space will be taken over by the City at some
point.
With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Mr. Burke made a motion to approve Preliminary Plat #00-03, with staff -suggested
findings and conditions. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
Conditions:
1. Outlot A shall be revised to be a minimum of 30 feet in width and shall include
l 1l Ann I. <; P \A
March 3 %hnures
a trail or sidewalk to be constructed by PP the applicant lq5 /
2. Any necessary easements outside of the Plat that may be needed for utilities,
drainage, or temporary turn -around be provided prior to or concurrent with
final plat recording.
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, right-of-way dedication, infrastructure improvements, and
contributions for public infrastructure.
4. The cul-de-sac on "Kathleen Lane NE" shall be signed "No Parking — Fire
Lane" since the diameter is not sufficient to provide the needed turn -around
radius with parking or the cul-de-sac radius shall be increased to allow for
both parking and the needed turn -around radius.
5. Additional hydrant(s) be provided as required by the Fire Department and RPU
Water division.
6. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via a reduction in existing
dedication credits (2.63 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the
Century High School site was purchased.
Mr. Svenby presentedNip staff report, dated,fC`ebruary 17, 2000, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at th ochester-Olm�(ed Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby explained the prope loc ion and noted there is a GDP that was approved
for the property in 1995. He stated plat consists of 12.45 acres to be divided into 8
lots for single family residential dev o ent. He pointed out that a home already exists
on lot 3. Mr. Svenby referred to t criteria nd staff suggested findings, noting approval
is recommended with the seve conditions lis d in the report.
Ms. Petersson noted that conditions 2 and 4 stated Y-.ox Chase Road SE," which should
be changed to "Fox Chas
Mr. Staver asked if Fox
Drive.
id SW."
ase Road will terminate in a cukde-sue or extend to Gates
Mr. Svenby explaine that it will eventually end in a cul-de-sac, which he pointed out on
the map. He also r erred to a lot that Mr. Younge doesn't own and noted that in 1995,
Mr. Younge petitio ed to vacate Gates Drive in that area, but the vacation will not be
recorded until the area is developed and the new right-of-way dedicated.
Representing the applicant, Wade Dumond of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the
Commission, and stated that in regard to the vacation of Gates Drive, it will become
II_F I< t lcnn'L:: on,
General Development Report
for
Ripley Property
in
Section 17 of Cascade Township
Rochester, Minnesota
Prepared for:
BBB Development, Inc.
PO Box 247
Byron MN 55920
Prepared by:
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
507-289-3919
November 8, 1999
Revised January 31, 2000
J*em S - 7
3,do- p ,a9"##.
General Development Plan
For Ripley Property Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B-1,
Item E, of the Informational Supplement to the Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual, as adapted by the City of Rochester January 8, 1992, and as
amended by Ordinance in May of 1999.
A General Development Plan (GDP) is required for this site in accordance with
Section 61.211 for any site where the eventual platting of the property involves
approval of a Type III Land Subdivision permit.
This report is intended to provide a descriptive narrative of the attached GDP
prepared by McGhie & Betts, Inc., of Rochester, Minnesota. It should be noted that
this site, in part, was jointly planned with the "Weatherstone" project to the south.
The access from 501" Avenue NW, access spanning along 50`" Avenue NW, the
drainage and storm sewer system, bike trail connections and parkland, and sanitary
sewer service were planned in conjunction with "Weatherstone."
The 1978 Land Use Plan for the City of Rochester indicates that this site lies outside
the Urban Service Area. However, the updated 1995 Olmsted County Land Use Plan
(Exhibit A) designates this site in the 25 year Urban Service Area. In addition, the
sewer service study for Phase II of the Northwest Sanitary Sewer Trunkline included
this site in the service area as did the 1993 study of the Northwest High Level Water
Study prepared by McGhie & Betts, Inc., for the City of Rochester (See Exhibit B for
service map).
A Traffic Analysis has been prepared by Benshoof & Associates for the
Weatherstone project which incorporates the traffic volumes from the Ripley site with
the assumption that the Ripley GDP will be fully built -out in the year 2003. In a
discussion with Mr. Charles Reiter. It was concluded that a combined or joint traffic
MCGHIE & BETTS, INC.
General Development Plan
For Ripley Property Paoe 2
study would be acceptable and perhaps a more desirable route to identify issues
related to traffic operations.
The future project area consists of approximately 122 acres. As proposed, the
development will contain 368 single family detached lots for a density of 3.02 lots per
acre.
2.0 BACKGROUND
This site has historically been in row crop production with some pastureland. The
farmstead is still located on the site and has, over the years, also been used to raise
livestock.
In 1993, a water study was completed for the City of Rochester which included the
majority of this site in the service area of the Northwest Highland Water Tower
located just to the north of the North Park Development. Prior to 1993, the City
completed a sanitary sewer trunkmain study that also included this property in the
service district.
The applicants filed a petition for annexation of Phase I which included
approximately 38 acres, in October of this year. To date, the Cascade Town Board
has voted to not object to the annexation. The Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council have both approved the annexation.
3.0 SITE ANALYSIS
3.1 Location
The property lies in the north half of Section 7 of Cascade Township and is
adjacent to the north property boundary of Weatherstone. 50'" Avenue NW is
on the easterly boundary of the site and 65ih Street NW forms the northerly
boundary.
MCGHIE & BETTS, INC.
General Development Plan
For Ripley Property Page 3
The site is continuous with the Douglas Trail on the southeast boundary of
the site. Undeveloped agricultural land lies to the west-northwest of the site.
3.2 Site Characteristics
Elevations on the site range from 1060 in the southwest corner to 1180+ in
the northeast corner. There are several defined drainageways on the site that
direct the surface drainage from north to south and then along the Douglas
Trail to 50th Avenue NW through the Weatherstone project.
3.3 Wetlands
Four wetlands have been identified and delineated on the site in accordance
with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands A
and B are the largest wetlands on the site and have higher degrees of
function and value than Wetlands C and D. Wetlands C and D are both Type
2, Wet meadow wetlands severely impacted by agricultural activities.
Wetland B on -site is 3.75 acres and is a mix of Type 2, Wet meadow, Type 3,
Shallow marsh, and Type 6, Shrub swamp wetland. Wetland B continues
onto the property to the south and has been impacted by agricultural tiling.
Wetland A is approximately 2.2 acres and has been impacted by grazing
activities and ditching. Wetland A is a mix of Type 2, Wet meadow, Type 3,
Shallow marsh, and Type 7, Wooded swamp. Additional review of Wetland A
is being completed in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources,
to make a calcareous fen determination. If Wetland A is a calcareous fen,
additional protection measures may need to be formulated to meet the
requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act.
The development plans have been revised to avoid the majority of Wetlands
A and B. All wetland impacts will be mitigated on the site within the vicinity of
Wetlands A and B to create somewhat of a corridor for wildlife, storm water
treatment, and recreational opportunities.
MCGHIE & BETTS, INC.
General Development Plan
For Ripley Property Page 4
3.4 Soils
The 125 acre Ripley Property lies at the headlands of the Kings Run
subwatershed of the South Zumbro River Watershed. The terrain is
characterized as a landscape of dissected glacial till with waterways and
drainage swales that discharge to a ditched and drained waterway along
Douglas Trail that was formerly a meandering perennial streams before the
construction of the railroad grade in the late 1800's. Glacial till and alluvium
underlay the deep soils on the site. The glacial deposits fill a buried bedrock
valley where depth to bedrock exceeds 100 feet over the entire site and
bedrock is not encountered at a depth of over 200 feet on the east half of the
property
3.5 Land Use and Zoning
The site, upon annexation, will come into the City as R-1 (mixed use
residential) zoned property which will permit the use of the site for single
family detached housing. There will not be a need to change the land use.
3.6 Utilities
3.6.1 Sanitary Sewer
A 12 " sanitary sewer is currently located on the west side of 50`h
Avenue NW opposite 57`h Street NW. This sanitary line will be
extended northerly along 50th Avenue to serve Ripley. Sewer is also
available in 6151 Street NW and is deep enough to service this site.
MCGHIE & BETTS. INC.
General Development Plan
For Ripley Property Page 5
3.6.2 Watermain
There is an existing 12" watermain on the west side of 50'h Avenue
NW opposite 571h Street NW. This main will be extended through
Weatherstone and into the Ripley site.
3.6.3 Storm Sewer
No storm sewer system exists. Surface drainage is either directed to
the ditch of 501h Avenue NW and south to culverts under 50" Avenue
near 571h Street which empty into the detention basins of White Oaks
or the surface runoff flows southerly across Weatherstone to the
drainageway along the Douglas Trail.
3.6.4 Access
Currently, access from the site is by private driveway to 501h Avenue
NW. The GDP proposes several public roadways throughout the
development and two will intersect with 50" Avenue NW.
4.0 PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 Project Description and Scope
The attached GDP (Exhibit C) shows conceptually the proposed street
pattern, parkland, detention basin and open space area, access to the
adjoining roadway system, and the general lot pattern for Phase I.
All of the site will be used for single family detached housing with appropriate
densities as shown on the plan.
4.2 Access/Traffic Circulation
MGGHIE & BETTS. INC.
General Development Plan
For Ripley Property Paae 6
There are several public road access points to 651" Street and 501" Avenue
NW. Access to these two roadways shall be limited to public streets only. The
multiple access points will prevent local streets from being over capacity.
One roadway along the south property line is proposed to be shared between
this site and Weatherstone. There are ample numbers of roadway
connections to the adjoining roadways to provide a more even distribution of
traffic.
The east -west roadway through the middle of the site will be classified and
function as a major local street. This roadway will be designed to
accommodate traffic from future development to the west.
The spacing of access roadways to 65`" Street NW and 50`" Avenue NW has
been designed to accommodate turn lanes.
4.3 Pedestrian Circulation
The plan proposes a trail connection from the public parkland area located in
the central part of the site to the public parkland, open space, and trail
connection to the Douglas Trail in Weatherstone.
A 5' wide sidewalk is planned along the west side of 50`" Avenue NW.
Sidewalks will also be constructed in the public street right of way. The right
of way with the major local street is sufficient to accommodate pedestrian
traffic or walkways.
MCGHIE & BETTS. INC.
General Development Plan
For Riolev Property Paoe 7
4.4 Storm Water Management
Storm water detention is proposed on -site to contain the increase in the ten-
year (Q10) and 100 year (Q100) on a post development basis. There are two
detention ponds planned and they are located on either side of wetland 'B' in
the south central part of the site. Each pond will treat drainage from
approximately 50 acres of developed area of the site.
The pond west of Wetland 'B' would capture the drainage from the northwest
part of the site. The pond east of Wetland 'B' would capture the drainage from
the northeast part of the site. Some drainage from the far east part of the site
would be piped to the 501h Avenue NW ditch and flow south. The developer
would pay the stormwater management fee for this part. The two detention
ponds are not intended to act as a regional facility.
4.5 Utilities
4.5.1 Sanitary Sewer
Public sanitary sewer will be extended from either 571h Street or 615t
Street NW to the site or will be extended from sewer in Weatherstone.
All of the sanitary sewer is proposed to be gravity flow. The minimum
diameter of the pipe shall be 8".
4.5.2 Watermain
This site will be served with the high level water system. The high level
system is necessary to serve access over the 1100 elevation.
Connection to the inplace 12" watermain will occur at 57th Street or
61't Street NW.
MCGHIE & BETTS. INC.
General Development Plan
Far Ripley Property Page 8
4.1.3 Storm Sewer System
As previously stated, the site will contain two detention basin to detain
the increase in runoff from the Q,o and Q,00 streams. Storm sewer
pipe will be used to connect the surface runoff and direct it to the
detention basin. Approximately 13 acres of the eastern part of the site
does not drain towards the ponds and the run-off will be directed to the
50"' Avenue NW ditch. The developer intends to pay the stormwater
management fee for this part.
Temporary and permanent sedimentation basins will be constructed.
4.1.4 Electrical service
Electrical service will be provided by Rochester Public Utilities. Service
to this site will be from the lines to service Weatherstone.
The electrical service within the subdivision will be underground.
4A.5 Natural Gas Service
Currently there is a high-pressure gasmain in 571h Street NW in the
White Oaks Development. This line will be extended to serve
Weatherstone. This main could be extended in 50"' Avenue NW to
serve the Ripley site.
4.2 Floodplain
The site does not contain any regulatory flooding or 100-year flood boundary.
MCGHIE & BETTS. INC.
General Development Plan
For Ripley Property Pape 9
4.3 Parkland
The site contains an 8 acre park in the south central portion of the site. There
are multiple access points to the park.
As previously stated, there will be a pedestrian trail system to connect this
park to the public park in Weatherstone.
4.4 Well Abandonment/Demolition
The farmstead and out buildings will need to be demolished when Phase II is
constructed. All existing private wells must be properly abandoned in
accordance with the County and State regulations.
4.5 Phasing
The project will be completed in 5 — 6 phases. The first phase is indicated on
the plan. The timing of the future phases has yet to be determined.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, through the Minnesota Policy Act,
establishes criteria and thresholds for mandatory Environmental Assessment
Worksheets (EAW). Based on the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board's
Environmental Review Program, there is a requirement for a mandatory EAW for
phased or cumulative activities that convert 80 acres or more of agricultural land to a
more intense use.
It is our understanding that an EAW must be accepted by the City (RGU) prior to
approval of the final plat.
MCGHIE & BETTS, INC.
General Development Plan
For Ripley Property. Page 90
6.0 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In approving a General Development Plan, the Commission and Council will review
the plan for compliance with the criteria for approval listed in Section 61.215 which
became effective May 15, 1999. The seven (7) criteria are listed below and are
followed by our responses as to compliance:
Criteria A:
The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A
GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request.
This property lies beyond the boundaries of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan. However, it is a part of the 25 year Urban Service Area for the City on the 1995
Olmsted County Land Use Plan.
Land use designation for this site would be low density residential which makes the
proposed project compatible with the land use. A land use plan amendment and zone
change will not be necessary.
Criteria 6:
The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are
compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property.
The density of the development as proposed is consistent with a low density residential land
use in the R-1 zoning district.
MCGHIE & BETTS. INC.
General Development Plan
For Ripley Property Page 11
The proposed vehicular circulation system provides for a major local street, multiple access
points to the perimeter road system, access to the adjacent undeveloped land, and
connections to proposed roadways in Weatherstone.
A pedestrian trail system is proposed to connect public parkland in the Ripley site with the
public parkland in Weatherstone and to the Douglas Trail.
Criteria C:
The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
The development is a low density residential housing project that will have a variety of
housing styles. The density and style of housing is consistent with the Land Use and
Housing Plans.
Criteria D:
The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected
in the City of Rochester's current 6-year Capital Improvement Program, adopted
Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any
other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to
accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the
existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent
properties.
Street system improvements in this area will include the upgrading of 50"' Avenue NW north
of 5"' Street NW.
The developers of White Oaks have already paid a substantial street contribution fee toward
the upgrading of 507" avenue NW and the developers of Weatherstone have petitioned the
MCGHIE & BETTS. INC.
General Development Plan
For Rioley Property Paoe 12
City for improvements to 5dh Avenue NW The developers of the Weatherstone project will
also pay the substandard road contribution fee as will the developers of the Ripley project.
This is a unique situation in that most of the adjacent property owners along 501" Avenue
NW are currently interested in developing and paying their respective share of the cost to
upgrade 5e Avenue NW.
It was discussed with the Weatherstone project that development along this corridor be
limited so that traffic volumes on 50t" Avenue NW does not exceed 3,000 vehicular trips per
day until it is reconstructed. As previously indicated, the development of the Ripley site will
be phased.
Criteria E:
On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is
phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining
land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this
ordinance.
1. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely
accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and
proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking
that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as
identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(c). Capacity from
improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the
assessment of adequacy.
Currently, 5e Avenue NW can handle a maximum of 3, 000 vehicular trips per day.
Development along this corridor will exceed this current capacity and, therefore, 50`h
Avenue NW will have to be upgraded to a collector road. Substantial street fees will pay a
portion of this cost.
MCGHIE & BETTS, INC.
General Development Plan
For Ripley Property Pace 13
it will be necessary to phase the development along this corridor so that 50'h Avenue does
not exceed 3,000 vehicular trips per day until it is reconstructed.
Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that
the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the
proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's
current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements
(contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to
ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the
applicant fort he development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no
development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until
concurrency has been evidenced.
Utilities are available to serve this development. Sanitary sewer and watermain are in place
in 50`" Avenue NW and in the future will be available in Weatherstone.
1. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service
standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development.
There are adequate public utilities available to the site. The public utilities, streets, and
storm water management facilities within the site shall be sized in accordance with the
standard requirements of the City.
An 8 acre public park is planned for this site. This will be of adequate size to serve the
entire Ripley site.
Criteria F:
The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal
engineering and construction practices, or that at the time of land subdivision, a more
MCGHIE & BETTS, INC.
General Development Plan
For Riolev Prooertv Page 14
detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have
been identified.
The design of the storm water facilities, erosion control, and sedimentation basins will be
designed in accordance with the standard requirements of the City of Rochester.
Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the City for each phase of the project.
Criteria G:
The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential
development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section
64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels.
The density, lot pattern, and street layout are consistent with the standards for R-1 zoning
and are compatible with the surrounding area. Roadway connections are planned to extend
to the adjoining properties.
MCGHIE & BETTS, INC.
t4 -4� -
P"A..
-tz
-iN
Cl
9F
(AUV-11-1'JL-"d 11: cl CCNb"L)U' : Hzbu'-.
c.- coo iail r..a Ja
IFBENSHU017 & ASSOCIATEo, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR GOULEVARD, BUTTE TWO / NOP10N9, MN 66343 / (812) 238-1 ae7 / FAX (612) 238-1671
November 11, 1999 refer to file: 99-101
MEMORANDUM
TO: William Tointon, McGhie & Betts, Inc.
FROM: Edward F. Terhaar
RE: Traffic Analysis for Proposed Residential Development on Ripley Property
PURPOSE
This memorandum presents the results of our traffic analysis for the proposed residential
development on the Ripley property in Rochester, MN. The proposed site is located in the
southwest quadrant of the 65" Street NW/50" Avenue NW intersection. The items of
particular interest that are examined in this document are:
• The impacts of the proposed development at the intersection of T.H. 52/65'
Street NW
• The traffic volume increases expected on 65° Street NW
This report supplements the analyses presented in our November 5, 1999 report for the
Weatherstone development.
BACKGROUND
Pro22scd Dcvclo mcnt Characteristics
The development is currently proposed to consist of 393 single family dwelling units.
Access will be provided via three locations on 65" Street NW and two locations on V
Avenue NW. For the purposes of this report, we have assumed that all of the development
will be in place by 2003, which is a very aggressive construction schedule and therefore
represents a conservatively high traffic generation estimate.
Mr. William Tointon
-2-
November 11, 1999
Current Conditions
To date, the majority of the residential development has occurred south of the Ripley
property. Large residential developments have been constructed east of 5V Avenue NW
north of 55° Street. There currently are three main residential neighborhoods in the area:
one located immediately cast of 50' Avenue NW at 570 Street NW, one in the southeast
quadrant of the 50' Avenue NW/55" Street NW intersection, and one located just west of
the southwest quadrant of the 50" Avenue NW/55'° Street NW intersection. Other areas
around the proposed site currently consist mainly of open land.
Roadway Characteristics
The roadway of concern for this development is 65'h Street NW. 65th Street is a local
township street that extends west from T.H. 52. it is a two lane roadway without
shoulders. 65th Street intersects T.H. 52 at grade and is controlled by stop signs.
Recently, this intersection was converted from full access to right tutus only.
Aligned opposite 65th Street east of T.H. 52 is Bandcl Road. Bandel Road changes
alignment to north and south, forming an east frontage road along T.H. 52 from 65th Street
southward past 55th Street.
Other Developments
Several changes are expected to take place in the future that will increase traffic in the
surrounding area. Approximately I,012 single family traits and 558 townhouse units are
expected to be completed in the area by 2003. The placement of these new units can be
divided into ten areas. The numbers are as follows:
• 112 single family units in White Oaks
• 177 single family units in north North Park
• 41 single family units in cast North Park
• 58 single family units in west North Park
• 100 single family units west of Orchard Ridge
• 220 single family units in Orchard Ridge
• 150 single family units west of 50th Avenue NW and north of 55'h Street NW
• 110 single family units west of 300 Avenue NW and south of 55'h Street NW
• 44 single family units in the Seeger property, located south of the Douglas Trail,
north of 55'h Street, and west of 501° Avenue
• 558 townhouse units and a 4,000 square foot day care center in the Weatherstone
development, located north of the Douglas Trail and west of 50 h Avenue
The amount of development assumed to occur by 2003 is aggressive and therefore, from
a traffic analysis standpoint, is conservatively high.
Mr. William Tointon
-3-
November 11, 1999
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Trio Generation
Trip generation rates for the proposed development scenarios were estimated using
information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The trip
generation numbers are presented in terms of trip ends. This represents one trip either into
a development or one trip out of a development. Therefore, one vehicle that enters and
exits a development would be counted as two trip ends. The trip generation for the
proposed development is presented in Table 1 below. All the trips to and from this
development are expected to be new trips.
Table 1
Trip Generation for the Proposed Development
Land Use
Size
Daily
T--riv Ends
AM Peak Hour
Trio Ends In Trip Ends Out[Trip
PM Peak Hour
Ends In Trip Ends Out
Single amil
393 units
3,761
74
221
1 254
143
Trip Distribution
For the trips generated by the residential development on the Ripley property, an
estimation of directional distribution was based upon previous studies done in this area.
With this base, the percentages were adjusted to reflect the changes to the 65t° Street NW
access at T.H. 52.
The expected trip generation percentages for the development on the Ripley property are
as follows:
• 2.5 percent to/from the west on 65'n Street
7.5 percent from the cast on 65`h Street
• 45.5 percent to the east on 65`h Street
• 75 percent from the east on 55'h Street
9 37 percent to the east on 55i° Street
• 15 percent to/from the south on 50te Avenue
For each of the other residential developments, these percentages were adjusted
depending on the location of the development relative to 55 a or 65`h Streets.
The percentages for each scenario were applied to the trips generated by the proposed
development to determine the volume increases for each intersection during each time
period-
I'U'V-11-17y7 ♦a ct SEIJSHuuV A HSSUC. 612 27A 1671 P.05/oe
Mr. William Tointon
-4-
November 11, 1999
Traffic Volumes
The intersection traffic volumes for the T.H. 52/65 ° Street NW were developed for three
scenarios: 1999 Existing levels, 2003 No Build, and 2003 Post Development. Forecasts
were developed for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for all scenarios. The volumes at the
intersection are based on counts conducted for a previous project in the area. These
counts were adjusted to account for development that has occurred since they were
recorded.
The 2003 No Build scenario accounts for increases in traffic due to the specific
developments in the general area described earlier. With no other development currently
being planned, no other background traffic was assumed. Using the generation rates
established by ITE, the traffic from each development was estimated and distributed
according to the percentages mentioned above. Adding this to the existing counts
resulted in 2003 No Build turn movements during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours_
The traffic expected from the proposed development was added to the 2003 No Build
counts to produce 2003 Post Development traffic volumes. The resultant a.m. and p.m.
peak hour traffic volumes for each of the intersections are shown in Tables 2 and 3,
respectively.
Table 2
Weekday A-M. Peak Hour Volumes at T.H. 52165" Street NW
Intersection
Northbound
Southbound
I estbound
Eastbound
Left Thru ight
Left I Thru IRight
I Left I Thru I Right
I Left I That I Right
T.H.52/65 St
1999 Existing
n/a
619
18
n/a
1327
9
n/a
n/a
13
n/a
Wit
27
2003 No Build
n/a
681
IS
n/a
1460
33
n/a
n/a
13
n/a
n/a
186
2003 Post Development
n/a
681
18
n/a
1460
38
n/a
n/a
13
n/a
n/a
286
NIA _ N... A—U—M.
�r-
Table 3
Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Volumes at T.H. 52/65t° Street NW
Intersection
Northbound
Southbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Left
Thru
Right
Left
iThruiRight
Left I Thru I Risht
Left Thru Right
T.H. 52165 St
1999 Existing
n/a
1541
6
n/a
921 1
n/a n/a 23
n/a n/a 31
2003 No Build
n/a
1695
6
n/a
1013 78
n/a n/a 23
n/a n/a I43
2003 Post Development
n/a
1695
6
n/a
1013 97
n/a n/a 23
n/a n/a 208
NIA- Net Anlisle
P
Nuv-11-17T7 11: da SENSHUur � HeSuC. bid cat] lb'l I -Ubl OCJ
Mr. William Tointon 5_ November 11, 1999
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The T.H. 52/65`s Street intersection was analyzed to determine the effect of the proposed
development on traffic operations. In order to better understand how the intersection
operates from an overall traffic capacity standpoint, capacity analyses were performed
using the methodology presented in the Highway Capacity Manual. A capacity analysis
is a way to determine how well or poorly an intersection is operating. Capacity analysis
results are presented in terms of level of service, which ranges from A to F. Level of
service A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle
using the intersection. Level of service F represents the worst intersection operation,
with excessive delay.
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Using existing volumes, geometries, stop control and right turn only access, all
movements at the intersection of T.H. 52/65a' Street NW operate at a level of service C or
better during the weekday a.m, peak hour.
With existing geometries and stop control, the eastbound right turn movement drops to
level of service D under 2003 No Build conditions during the a.m. peak hour. All other
movements operate at level of service B or better.
Under 2003 Post Development conditions with existing geometries and stop control, the
eastbound right turn movement drops to level of service F. All other movements remain
at level of service B or better.
Table 4
Level of Service Results for A.M. Peak Hour
T.H. 52/04 Street minor leg stop control
Scenario
Eastbound
ripht turn
Westbound
right turn
1999 Exist'Existina
C
B
2003 No Build
D
B
2003 Post -Development
F
B
Wimkda.X PM Peak Hour
Using existing volumes, geometries, stop control, and right turn only access, all
movements at the intersection operate at a level of service C or better during the weekday
p.m. peak hour.
With existing geometries and stop control, all movements at the intersection continue to
operate at a level of service C or better during the weekday pm. peak hour under both the
2003 No Build and 2003 build.
NUV-11-1�99 11:G3
Mr. William Tointon
nEFISHOUF a HSSUC.
612 e38 1671 P.07/08
November 11, 1999
Table 5
Level of Service Results for P.M. Peak Hour
T.H. 52/651h Street (Minor lop stnn rnntrnh
Scenario
Easthound
right turn
Westbound
ri t turn
1999 Existin
B
C
2003 No Build
T C
C
2003 Post -Development I
C
C
As described above, the eastbound right turn movement is expected to experience
increased delay, especially during the am. peak hour. The increased delay is due to the
expected increase in the eastbound right turn volume, combined with the heavy
southbound through movement in the am. peak hour. Delays for the eastbound right tum
are lower during the pm. peak hour, mainly due to the lower southbound through volume
during that time period.
The attractiveness of the eastbound right turn movement will continue to increase as
congestion builds on 550' Street west of West Circle Drive. Some motorists may find it
easier to use 65'h Street to access southbound T.H. 52 instead of 55 h Street. Volumes
will also continue to increase as land north and west of 650' Street and 50`b Avenue
develops.
Weekday Daily Tra`f it Volumes
For the weekday daily traffic volumes, the volumes on 65'h Street NW were examined to
determine the expected increase in traffic due to the proposed development. Existing
volumes on 65`hStrcct immediately west of T.H. 52 were estimated based on the p.m.
peak hour count data These volumes were adjusted to account for the right turn access
change recently implemented at T.H. 52.
The traffic volume on 65'h Street NW immediately west of T.H. 52 is estimated at 400
vehicles per day, Using trip generation information published by M, the traffic for the
proposed development and the other developments in the area was estimated The
distribution used for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours was used to determine the amount of
traffic in this location. Table 6 shows the expected daily counts for all scenarios.
Table 6
Weekday Daily Volumes for 6510 Street NW Immediately West of T.H. 5Z
Scenario
Total Daily Volume
1999 Existia
400
2003 No Build
2,290
2003 Past Deveio meet
31130
ruv-11-1999 11=24 SENSHOOF c PSSOC. e12 238 1671 P.08"O8
Mr. William Tainton .7. November 11, 1999
As shown, daily volumes on 65t° Street will increase if all of the development used in this
report occurs by the year 2003. The 2003 Post Development volumes is slightly higher
than the asstuned capacity of 3,000 vehicles per day for a major local street. The
volumes and operation of this street should be monitored to determined if and when
improvements become necessary.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the analyses presented in this report, we have developed the following
conclusions:
• The 393 single family dwelling units assumed to be in place by 2003 are expected
to generate 3,761 daily trip ends, 295 trip ends during the weekday am. peak
hour, and 397 trip ends during the weekday p.m. peak hour.
During the weekday am. peak hour, all movements at the intersection of T.H.
521650 Street NW operate at a level of service C or better under 1999 Existing
conditions. Under the 2003 No Build conditions, the eastbound right turn falls to
level of service D with existing stop control. Under 2003 Post Development
conditions, the eastbound right turn falls to level of service F with existing stop
control.
• During the weekday p.m. peak hour, all movements at the intersection of T.ii_
52165 Street NW operate at a level of service C or better with 1999 Existing
characteristics. Under the 2003 No Build and Post Development scenarios, all
movement continue to operate at level of service C or better.
• The attractiveness of the eastbound right turn movement will continue to increase
as congestion builds on 55tb Street west of West Circle Drive. Some motorists
may find it easier to use 65 h Street to access southbound T.H. 52 instead of 551,
Street. Volumes will also continue to increase as land north and west of 65t°
Street and 50ta Avenue develops.
Daily volumes on 65 h Street will increase if all of the development used in this
report occurs by the year 2003. The 2003 Post Development volumes is slightly
higher than the assumed capacity of 3,000 vehicles per day for a major local
street. The volumes and operation of this street should be monitored to
determined if and when improvements become necessary.
TOTAL P.08
e� �E j�'�%�;��;�
f .fzj
tl {
McGhie Betts, Inc.
Consulting Engineers i — Land Surveyors
Planners
1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 Fax 507-289-7333
1604 Riverview Lane, Northfield, MN 55057 507-645-0964 Fax 507-645-2842
February 21, 2000
Mr. Brent Svenby
Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Ripley Property
Dear Mr. Svenby:
In accordance with Section 5 (B) of the amended zoning ordinance, we are submitting
on behalf of the applicant,Development, a copy of the minutes of the Neighborhood
Informational Meeting, which was held on February 15, 2000, 6:30 P.M. at the Christ
Community Church in Rochester, Minnesota.
An attendance list is also enclosed for your reference.
It is noted that the minutes generally document the discussion, comments and questions.
However, because of the nature if this project, we have attempted to document all of the
questions and comments of the attendees.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Very truly yours,
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
avv&0i `Y1itaF�
Andrew J. Masterpole, ASLA
AJM/bed
Attachment
PC Harvey Ratzloff
Joel Bigelow
Wayne Brehmer
K. M. McGhie, PE. LS, 1904-1975 William E. Tolnton, CET, President James E. Swanson, LS, Vice President David L. Morrill, PE, Vice President
Douglas N. Seas, PE. LS, Vice President Andrew J. Masterpole, ASLA Larry J. Shannon, LS Michael E. Gowm, PE, LS
Mark E. Sevenson, LS Daniel J. Zemke, PE Gregory R. Bond, PE
Minutes of the Neighborhood Informational Meeting
for
Ripley Property
in
Section 7 of Cascade Township, Rochester, Minnesota
m
February 15, 2000, 6:30 P.M. at Christ Community Church
In Attendance:
See attached list.
Purpose:
The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the proposed project to the neighborhood and
to answer questions and document concerns or issues that may need further investigation
or consideration.
General Discussion:
Mr. Andy Masterpole of McGhie & Betts, Inc., and Harvey Ratzloff of BBB Development,
LLC, made a brief presentation on the proposed project.
The presenters explained the types of housing; density; public parkland space and trail
system; wetlands; storm water management; vehicular and pedestrian circulation; phasing;
and sale price ranges of the homes.
The development process was also reviewed and it was noted that the developer has made
an application for a General Development Plan. Specific plats and plans will be completed
on a phase -by -phase basis and submitted to the City for review and approval.
Attendees were informed that public hearings are scheduled at'the Planning and Zoning
Commission on February 23, 2000, and at the Common Council on March 20. 2000. It was
noted that the City Planning and Zoning staff and City Clerk would be responsible to notify
the affected neighbors of these meetings in accordance with the Land Development Manual
and Zoning Ordinance.
Question/Comments by Attendees:
Q 1: Where will the construction traffic go?
A 1: It will probably come up 5V' Ave. NW and enter the development from
the shared access with Weatherstone or the next access north of that -
whichever is built first.
Q 2: Will there be a traffic light at 50`h Ave. & 55`h St.?
A 2: That decision is up to the City Public Works Department. It is
likely there will be one there if this area develops as planned.
Q 3: Have we studied the grades along the north property line in relation-
ship to existing 65'h SO
A 3: A preliminary grading plan will be prepared by McGhie & Betts, Inc., and
reviewed by City Public Works.
Q 4: How are the wetlands defined? Can you fill them?
A 4: The wetlands are defined by determining:
1) if the soils are hydric.
2) if the area is wet (above grade or below grade to 12") part or all of the
year.
3) if the vegetation growing is adapted to wet conditions.
They can be filled, but must be replaced at a 2:1 ratio.
Q 5: What is the size of the park? How much is usable park area?
A 5: The park has approximately 6 acres of usable park area. It is
a part of a much larger open space corridor consisting of wetlands
and storm water detention ponds.
Q 6: Will there be a parking lot in the park?
A 6: That will be determined by the Park Department.
Q 7: Who pays for park design/amenities?
A 7: The developer is responsible to pay for the park in either the form
of donating land or paying cash. The developer is doing both on this project
and the fees would be used for the park amenities.
Q 8: What would the price of homes be in this subdivision?
A 8: There would be two different price ranges:
1) $160,000 to Golfview price range
2) $175,000 to $200,000
Q 9: How were the access points determined along 50th Ave. ?
A 9: McGhie & Betts, Inc. worked with the Public Works and Transportation
Planning staff to determine the best location for access to 50`h Ave. They
generally like to see a 600' separation between access points along a
collector or aerial road.
There was a general discussion of the Weatherstone project and it's relationship to the
Ripley property. Harvey Ratzloff also reviewed the Kingsbury General Development Plan
with the neighbors.
ATTENDANCE ROLL
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
RIPLEY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
FEBRUARY 15, 2000 AT 6:30 P.M. AT CHRIST COMMUNITY CHURCH
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE NO./FAX NO.
NV d U e
N
o ao a �
2.
�y/D &5 t S7`
3. 4 y 4�{
9 T•
IPEsr.
ENE hNS D
GAeo'voco
.2 790
5. .-'j Nei 6413;c Rs
57i$ 4A-A;: -45TE '�
t3iLL 06A-
PCC14ES T EQ
=8q
6.
Jr 7d, 7 6 �Y r f . - 1/✓
r-e- 12( r
7. n
�i
G tss- sv�� ��
zPY-G 79—
s.
Llu
j t- ku-j (
Av-L
I - W O S
9.
D r ,`ate
zzL gr�- O-N-J-
Z�vvf
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: -20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
NO.
PILBLIC HEA LNGS
PLA2'NING
W I
1EP4RE
ITEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #144 by BBB Development, LLC to be
ARED BY:known
as Ripley Property. The plan proposes to develop 122 acres with single family
ent Svenbv,detached
homes. The development would be served with new public roadways and wouldPlanner
j include a public park. The property is located west of 501h Avenue NW and south of 651h
Street NW.
March 14, 2000
"Since the funding for improvements to 50`h Avenue NW have not been determined and the conditions placed on the
adjacent GDP, staff would recommend the adding the following condition or, of this GDP is contingent upon 50"
Avenue NW north of 55"' Street NW being upgraded to an Arterial standar Prior to approval for any development activity
on this property, there shall be a commitment by the affected pates to improve 50 Avenue N& to aamAftemaLstandar9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On February 23, 2000 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this General Development Plan.
Andy Masterpole, McGhie & Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. He explained the development and indicated they
were in agreement with the conditions. He also indicated that they are working with the DNR to determine if wetland A is a
calcareous fen and more information should be known in a couple of weeks.
Neighbors had concerns with the amount of traffic that all of the proposed developments in the area will bring to area.
T` 3 Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and
id Development Manual.
Mr. Burke made a motion to approve General Development Plan #144, to be known as Ripley Property, with staff•
suggested findings and conditions. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-3, with Mr. Werven,
Mr. Staver, and Ms. Petersson voting nay.
Conditions:
1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Any ponds serving 50 developable
acres or less will remain private and a declaration for long term private maintenance and ownership
will be required, as well as, easements to the City to allow maintenance and repairs. All facilities
must be constructed concurrent with development.
2. When platted, controlled access6 must be provided along the entire length of 50'h Avenue NW and
65'h Street NW, except for the street accesses that are approved on the GDP. In addition, 60 feet of
right-of-way shall be dedicated for both 501' Avenue Wand 65'h Street NW.
3. Right and/or left turn lanes will be required for all entrances along 50'h Avenue NW and 651h Street
NW
4. The development must be phased so that 50'h enue NW, north of 57S e�et NW, does not exceed
approximately 3,000 average daily trips before it isvpgreded. A contribution will be required for the
reconstruction of 50'h Ave. NW and 65'h St. NW. The City is currently considering a Traffic
Improvement District in this area for improving 50'h Ave. NW and 65f" St. NW and establishing the
developers proportional share of the cost.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: A=L second by: to: w/y
Page RCA t_l )�j�
March 14, 2000
i
5. The northerly most roadway connection to 50t° Avenue is shown to straddle two properties. Wha11
this is platted, partial dedication of the right-of-way will not be acceptable. The plat will either need to
be signed by multiple property owners or the roadway will need to be shifted entirely on the Ripley
property.
6. 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, including
contribution obligations toward traffic improvements in the area attributable to the development.
A Wet/and Replacement Plan will be required for any wetland filling. The land upstream from wetland
A must not be platted until the MN DNR has determined if the wetland is a calcareous fen. If it is a
calcareous fen, the GDP Will need to be revised to accommodate a calcareous fen management plan if
needed.-..
8. The roadway connection to the northeast corner serving the two properties and adjacent roadway will
need to be coordinated with staff and the developer to provide access through the best intersection
geometrics at a future design stage utilizing review of site lines, grade of approaches, and sound
engineering practices as the criteria.
9. At the time of platting, easements shall be provided for all needed off -site public utilities, including
easements for the public street shown connecting to 50`h Ave. NW at the far southeast corner of the
development.
10. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met through a combination of land and cash.
11. The property shall be investigated for the possibility of flood plain soils. Nigh water elevations will
need to be addressed at the time grading and drainage plans are developed.
12. A revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department reflecting all required modifications,
including identifying pedestrians facilities along the west side of 50'h Avenue NW and the south side
of 65t' Street NW, and the proposed phasing of the development.
13. Staff may recommend additional conditions when the GOP is heard at the Council.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated February 18, 2000.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must
make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215. ,,
2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, it should instruct the City
Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated February 18, 2000
2. Minutes of February 23, 2000 CPZC Meeting
TO
02,0 j
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
2300 Silver Creek Road NE
Rochester, lvfN 55906
(507)285-7421
March 9, 2000
Mr. Jeff Broberg, Vice President
McGhie & Betts Environmental Services
1648 3r° Avenue Southeast
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Mr. Broberg:
RE: RIPLEY PROPERTY WETLAND, FEBRUARY 22, 2000, MEETING WITH DNR
The DNR appreciates the data you presented at the February 22 meeting of McGhie &
Betts staff with DNR staff knowledgeable about fens. Upon further review of the
information on the subject wetland, it has been determined a decision about whether
the subject wetland is or is not a calcareous fen will not be able to be made until
additional vegetation information from the site is available. Such vegetation
information may not be available until June 1 or after. While pH and conductivity water
chemistry characteristics of water samples taken from the site are within the range,
which would characterize the site as a calcareous fen, other parameters suggested the
contrary. Because of this uncertainty, the DNR staff believes that a judgment can't be
made until the type of vegetation at the site can be determined.
The DNR staff recognizes, as you pointed out at our February 22 meeting, that time is
money and that the longer it takes to complete a plan for development the more the
development will cost. Therefore, as Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist
Don Nelson suggested in his January 12, 2000, letter, consideration could be given to
developing the property down gradient from the subject wet area as development in this
area would not impact the wetland in question.
If at this time the developer of the Ripley property wishes to proceed with development
of all the property, then it's recommended a development plan be prepared which
avoids any impact to the subject wetland. If impact to the wetland can't be avoided,
and the developer still wants to proceed with development of all the property, then a
management plan should be developed in accordance with the "Calcareous Fen
Management Planning Guidance" document by the Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Waters (of which you have been furnished a copy) with emphasis on the
information requirements spelled out in Section V, "Calcareous Fen Management Plan
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 0 TTY:651-296-5484 • 1-800-657.3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed 00 R
Who Values Diver i[ 0eeY Paper Containing a
VA
Mr. Jeff Broberg, Vice President
McGhie & Betts Environmental Services
March 9, 2000
Page Two
Components," of said document. Any development plan and calcareous fen
management plan should be submitted to me at this office to initiate review and the
appropriate Commissioner's approval process.
At the February 22 meeting, it became apparent that there could possibly be a number
of calcareous fens in the Rochester area and even southeast Minnesota. Consistent
with the Commissioner of Natural Resources responsibility regarding calcareous fens
the Department in coordination with local units of government as well as landowners
and developers is committed to make the review and approval process associated with
calcareous fen protection as efficient as possible.
To conclude, we will let you know when DNR staff are able to visit the site to inspect the
vegetation and will likely seek your help in gaining access to the property. Don't
hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions about this matter.
Very truL
ours,
)JAMES F. CO PER
Regional Hydrologist
DNR Waters
JFC(dsl
c: Steve Colvin
Don Nelson
Welby Smith
Ery Berglund
Jeanette Leete
Bob Bezek
H: UAMbmb@Mj&OI, wp}
f
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Planning and Zoning Commission
Brent Svenby, Planner
February 18, 2000
J..KO':NESTE R.,c203
f
Ha' • J
ORi TEO•A L'GC55'S'�
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING!
5071285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING''HRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
wELL'SEPTIC
5071285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
General Development Plan #144 to be known as Ripley Property
Planning Department Review:
Applicant:
Consultants:
BBB Development, Inc.
PO Box 247
Byron, MN 55920
McGhie 8 Betts, Inc
1648 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Size and Location: The area includes approximately 122 acres of land
located south of 65'" Street NW, west of 50tb Avenue
NW. The property is located just north of the
W eatherstone GDP.
Existing Land Use: The site is presently undeveloped.
Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to develop the area with
single family detached homes. The GDP also
includes a wetland/park corridor through the site and
storm water detention ponds.
Land Use Plan: This property 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. Land Use Designations within
this area are considered to be "Low Density
residential".
Zoning: The property is currently zoned A-3 (Agricultural) on
the Olmsted County Zoning Map. The applicant has
filed an annexation petition on 38.35 of the 122 acres.
The annexation has been approved and the property
�� AN EOUAL OPPORTUNRY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
i
V "v q Page 2
General Development Plan
February 18, 2000
is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family).
Streets:
The plan proposes two accesses to 50`h Avenue NW.
Both of the accesses line up with the proposed
accesses on the Graves GDP. The northern most
access is shown half on the adjacent property.
Coordination with the property owner will need to be
worked out at the time of platting. Three public road
accesses are provided to 651h Avenue NW. The
development also provides accesses consistent with
the Weatherstone GDP. Possible accesses are also
shown to the property to the west.
Sidewalks:
Sidewalk will be required along both sides of all public
roadways. A 5' sidewalk will be required along the
west side of 50h Avenue and a 10' path along the
south side of 651h Street NW. The developer is
proposing a pedestrian trail system through the
wetland/parkland corridor. The pedestrian trail will
connect up the trail system in the Weatherstone.
Drainage:
The General Development Plan identifies existing
topography. The property generally drains to the
south through the existing wetland corridor. The plan
proposes two storm water detention ponds in the
south central portion of the property.
According to the Olmsted County Zoning Map, flood
plain soils existing on the property. These soils will
need to be investigated and the grading and drainage
plans will need to address the high water elevations.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required
when the property is platted or developed.
Wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. According to the Olmsted County Soil Survey,
hydric soils exist on the property. The GDP does
show wetland areas and a wetland delineation has
been completed for the property. A replacement plan
will be required to be filed on any wetland filling that is
proposed. The replacement plan will need to show
how drainage affects the wetlands. There is a
possibility that the wetland labeled A is a calcareous
fen. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources will determine this spring if it is a
calcareous fen. If it is, a calcareous fen management
plan will need to be developed for the site. This may
change the layout of the GDP in that area.
Public Utilities:
Sanitary sewer and water lines will need to be
extended from their present ends in 50th Avenue NW
to accommodate this development.
Parkland Dedication:
The park and recreation department recommends
Page 3 /f 45
General Development Plan Q�V
February 18, 2000
that the parkland dedication requirements for this
development be met through a combination of cash
and land.
Environmental Review: In accordance with Minnesota Rules, 4410.4300
subp. 36, the proposed development of this property
will require preparation of a Mandatory Environmental
Assessment Worksheet since it consist of the
conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural land to
a more intensive land use, i.e. residential
development.
Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works
2. Planning Dept. Transportation Division
3. John Harford, Planning Dept. & Wetlands LGU
4. Olmsted County SW CD
5. RPU Water Division
6. Park and Recreation Department
7. Fire Department
8. RPU Operations Division
9. Planning Department Addressing Division
10. MnDOT
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Reduced Copy of General Development Plan
Maps
3. Referral Comments (7)
4. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative
5. MN DNR Letter
Summary:
This GDP includes approximately 122 acres of land to be developed with low density residential
development. Roadway connections are shown to 50i° Avenue NW and 650 Street NW. Both of
these roadways will need to be upgraded to collector or arterial street standards. Currently 500
Avenue is designed to carry approximatelt3,000 vehicle per day. With the proposed
developments along 50"' Avenue, from 55 Street to 65th Street, phasing of the developments to
limit a total of 3,000 trips on 50"' Avenue is necessary until 50`" Avenue is reconstructed to provide
additional capacity,
There is a possibility that Wetland A is a calcareous fen. The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources will evaluate the site once sufficient vegetation is available in the spring. If this wetland
is found be a calcareous fen, a calcareous fen management plan would need to be developed for
the site. According to the Olmsted County Zoning Map, flood plain soils existing on the property.
These soils will need to be investigated and the grading and drainage plans will need to address
the high water elevations.
A trail system is proposed within the wetland/park corridor that will be eligible for some Parkland
Dedication credits. A 5' sidewalk will be required along the west side of 50"Avenue NW and a
10' trail along the south side of 65"' Street NW. The GDP will need to be revised to identify these
trails.
oq� /
Page a
General Development Plan
February 15, 2000
Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation:
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted
regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999).
Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have
been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or
plan amendment request.
This property 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. Land use
designations within this area are considered to be "Low Density Residential"
Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation
are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent
property.
The density of the proposed development is consistent with a low density
residential land use designation and the R-f zoning district. The proposed
vehicular systems provide for the connection to adjacent properties. A 10' trail
will be required along the south side of 650 Street NW and a 5'sidewalk along the
west side of 50f8 Avenue NW The GDP will need to be revised to identify these
trails.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
The development density is consistent with a low density residential land use
designation of the Land Use Plan and is generally consistent with the Housing
Plan by providing different densities and styles of housing.
Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and
streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement
Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation
Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City.
Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and
projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses
shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
Street system improvements within the immediate area which may be needed to
accommodate the proposed land use and projected background traffic include
upgrading 5d° Avenue NW, from 5e' St. NW to 65f° St. NW, to a arterial roadway
and the eventual upgrading of 65" Street to a collector roadway. Funding for
these projects will need to be determined, since they are not reflected in the
current 6-year C1P or other plans. it will be necessary to limit development along
the corridor so that 5d° Avenue NW does not exceed approximately 3,000
vehicles per day until the roadway is reconstructed. Adequate right of way will
need to be provided along 5e Avenue and 6e Street to provide for the future
upgrading of these corridors to collector or arterial street standards. The City is
considering the establishment of a Transportation Improvement District in this
area for improving 50'° Avenue and 65" Street.
Page 5 Or}
General Development Plan
February 18, 2000
The Long Range Bicycle Plan identifies Neighborhood Connector trails along 5e
Avenue and 65'" Street. The GDP will need to be revised to identify a 5'sidewalk
along 56° Avenue and a 10' pedestrian trail along 65m Street.
Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the
development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will
provide access to adjoining lard in a manner that will allow development of those
adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance.
Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to
safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the
existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards,
generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or
disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact
report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in
the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of
adequacy.
It will be necessary to limit (phase development along the 5e Avenue NW
corridor so that traffic volumes on 50` Avenue do need exceed 3,000 vehicles per
day until it is reconstructed. 500 Avenue is currently designated as a local
residential street and has a capacity of approximately 3,000 vehicles per day.
Development along this corridor, including this proposal development, will exceed
the capacity of the existing roadway. Adequate right of way will need to be
provided along 55'" Avenue and 650 Street to provide for the future upgrading of
these corridors to collector or arterial street standards. The City is considering
the establishment of a Transportation Improvement District in this area for
improving 50t° Avenue and 65° Street.
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land
use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities
to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in
the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements
Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development
agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate
to a condition that no development will occur and no further development
permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
Utilities will need to be extended to serve this development. Water and sewer are
available within 500 Avenue NW and in the future will be available in
Weatherstone.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for
development.
The GDP proposes storm water detention ponds on the property. The location,
size and design of these facilities will need to be approved by the City. According
to the Olmsted County Zoning Map, flood plain soils existing on the property.
These soils will need to be investigated and the grading and drainage plans will
need to address high water elevations.
Page /
General Development Plan
February 18, 2000
The Long Range Bicycle Plan identifies Neighborhood Connector trails along 5d"
Avenue and 6e Street. The GDP will need to be revised to identify a 5'sidewalk
along 500 Avenue and a 10' pedestrian trail along 6f Street.
The proposed 6.06 acre park area will meet a portion of the parkland dedication
requirements. The remainder of the parkland dedication requirements will be
cash in lieu of land and/or credits toward the dedication requirements by grading
and constructing the internal trail system.
Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through
normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land
subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to
solve unusual problems that have been identified.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted to the City for
review and approval. The design and placement of storm water ponds within this
development will need to be consistent with what the City has identified for a
regional facility. According to the Olmsted County Zoning Map, flood plain soils
exist on the property. These soils will need to be investigated and the grading
and drainage plans will need to address high water elevations
Criteria G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for
residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards
contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned
development of adjacent parcels.
Proposed roadways provide connections to adjacent properties and allow for the
continued growth and development of those properties. The proposed
connection to the properties and roadways in the northeast comer will need to be
reviewed in the future utilizing review of site lines, grade of approaches and
sound engineering practices as the criteria.
The proposed densities are compatible with existing and planned development of
adjacent properties.
Recommendation:
Based on the above criteria Staff would recommend approval of this General Development
Plan subject to the following conditions or modifications in order to assure compliance with the
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual:
1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Any ponds
serving 50 developable acres or toss will remain private and a declaration for long
term private maintenance and ownership will be required, as well as, easements to
the City to allow maintenance and repairs. Alf facilities must be constructed
concurrent with development.
2. When platted, controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 50"
Avenue NW and 65`" Street NW, except for the street accesses that are approved on
the GDP. In addition, 60 feet of right of way shall be dedicated for both 5e Avenue
NW and 65"" Street NW.
3. Right and/or left turn lanes will be required for all entrances along 50'" Avenue NW
and 65' Street NW.
Page 7 D�
General Development Plan
February 18, 2000
4. The development must be phased so that 50'" Avenue NW, north of 55`" Street NW,
does not exceed approximately 3,000 average daily trips before it is upgraded. A
contribution will be required for the reconstruction of 50`° Ave. NW and 650 St. NW.
The City is currently considering a Traffic Improvement District in this area for
improving 50'" Ave. NW and 6e St. NW and establishing the developers
proportional share of the cost.
5. The northerly most roadway connection to 50'" Avenue is shown to straddle two
properties. When this is platted, partial dedication of the right of way will not be
acceptable. The plat will either need to be signed by multiple property owners or
the roadway will need to be shifted entirely on the Ripley property.
6. 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; "Me improvements, pedestrian facilities;
contributions for public infrastructure, including contribution obligations toward
traffic improvements in the area attributable to the development.
7. A Wetland Replacement Plan will be required for any wetland filling. The land
upstream from wetland A must not be platted until the MN DNR has determined if
the wetland is a calcareous fen. if it is a calcareous fen, the GDP will need to be
revised to accommodate a calcareous fen management plan if needed.
8. The roadway connection to the northeast comer serving the two properties and
adjacent roadway will need to be coordinated with staff and the developer to
provide access through the best intersection geometries at a future design stage
utilizing review of site lines, grade of approaches and sound engineering practices
as the criteria.
8. At the time of platting, easements shall be provided for ail needed off site ublic
utilities, including easements for the public street shown connecting to W' Ave.
NW at the far southeast corner of the development.
10. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met through a combination of land and
cash.
11. The property shall be investigated for the possibility of flood plain soils. High
water elevations will need to be addressed at the time grading and drainage plans
are developed.
1Z A revised GDP shall be riled with the Panning Department reflecting all required
modifications, including identifying pedestrians facilities along the west side of
5e Avenue NW and the south side of 65'" Street NW and the proposed phasing of
the development.
13. Staff may recommend additional conditions when the GDP is heard at the Council.
�(o TRANSPORTATION STAFF
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REVIEW DATABASE - 1998
Jurisdiction Anntication r,..............
median opening is important to the success of the development , to consider the
trip generation characteristics of the uses that will go into this commercial are
and to limit the overall intensity of trip generation from the commercial at
order to insure that the capacity of the intersection to handle left Cumin affic to
i
and from 26" St will not be exceeded over the long term. If future a ent or
delay/congestion problems develop at the intersection, the likely ution to be
considered would be closure of the median to limit left turns of the site onto
westbound Circle Drive.
The establishment of a trip generation cap or limit ca a handled through a
development agreement. Similar restrictions have en applied in development
agreements for proposed commercial develop along the East Frontage Rd of
52. There are two possible avenues open the applicant that can be followed
in er to complete the necessary analysi ark to determine if a trip generation
cap n to be established and what th otal trip generation level should be:
1. On Itemative would be the developer to have a Traffic Impact
Repo ompleted that uld investigate the capacity issues related to the
intersec n of 26" S nd East Circle Drive. If the developer desires to
have a f lat a development agreement inplace within a two to three
month time this would be the preferred avenue to pursue.
2. A second ems a available would be to participate in and await the
results a traffic ineering study that Olmsted County has contracted
for t repare an ove I Traffic and Access Management Plan for East
a est Circle Drive. a goal of this plan is to develop a plan for traffic
gement improvemen (addressing issues of future signal location
and spacing, median treatme including potential closures, local road
system connections, and possib trip generation limits in certain
development areas) that will pe the corridor to operate at average
speeds of 4045 MPH with reasons progression and signal cycle
lengths. Preliminary project organizat and data collection for the
projection has been started already. We ect the consultant to begin
their work in earnest in March. It is anticip d to be a five to six month
project given the scope of the corridor begin s ied.
If the applicant is willing to await the results from tudy before a final
development agreement is adopted, this is an option ava ble. It is
possible under this approach that one or two initial uses co be
considered for development in the interim period if they were traffic
generators such as an office or business service use.
City
GDP 144
The proposed development layout appears to be consistent with the parameters we
Ripley
have established for access locations along 50" Ave and 65" St in our discussions
with this developer and other property development interests along the corridor.
Adequate right of way will need to be provided along both 50" Ave and 65' St to
provide for the future upgrading of these corridors to collector or arterial street
standards. At the time of platting the dedication of access control will be expected
along all private lots fronting on 50" Ave or 65" St.
Both corridors are also identified for trail development on the Long Range Bicycle
Plan. This trail will be developed as part of the reconstruction of these corridors.
Financing the upgrading of 50" Ave and 65" St is an issue that is under study and
affects not only this development but others along the corridors as well. Amon
4�
TRANSPORTATION STAFF �t t
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REVIEW DATABASE - 1998
Ju
the concepts being looked at is the ability to use Tax Increment Funding from a
portion of the Weatherstone development, adjustments to the substandard street
fee, and city seeking federal an&'or state funds to support the upgrading. Until
these issues are resolved, traffic volumes on 50ih Ave should be limited to
approximately 3000 vehicles per day, which is the capacity standard for a major
local street. This may require development of a phasing plan to reduce the
immediate impact to 50t° Ave prior to the time the reconstruction project is
comitleted.
Cond Use 00-2
No comment
Willow Creek
f Course
City
P
No comment
Roscoe's
City
Fin Plat 99-8
ent
Spruce
Meadows
City
Prel Plat 00.4
No comment
Orchard Hills 4
City
Pre] Plat 00-3
No comment
Emerald Hills
Second
City
Prel Plat 00-2
a final plat documents should retlect dedica of access control along Viola
Cent Hill
Rd and Century Hills Drive
To es 3
City
00-2
No comment
Payne Cc
Ci
Annex 00-5
No comment
Payne Co
�&� ROCHESTER
Minnesota
2rt a/0o
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
*REVISED 2/14/00*
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 40 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the revised application for
Revised General Development Plan #144 on the BBB Development. LLC
(Ripley) property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal:
Note: New comments are shown in bold.
Storm Water Management must be addressed for this development.
Detention facilities that serve 50 or fewer acres will remain private, and
a Declaration for long term private maintenance and ownership will be
required, as well as, easements to the City to allow maintenance and
repairs. A regional storm water basin is identified in the City's plan at
the south and west side's of the development. Facilities must be
constructed concurrent with development.
2. Controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 500 Ave
NW & 65`' St NW, with the exception of the street accesses that are
approved on the GDP.
3. Bus stop locations will be determined based on the final approved site
layout.
4. Right or left turn lanes will be required for all entrance off of 50th Ave
NW, and 65th St NW.
5. The right-of-way dedicated for 50th Ave NW shall be 60 feet wide.
C:STEMPSG DP 1"ReQ-00, doc
ROCHESTER C�43
Minnesota
2/ t 4/ 00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
2010 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904.3740
507-287.7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The capacity of 50"' Ave NW is limited to 3000 trips. No additional trips
shall be allowed until 50`h Ave NW is reconstructed to provide
additional capacity. The City is considering the establishment of a
Transportation Improvement District in this area for improving 501h Ave
NW & 65h' St NW, and establishing the developers proportional
share of the cost to reconstruct and add capacity to 50th Ave NW
& 65th St NW.
Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed concurrent with this
development, consistent with City Standards, along both sides of all
new public roadways, and along the south side of 65°i St NW and
the west side of 50th Ave NW.
8. Easements shall be provided for all needed off site public utilities,
including easements for the public street shown connecting to 50`h Ave
NW at the far southeast comer of the development.
9: Routing of sanitary sewer lines will be reviewed further in the platting
stages.
10. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to
construction of public infrastructure.
11. The deed dedicating the parkland to the city should include the
two accesses that are shown on the revised GDP plan.
12.The north / south street in Phase 1 should have 56 feet of ROW
instead of 50 feet as shown on the plan.
13.The 10 foot bituminous trail needs to extend to the trail facility
planned on 65th St NW, as opposed to terminating at the proposed
internal street as shown on the plan.
CATEMPNGDP 144Rev2-00.doc
�� ROCHESTER
Minnesota
2/14/00
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
14. The GDP shall show how the Kerwin property will connect to the public
street system to avoid additional accesses to 50th Ave NW or 65th St NW.
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property
(rates are subject to annual review and change:
Sanitary Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per dev. acre.
:• Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre.
•:• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division.
:• Storm Water Management Fee for regional participation (participation at
City's discretion) of $1983.50 per acre, for all areas of the development
where on -site detention is not provided.
•:• A proportional share of the cost of reconstructing 50`h Ave NW and 650 St
NW
Q: TEMP1GOP144Rev2-00.doc
DATE:
TO:
SUBJECT:
C�( 5
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
February 17, 2000
Suzanne LaPalm
Planning
GDP #99-144
Ripley Property 'REVISED FEB 15'00"
The 122 acre proposed development will have a parkland dedication requirement of
approximately 9.0 acres. The exact dedication determination will be made as the number
of dwelling units is known. Dedication to be in the form of a combination of land and cash
in lieu of land.
The areas designated as wetland and those designated as wetland replacement area
should not be considered as meeting any of the dedication requirement. The linear
corridor of land located southerly and easterly of the central wetland area should not be
considered as meeting any portion of the dedication requirement. This area is separated
from the useable portion of the park site by the wetland area and sized such that no
practical neighborhood park use can occur on the property.
The proposed 6.06 acre park area shown on this lastest revision will meet dedication
standards and provide the majority of the dedication requirement The trail corridor leading
from the Weatherstone Development to the south should also qualify as meeting a portion
of the dedication requirement.
The applicant should be extended cash in lieu credits toward the dedication
requirement by grading and constructing the internal trail system. At a minimum the
applicant should be required to accommodate the internal trail system in the project
grading plan.
\\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CITYHA6L\PARK\OSTOTO\I000\OEDICATIONVM 2396\RI?L '. 3DP.DOC
we p<edfe, we deliver
February 4, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: REVISED: General Development Plan #99-144 by BBB Development, LLC to
be known as the Ripley Property GDP.
Dear Ms. LaPalm:
Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow:
1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments.
The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department
determines the applicability of these fees.
2. This property is within the Northwest High Level Service Area, which is currently available
at 6 1 " St. NW east of 50`h Ave. NW in White Oaks, but will be available to this property with
the completion of the White Oaks Fourth Subdivision and the planned Weatherstone
development. Preliminary computer modeling indicates adequate pressures and fire flows
will be available through this area with the proper networking of the system.
3. Water mains in cul-de-sacs will need to be looped to prevent dead -ends and water mains will
need to be stubbed out in a few locations to serve adjoining properties. We will work with the
applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this and
adjoining areas.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
0644-I RLL
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
BBB Development, LLC
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
o4'*7 ,
Application Number: J[(4
SSS+>Et
No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey
Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil 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
Oimstel-SWCD
ID:507-280-2158
E9 14'00 14:29 v:.:'^3 .32
OLMSTED SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
M I N N ESOTA L_qL__]
SOIL A140 WATER CONSERVATION
February 14, 2000
Olmsted County planning
Attention: 9u2aane Lapahn
2122 Campus Drive Sl3
Rochester, MN 55904
Attention: Suzanne Lapalm
DISTRICTS
Re: Revised GDP #99-144 by 13BB Development known as Ripley property
Refer to our comments dated December 7, 1999.
T485 IndW1191 Drive NW
ROOM 102
ROW198rer, Mlnneeote 55p01
(607) 280-2850
The revised development plan dated February 1, 2000 shows street and road changes to avoid the
wetland areas. The street just north of wetland "A" could be a concern because it is located very
close and may be a problem
If you have any questions please call 280-2850.
Sincerely,
�i
Floyd Whitaker
Project Coordinator
F W/dm
cc: David Kramer, Rochester Public Works
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
OLMSTED SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1485 Industrial Dive NW
Room 102
Rochester. Minnesota 55901
(507) 280-2850
MINNESOTA
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
December 7, 1999
Olmsted County Planning
Attention: John Harford
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Attention: John Harford
Re: GDP #99-144 by BBB Development, LLC
The Olmsted S WCD reviewed the above -mentioned GDP. Due to the irregular topography and
steep slopes, which range from 2 to 18% erosion and runoff control measures must be installed and
maintained during all phases of grading.
We assume the applicant will participate in the City Storm Water Plan however temporary storm
water treatment/sediment ponds will be needed on uplands to prevent impacts to downstream
properties.
Several wetland areas are located on this property. The wetland located northwest of the farmstead
has several springs which keep this area saturated and is unsuitable for a building site therefore this
area should be designated as an outlot or parkland.
We recommend avoidance of all wetlands to the extent possible as outlined in the WCA rules.
The Olmsted SWCD may have additional comments when preliminary plat and grading plans are
available for review.
Floyd Whitaker
District Technician
FW/dm
cc: David Kramer, Rochester Public Works
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE
ROCHES MN 55904
Minutes of\ebruary
heduled me of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held
on Wedne23, 2000, .00 p.m. in Room 104 of City Hall, 201 4th Street SE,
Rochester,Members m Su hair; Ms. Mary Petersson, Vice Chair; Mr. Gerry Werven; Mr.
Randy StaMcG an; Mr. Michael Quinn; Mr. James Burke
Members Absent: Mr. ArdWrede; Ms. Christine Schultze
Staff Present: Ms. SuzajFe Lamm; Mr. Brent Svenby
'11t Staff Pres : Mr. Mar ker, Public Works
ISTRATIVE SINESS:
Ms. McGn made a motion to apprdkthe minutes of February 9, 2000.
Mr. Stave econded the motion. The m tes from February 9, 2000
were ap ved unanimously.
Ms. Pet�son made a motion to approve the a da with no changes.
Mr. Sta seconded the motion. The motion ca d unanimously.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
General Development Plan #99-144 by BBB Development LLC to be known as the Ripley
Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated February 18, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department,
Mr. Svenby presented a drawing of the GDP and reviewed the location. He explained that the
property consists of 122 acres to be developed for single-family detached housing. He
reviewed the wetland corridor, storm water detention, and the trail system. Mr. Svenby
explained access, and pointed out the property is zoned A-3 in the County, with a small portion
in the City, which is zoned R-1. He stated the applicant is proposing to fill some of the
wetlands, which will require approval of a replacement plan. The replacement will be done at a
2:1 ratio. He noted that wetland A is possibly a calcareous fen and the DNR will be checking
into that once the ground thaws, probably in late May. if the wetland is a calcareous fen, the
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Heann¢ Date: February 23. 2000
aa�
applicant will need to do a Fen Management Plan, which is quite detailed. Mr. Svenby
explained that calcareous fens are rare in Olmsted County. He referred to letter from Don
Nelson of the DNR, which states he feels the project can move forward, but the area
surrounding that wetland shouldn't be developed until it is determined if it is a fen and
determined where the recharge area for that wetland is located. He reviewed the parkland. Mr.
Svenby explained that this property, along with the other proposed GDPs in the area, has a
condition attached to it that the developments be limited to a maximum of 3000 trips per day
(total trips generated by all developments) along 50a' Avenue NW until the upgrading of the
roadway occurs. He referred to the staff -suggested findings and stated that staff recommends
approval with the 13 conditions listed on pages 34 and 35 of the packet.
Gregory Kerwin, 6405 50" Avenue NW, asked about the roadway on the south end of his
property.
Mr. Svenby explained that the GDP shows the developers' concept of how they want to develop
the property, and that roadway location was a recommendation of the City Engineer. He noted
there is a condition that when they plat, the property owner needs to be in agreement with the
roadway or the road will need to be shifted to the south in order to be totally on the applicants'
land.
Representing the applicants, Andy Masterpole, McGhie & Betts, Inc., addressed the
Commission. He explained the development will contain 360 lots and noted that only the first
phase of lots is shown on the plan. He stated the density will be approximately 3 units per acre.
Mr. Masterpole commented that several revisions to the GDP have been made since it was
originally submitted and those revisions were in response to input from public agencies,
specifically in response to issues regarding 50" Avenue NW and 65"' Street NW. He pointed
out that they are trying to work together on the developments in that area for access points. He
commented that wetland A is potentially a calcareous fen, which is a calcium -rich ground water
discharge area that could be the home of rare plant species. Mr. Masterpole explained that
they have had a difficult time determining if this is a calcareous fen, and the DNR has told them
they will make the determination within two weeks. He stated that if it is a fen, they will have to
increase the buffer and do a Fen Management Plan. He noted there is an EAW for this
development that is currently being completed. Mr. Masterpole reviewed the accesses to 50"
Avenue, 65`" Street, and adjacent future developments. He explained that the wetland system
ties into the Weatherstone development and the parks are connected by a trail. He pointed out
the storm water management areas and reviewed the criteria, which he stated are met. Mr.
Masterpole explained that they would have to have an agreement with the property owner for
the road shown on the Kerwin property, or they would have to move it to the south. He
indicated they are in agreement with the conditions and he noted that a neighborhood meeting
was held. Mr. Masterpole made himself available for questions.
Ms. Petersson referred to the development's distance from an existing fire station and asked
what is planned to ensure public safety. She mentioned pending State legislation, which would
require sprinkler systems in residences that are a certain distance from a fire station.
Mr. Masterpole explained that the 41" Street fire station would serve this area, and the
applicants will be working with the Water Department to have adequate pressure for hydrants.
He stated he was not aware of legislation regarding sprinkling requirements.
Pal
Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Dace: February 23. 2000
Ms. Petersson asked about schools for this area.
Mr. Masterpole doesn't know what the plans are for schools, but he did read an article that
showed the need is there for a school on the other side of Highway 52.
Mr. Svenby explained that the School District owns some land on the east side of Highway 52,
and they receive notice of all applications the Planning Department receives, although the
Department usually receives no comments from them.
Ms. Petersson mentioned a ground water study that Terry Lee had referred to that deals with
recharge to our water supply. She stated she is very nervous about approving any type of
development in an area that is potentially very sensitive. She commented that a calcareous fen
is rare and can be the home to up to six endangered plan species, which cannot be replaced.
She noted that in a fen, the water comes from below and the recharge area could be miles
away. Ms. Petersson pointed out that a development that uses fertilizer could have an adverse
impact on a calcareous fen, and she feels they need to be very aware of the possible impacts.
Mr. Masterpole stated it is unlikely there are rare plants because the land has been farmed and
pesticides have been used. He noted that we won't know if it is a fen for a couple more weeks,
but it will have an impact on the surrounding area if it is, and the DNR is working on it currently.
Mr. Quinn pointed out that a letter from the DNR states that the entire development doesn't
need to be delayed until a determination is made, and he noted there is a condition that
addresses the issue if it does turn out to be a calcareous fen.
Mr. Masterpole commented that the ONR doesn't look at the fact that the land has been farmed
or had pesticides used on it when they make the determination.
Ms. Petersson stated that it can be restored to its natural state if it is a calcareous fen.
Mr. Masterpole explained that if it is a fen, they will have to do a Fen Management Plan, which
is quite detailed.
Ms. Petersson asked why there are so many conditions on this development.
Mr. Svenby explained that they are conditions that were needed.
Neil Busacker, 5521 651" Street NW, addressed the Commission. He stated he received
notification of the other meetings for developments in the area, but wasn't notified of the
neighborhood meeting and is concerned. He is also concerned about the traffic that will be
generated by the new developments. He suggested a recommendation to Kalmar and
Cascade Townships that they upgrade some of the other roads that could be used to access
these developments.
Gregory Kerwin, 6405 50"' Avenue NW, readdressed the Commission. He asked if he could be
annexed into the City and asked where he could go with questions about the roadway being
reconstructed.
Page 4
City Planning and Zotune Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 23, 2000
aa3 '
Mr. Svenby explained that Public Works is still looking at the roadway design, but that questions
could be addressed to either Mike Nigbur or Mark Baker at the City Public Works Department.
He told Mr. Kerwin that if he wishes to have his property annexed into the City, he could discuss
this with the Planning Department. Mr. Svenby noted the property will be designated for low -
density residential development on the Land Use Plan.
Lori Maidl, 6222 50u'Avenue NW, addressed the Commission. She lives adjacent to the
Graves property that will be developed across 50'" Avenue from the Ripley GDP, and she would
like the road that will cross 50'h Avenue to connect the Graves and Ripley properties to be
moved to the south because the road would be only 27 feet from the front of her house.
Mr. Quinn pointed out that roadway would be on her property, so if she doesn't agree to it, the
roadway cannot be constructed.
Ms. Maid[ expressed concerns about annexation and the costs that would be involved in owning
12 acres in the City. She stated she would be more comfortable with the road being further
from the house. Ms. Maids also is concerned about the traffic on 50`" Avenue NW.
Mr. Svenby explained that there is a condition placed on each of the developments along the
50`" Avenue NW corridor that allows a 3000-trips-per-day threshold (total trips generated from
all developments) before development has to stop until the roadway is upgraded.
Ms. Maid] stated she is concerned about the volume and type of traffic.
Ms. Petersson asked where the traffic will go during the road upgrade construction.
Mr. Svenby stated the road will still be open to traffic during the upgrade.
Ms. Petersson asked if the Commission can make a recommendation to the Council that they
really move the upgrade along.
Mr. Svenby stated that can be included in the recommendation. He explained that the City is
currently exploring funding sources. He noted that the location of the road Ms. Maidl referred to
as being too close to her home was determined by Public Works and Planning based on the
spacing requirements. He did not think the spacing requirements would allow the road being
moved to the south.
Ms. Maid[ stated she was told that the reason the road on the graves property road was located
as such was because the road on the Ripley property was directly across 50'" Avenue.
Mr. Svenby explained that the accesses to the entire 501' Avenue corridor were determined by
spacing requirements.
Ms. Maidl commented that she still has a hard time with the fact that this doesn't take into
consideration the distance the road will be from her house.
Mr. Sulk explained that she will have to reach an agreement with the developer before that road
can be constructed, and if an agreement is not reached, there will be no road.
Wqa e 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 23, 2000
Mr. Burke noted it could be a T-intersection.
Ms. Maid[ stated she has been told the road could be moved to the south.
Mr. Masterpole noted he has tried to talk with Charlie Reiter of the Transportation Division
about whether they could be flexible and possibly move the road 10' to the south. He hasn't yet
been able to connect with Mr. Reiter to discuss it.
Mr. Suk ask that he discuss this and address it before the GDP goes to the Council.
Mr. Kerwin readdressed the Commission and stated he is concerned that his two driveways on
50`h Avenue will not meet the spacing requirements.
Mr. Svenby explained that Public Works issues driveway access permits, but if they are existing
driveways, he thinks they will be allowed to remain.
Patt Kerwin, 6405 50'h Avenue NW, addressed the Commission. She states she has animals,
including horses, and she will be surrounded by the City. She asked if she has to sell her
animals.
Mr. Suk told her she will not have to sell her animals or move, but sooner or later she will be
surrounded by the City limits.
Ms. Kerwin stated the animals would have to go through an awful lot with all the construction,
and she would just be stuck.
Bill Oswald, 5718 Lancaster Place NW, representing the Northwest Neighbors Association,
addressed the Commission. He stated they feel a 9 acre park would be best. He asked that
the Commission recommend the upgrades to 501" Avenue be initiated soon. He asked about
schools and how they would check into the adequacy of school space for the new
developments.
Ms. Petersson suggested he contact the School Board.
With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Mr. Svenby pointed out that the neighborhood meeting was not a requirement, but was held
voluntarily by the developer.
Mr. Werven asked for clarification on the size of the park.
Mr. Svenby explained that after Denny Stolz reviewed the revised layout of the GDP, he
recommended parkland dedication of approximately 9 acres, including 6 acres of land and 3
acres cash in lieu of land. The 6 acre park ties in with the park on the Weatherstone
development.
Mr. Suk commented that the applicant is agreeable to the conditions and it appears there is a
strong feeling that a recommendation ought to be made to the City Council that the 50`" Avenue
NW upgrade be expedited.
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning, Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 23, 2000
aas'
Mr. Burke moved to approve General Development Plan #144, to be known as the Ripley
Property, with staff -suggested findings and conditions. Ms. McGowan seconded the
motion.
Ms. Petersson stated she will vote against this because of the possible calcareous fen area.
and she feels they should wait for the DNR findings.
Mr. Suk asked whether she feels condition number 7 would address her concern.
Ms. Petersson answered no.
Mr. Slaver commented that he is concerned that the development in that area is outpacing the
infrastructure and may cause public safety problems. He noted that the City is struggling to find
funding for things that need upgrading.
Mr. Burke asked Mr. Svenby to explained what the time frame for the 50a' Avenue upgrade
would be once it is formally approved.
Mr. Svenby deferred the question to Mr. Baker.
Mark Baker explained that he hasn't heard a time line, but it is one of the highest priority areas
for the City at this time. He stated that when the upgrade would begin and how much of Win
Avenue NW would be included have not yet been determined, but the area from 55t" Street to
65'" Street NW is the highest priority.
Mr. Burke asked if it could be as long as two or three years before the upgrading is complete.
Mr. Baker stated that is possible.
Mr. Svenby pointed out that the current design of 50th Avenue can accommodate 3000 trips per
day.
Ms. Petersson commented that she would like to see Terry Lee's ground water studies before
more development is initiated in this area.
The motion carried 4-3, with Mr. Werven, Mr. Slaver, and Ms. Petersson voting nay.
Conditions:
1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Any ponds
serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private and a declaration for long
term private maintenance and ownership will be required, as well as, easements to
the City to allow maintenance and repairs. All facilities must be constructed
concurrent with development.
2. When platted, controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 5e
Avenue NW and 6e Street NW, except for the street accesses that are approved on
i
aee
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 23.. 1-000
the GDP. In addition, 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for both 50'h Avenue
NW and 65'h Street NW.
3. Right andlor left turn lanes will be required for all entrances along 501h Avenue NW
and 65'h Street NW.
d. The development must be phased so that 50'h Avenue NW, north of 55" Street NW,
does not exceed approximately 3,000 average daily trips before it is upgraded. A
contribution will be required for the reconstruction of Se Ave. NW and 65'h St. NW.
The City is currently considering a Traffic improvement District in this area for
improving 500' Ave. NW and 65'h St. NW and establishing the developers proportional
share of the cost.
5. The northerly most roadway connection to 50`h Avenue is shown to straddle two
properties. When this is platted, partial dedication of the right-of-way will not be
acceptable. The plat will either need to be signed by multiple property owners or the
roadway will need to be shifted entirely on the Ripley property.
6. 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, including contribution obligations toward
traffic improvements in the area attributable to the development.
7. A Wetland Replacement Plan will be required for any wetland filling. The land
upstream from wetland A must not be platted until the MN DNR has determined if the
wetland is a calcareous fen. If it is a calcareous fen, the GDP will need to be revised
to accommodate a calcareous fen management plan if needed.
8. The roadway connection to the northeast corner serving the two properties and
adjacent roadway will need to be coordinated with staff and the developer to provide
access through the best intersection geometrics at a future design stage utilizing
review of site lines, grade of approaches, and sound engineering practices as the
criteria.
9. At the time of platting, easements shall be provided for all needed of( -site public
utilities, including easements for the public street shown connecting to 501" Ave. NW
at the far southeast corner of the development
10. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met through a combination of land and
cash.
11. The property shall be investigated for the possibility of flood plain soils. High water
elevations will need to be addressed at the time grading and drainage plans are
developed.
1Z A revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department reflecting all required
modifications, including identifying pedestrians facilities along the west side of 50'"
Page 8
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 23. 2000
00"
Avenue NW and the south side of 65`" Street NW, and the proposed phasing of the
development.
13. Staff may recommend additional conditions when the GDP is heard at the Council.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Ms. Petersson moved to coxInue Preliminary Ift #00-01, to be known as Northern
Heights East Commercial Pa o the March 2 2000 meeting. Mr. Quinn seconded the
motion, which carried T-0.
District.
Mr. Svenby presented the staff report,
report is on file at the Rochester-Olms
Mr. Svenby explained the location
1 x. He pointed out that the apprm
townhomes or condos. Mr. Svenb
and the applicant has petitioned to
that the applicant would like to dev
use in the R-1 district prior to':'
district and the R-Ix district was
criteria and noted that staff reco
Ms. Petersson left the room at
Representing the applicant,
Commission and made him
With no one wishing to
18, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
Planning
Fnoted this is a reqVst to change the zoning district to R-
: entury Hills GDP ws this area for low -density
ated that a portion of9 is property is within the City limits
iex the remainder oft land to the east. He explained
the property with town% roes, which were a permitted
1998 when townhomes %reremoved from the R-1
ad. He referred to the stuggested findings to the
ds approval based on thos endings.
time.
Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates,
tilable for questions.
the Commission, Mr. Suk closed
the
hearing.
Ms. McGowan moved to a&rove Zoning District Amendment #00-02, he Payne
Company, based on staff ggested findings. Mr. Staver seconded th otion, which
carried 6-0.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AQCNU/i Or- 1 1UN:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ING DEPT:
PLANNING
MEETING as
DATE 3-20-00
ITEM NO.
f.- B 0
EM DESCRIPTION: Revised Final Plat #99-49 to be known as Orchard Ridge First PREPARED BY:
Addition Mitzi A. Baker,
March 16, 2000
Council Action Needed:
9. The Council may adopt a resolution approving the plat subject to conditions and
modifications.
Attachment:
Staff Report dated March 16, 20000
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Attorney
3, Planning Department File
4. Planning Department, GIS Division
5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday March 20, 2000, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
6. GGG Engineering
COUNCIL ACTION: Moron
Second by:
ORCHARD RIDGE FIRST ADDITION
UNKATTM (Revised Final Plat)
DEVIOUSLY APPROVED FINAL PLAT 0/°GEARD woss rrxsr ADDator+
d
Approved by City Council
October, 1999---
-------- ---------------------------------------- —--.----------------------------------..
_
i
aenl nta°J Me�� — "
y
r•------
otma'r • i,
�' '+ram _-»
9
e L
G�
,, rMA
0
12 `I
a � A to
24 n as z1
' ` 20
le le IJ to� 1s
e e
x e ' lII u la ----�__•'A�-•w
V le 191
Il 8 I
e I to p C
17 14 l6
le 9
`� le lop
R
m
m
it
. ouIILJ a
21 1t
e
a
it ZY
1
oUTIGJ a
i
20 to
° n
°
e °I to
e X
4 017
a
II
a z I I
15 14 a
2e 1
` --
n
121
-------- --_-_--__ $
la + Ie t1
l 1e
i
12 a ix I e # la ,� 1
a 14 ...
11.E M
e 9
t
II'' is
"IQ i l Y la ; 1 D6 14 to `y
U e '
S o e 16 a la 17
c. Itu
O i' 1
°
e, to I e..]' to 0 .J
aR• IW
4 t0 1 4 fl I 16
> e
a to
a to i, x
° ;
1 '
VOID
I r i .. 12
4
i�1 '--..—
1
a _ __tea•____
�h
III
°tlnne =
9 *
Qe£& na {��7
II
a
� I 1 II 9 • a e v ° a 10
V
3.3�
e ',
'•q-
r
,y1lSZ.T
/e�. rrr
�—JNJR a 0/ S
z =i Ci
A3aT
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner
DATE: March 16, 2000
µOC It ESTER.
.Jt,.. SFr
7ED.AGGUSLA•P
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN
55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/
5071285.8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGIHRA
507/285.8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
wELUSEPTIC
507/285-8345
FAX
507/287.2275
RE: REVISED Final Plat #99.20 to be known Orchard Ridge First
Addition.
Planninq Department Review:
ApplicanUOwner: K & P Properties, dba Orchard Ridge
601 360 St. SW
Rochester, MN 55902
SurveyorslEngineers: GGG Engineering
241 N. Winona St.
Chatfield, MN 55923
Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Department of Public Works
2. Rochester Park & Rec. Dept.
3. John Hanford, Wetlands LGU
Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 Letters)
2. Location Map
3. Copy of Final Plat
4. Copy of Preliminary Plat
Plat Data:
Location of Property: The area includes approximately 73 acres of land
located west of TH 52, south of 65'" St. NW and north
of 55t° St. Estates Subdivision.
Zoning: The property was annexed in 1998 and is zoned R-1
(Mixed Single Family).
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Orchard Ridge First Addition
March 16, 2000
Proposed Development: The City Council previously approved a Final Plat for
this property in October 1999. The Plat previously
approved for this property consisted of the same land
area (73,24 acres) but platted 212 single family lots
and 3 Outlots. The applicant has determined that it is
to his advantage to only plat 100 of the single family
lots at this time. All of the roadways within this
development will be platted with this final plat,
however. In addition to the roadways and 100 single
family lots, this Plat includes 10 Outlots. Outlots B
and C will not be developed in the future, Outlot B
includes Wetlands and Outlot C will be used for
drainage and stormwater management. The other
Outlots will need to be re -platted in the future in order
to subdivide them into single family lots.
Roadways: The plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for
fourteen (14) new roadways, including four cul-de-
sacs. The proposed roadway names are: Freedom
Dr. NW, Freedom Lane NW (cul-de-sac), McIntosh
Drive NW, Winesap Drive NW, Jonathon Drive NW,
Jonathon Lane NW (cul-de-sac), Gala Lane NW (cul-
de-sac), Hillsboro Drive NW (extension of existing
rd.), Branch Lane NW (cul-de-sac), Branch Ave. NW,
Blossom St. NW, Jonafree St. NW, and 390 Ave. NW.
Sidewalks:
The right-of-way and roadway widths appear
consistent with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual.
In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along both sides of all of the new streets in
the subdivision.
Drainage: The property generally drains to the southeast. The
development proposes storm sewer collection pipes
that would transfer runoff to a stormwater detention
pond located in the southern corner of the property.
In addition, a natural drainage corridor running
diagonally through the property will be maintained to
convey stone water to the sotrmwater detention pond.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The National Wetland Indicator Map was
reviewed for this area and Wetlands or hydric soils
were identified on the site. A wetland delineation has
been filed with the LGU. An exemption has also been
approved for this Plat.
Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer will be extended from the Calvary
Baptist Church site to the southeast. Watermain will
be extended from the water tower, west of the Plat.
11
a33
a 3� Page 3
1 Orchard Ridge First Addition
March 16, 2000
Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this
development would be approximately 120 parking
spaces. The proposed roadways should be adequate
to accommodate the required spillover spaces.
Parkland Dedication: The Park and Recreation Department recommends
that dedication requirements be met via a
combination of cash and land.
General Development Plan
Preliminary Plat:
This property is included within the Orchard Ridge
General Development Plan which was approved by
the City Council on March 1, 1999.
A preliminary plat was submitted and previously approved by the Council , in July 1999 with
conditions as listed below:
1. The applicant agree to meet parkland dedication requirements through a combination of cash
and land, as identified in a memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department dated
May 17, 1999.
2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. Any pond serving less
than 50 developable acres is considered private and must have a home owners association to
control the ownership and maintenance. The Storm Water Facility in this Plat shall be
constructed concurrent with the development of the subdivisions and shall be platted as an
Outlot. If the facility meets the City's requirements, the pond and conveyance area (Outlets 8
& C) be dedicated to the City. If the facilities remain private, drainage easements must be
provided over the Outlots.
3. Easements for off -site facilities must be provided.
4. Traffic from the proposed development taking access through Northpark roadways shall be
limited to 100 homes until a roadway is extended to 551" Street providing a second
ingress/egress for the previously platted and developed portions of the subdivision. Phasing
and timing of this development including roadway connections will be reviewed further at the
time final plats are proposed.
5. Additional right-of-way dedication for 6e Street within this preliminary plat shall be dedicated
upon platting of the adjacent land or at the request of the City for a road improvement project.
6. Temporary tum-a-rounds must be provided where needed, these locations will be identified at
the time of final plat.
7_ Construction vehicles shall use only 6e Street for access to the development.
6. The Applicant must receive approval from Cascade Township to temporarily close 6e Street
NW, east of the proposed subdivision access to 6e Street, or by some other method
acceptable to the City and the Township, restrict the use (by future owners of property within
the Orchard Ridge subdivision) for that portion of 650 Street NW, between the subdivision
access to 650 St. NW, and T.H. 52, until such time as Hillsborough Drive NW, and sewer
service is extended by the adjacent property owner from Villa Road to the Orchard Ridge Plat
Page 4 a35
Orchard Ridge First Addition
March 16, 2000
or until MnDOT permanently addresses the at -grade intersection access issues at T.H. 52
and 651° Street NW.
9. The Applicant may not petition the City for an extension of Hillsborough Drive NW, as a city
project any sooner than two years from the date of the approval of the preliminary plat for the
Orchard Ridge Subdivision.
Council Action on Previously Approved Final Plat:
On October 4, 1999 the City Council approved a Final Plat for this property that included 73.24
acres of land, 212 single family lots and two Outlots with the following conditions or modifications:
1. Roadway names be modified as specified by the Planning Department Addressing Staff in a
memo dated September 23, 1999.
2. Controlled access shall be provided extending south from 650 St. NW, along the east side of
Freedom Drive NW approximately 100 feet.
3. The applicant agree to meet parkland dedication requirements by a combination of land and
cash dedication as specified by the Rochester Park and Recreation Department dated
September 9, 1999.
4. Storm water management must be provided for this development. The storm water facility
shall be constructed concurrent with the development of the subdivisions and shall be platted
as an outlot(s). The necessary legal documentation must be provided to convey the storm
water facility to the City.
5. Easements for off site facilities must be provided which shall include utility as well as
temporary turn -a -round easements as required by Rochester Public Works.
6. If cost sharing is required by MnDOT of the City for construction of a free flow right turn lane
and/or acceleration land for eastbound to southbound traffic entering T.H. 52, the developer
shall be responsible for a proportionate share of the construction cost.
T The applicant shall provide a pedestrian system along 65`" St. NW.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
The Final Plat approved by the Council in October 1999 has not been recorded. The
applicant has revised this Plat to subdivide only 100 single family lots with the other
blocks platted as Out/ots. Those blocks will need to be re -platted in the future to
subdivide for single family development.
Staff has reviewed this revised Final Plat for Orchard Ridge First Addition dated March 2,
2000 and recommends the following conditions or modiffcatlons:
1. The Plat shall be revised to provide controlled access extending south from 65t° St.
NW, along the east side of Freedom Drive NW approximately 150 feet.
i
a Page 5
Orchard Ridge First Addition
March 16, 2000
2. The applicant agree to meet parkland dedication requirements by a combination of
land and cash dedication as specified by the Rochester Park and Recreation
Department dated September 9, 1999.
3. Storm water management must be provided for this development. The storm water
facility shall be constructed concurrent with the development. if the facility meets the
City's requirements, Outlot C and the conveyance area, Outlot B should be dedicated
to the City. If the facilities remain private a long-term maintenance and ownership
agreement prepared by the City must be executed, and a drainage easement over
Outlots B and C must be conveyed.
a. Easements for off site facilities must be provided which shall include utility as well as
temporary turn -a -round easements as required by Rochester Public Works.
5. if cost sharing is required by MnDOT of the City for construction of a free flow right
turn lane and/or acceleration lane for eastbound to southbound traffic entering T.H. 52,
the developer shall be responsible for a proportionate share of the construction cost.
6. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian system along 650 St. NW.
7. The 6r St. NW right-of-way shall be dedicated upon filing of the Final Plat, or at the
request of the City for a road improvement project, if a project precedes recording the
final plat documents.
8. Temporary turn -a -rounds must be provided, with associated easements, at the
easterly end of McIntosh Dr. NW, the easterly and westerly ends of Winesap Dr. NW,
and Blossom St. NW adjacent to Lot 1, Block S. Additional temporary turn -a -rounds
may be required for future phases of this development
9. The City is currently considering a Traffic Improvement District (TID) for this area. If a
TID is adopted, development of this property may be subject to a Substandard Street
Capacity Charge contribution requirement for 6e St NW, in addition to the standard
Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge.
10. The developer is responsible for Traffic Capacity improvements to 65t° St. NW,
including left and right turn lanes.
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
3,15 00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
a3?
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 41h Street SE Rcom 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 #9920 on
the Orchard Ridge First Addition property. The following are Public Works comments on this
proposal:
1. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. A stormwater
detention pond is proposed on Outlot 'C' to serve this development.
2. The Storm Water Facility shall be constructed concurrent with the development of
the initial phase of this development. If the facility meets the City's requirements,
Outlot 'C' and the conveyance area, Outlot `B' should be dedicated to the City. If
the facilities remain private a long-term maintenance and ownership agreement
prepared by the City must be executed, and a drainage easement over Outlots `B' &
'C' must be conveyed.
3. Easements for off site facilities needed to serve the development must be provided
by the Developer.
4. Development of this subdivision, and future re -plats of the Outlots, is limited to a
total of 120 lots until a second access is provided.
5. The 65w Street right of way shall be dedicated upon filing of the Final Plat, or at the
request of the City for a road improvement project, if a project precedes recording of
the plat.
6. Controlled access shall be provided along 65 s Street and 150 feet south of the 65"
Street right of way line along both the west & east sides of Freedom Drive NW.
7. Pedestrian facilities must be provided along both sides of all new public roadways
and along the South side of 65"St NW
8. Temporary turn-arounds must be provided, with associated easements, at the easterly
end of McIntosh Dr NW, the easterly and westerly ends of Winesap Dr NW, and
Blossom St NW adjacent to Lot 1, Block 8. Additional temporary turn-arounds may
be required for future phases of this development.
I
C:\TEMP\FP#99-20. doc
A39
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
1/15100
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
9. 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 plat.
10. 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.
11. The City is currently considering a Traffic Improvement District for this area. If a
TID is adopted, development of this property may be subject to a Substandard Street
Capacity Charge contribution requirement for 65`h St NW, in addition to the standard
Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge.
12. This development will require Traffic Capacity Improvements to 651s St including
left and right turn lanes.
13. The applicant shall design and construct, to MnDOT standards, improvements to
T.H. 52. as required by the traffic analysis prepared by the ROCOG Senior
Transportation Planner.
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.
Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division.
Contribution for Sub -standard Street for the entire frontage of 650 St NW @
$30.00 per foot of frontage on 65t6 Street, plus a Capacity Contribution for
the Traffic Improvement District.
C `,TEMP\FP#99.20.00c
81Recrea�'0o
Park and Recreation Department
City of Rochester
a-Zq
201 Fourth Street SE • Room 150 • Rochester, Mrl 55904
(507) 281.6160 • FAX (507) 281-6165
March 8, 2000
To: Suzanne LaPalm
Consolidated Planning
From: Rochester Paris and Recreation
RE: Replat Orchid Ridge 1"
Final Plat #99-20
Acreage......................................................................... 73.42 acres
Number of Dwelling Units ............................................ 212 lots
Dwelling Unit Density ................................................... 2.93 units/acre
DensityFactor............................................................ .10
DedicationRequirement .............................................. 7.34 acres
Fair Market Value of Land ........................................... a11,000 / acre
The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication
requirement for the plat be satisfied by: A combination of land dedication and cash in lieu of
land.
The land dedication to be in the form of at least 5.72 acres of deferred land dedication.
The land to be dedicated is to be located generally east of Qutlot C and is to be dedicated
at such time as the property is accessed via street or the Park Department wishes to begin
development of the property. The land to be dedicated will be graded to meet dedication
requirements and will not include any of the designated wetlands located east of Outlot C.
The balance of the dedication (estimated to be 1.62 acres) to be in the form of cash in lieu
of land due within one year of approval of the original plat.
If the replatting of the 10 outlots at a later date creates dwelling units in excess of the
originally proposed 212 units, additional parkland dedication may be required.
ApplMMIt
K & P Pmgwfifa
W7 3e Strad SW
Ev
Application Number.
014e416L. Zt
No hydric soils exist on the site based on a Soil Survey
Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil 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.
14,`� Other qq FYni.,., #;,.
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t3-q( /
DATE 3-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLA\I RIVING
�q
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #00-04 to be known as Orchard Hills North
PREPARED BY:
Subdivision
Mitzi A. Baker,
March 10, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission considered this preliminary plat at a public hearing on February 23, 2000.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of Preliminary Plat #00-03, subject to the following modifications
and conditions. Motion carried 7-0.
1. Storm water management must be provided for this development The storm sewer outlet at the west property
line will need to be reviewed further along with detailed grading and drainage plans.
j2. The Plat shall be revised change the roadway name to "Fox Chase Road Sw"
3. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash payment in lieu of land consistent with the
attached memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department dated February 1, 2000.
4. The preliminary plat profits sheets do not include sidewalk. Consistent with adopted codes and policies,
sidewalk will be required along both sides of Fox Chase Road SW.
5. A temporary turn around shall be provided at the easterly end of Fox Chase Dr. SW, untft the road is extended as
shown on the GDP, and Gates Drive SW Is vacated.
6. Fire hydrants shall be relocated to be within the right-of-way, as specified by the Rochester Fire Department.
7. Relocation of any existing utilities shall be done at the developers expense.
Council Action Needed.
1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision
permit The Council must make findings of fact as a basis for the decision.
COUNCILACTION: Motion by. Second by. ro:
` 7-c>.
4
0
P
►J
ouaa
v4a�
i
z�
o
w
c
1
,
1
N
�r 0
4
rp
N
V
i
O
k
NW
Y7yy llsgu 77IH p�^�
NN7d ZN3Wd073A3Q 76'?I.7N30 yp
9ON120A -JXIW
i
.1
g
N
1Vld
V10S3NNIW 'Mus3H3ov
HiSON SIIIH CINVHDNO
IN
l ;19 gg
1 a
0 n �
_ � L
�5�
� t
n�
c
m
JAI
me .ZG.6E65£
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: February 17; 2000
RpCHES T£R. yrr •,/
r
OR,T£D•A UGUSS•' a••
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
5071285.8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/
507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
507/285.8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WSLUSEFMC
507/285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
RE: Type III Phase 11 Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00.04
by Michael Younge to be known as Orchard Hills North
Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 12.45
acres of land into 8 lots for single family development. The Plat
also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for one new public road.
The property is located north of Fox Chase Road SW, west of
Gates Drive SW,
Planning Department Review:
ApplicantlOwner:
Surveyors/Engineers:
Referral Comments:
Mike Younge Development
1765 SW Greenview Drive
Rochester, MN 55902
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
1. Rochester Department of Public Works
2- Rochester Park & Rec. Dept.
3. RPU Water Division
4. RPU Power Division
5. Rochester Fire Department
6. Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Referral Comments (6 Letters)
3. Copy of Orchard Hills General Development Plan
4. Copy of Preliminary Plat
Development Review:
Location of Property: This plat is located north of Foxcroft North Second
subdivision, west of 23t° Ave. SW and east of the
�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNT'/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
i
0/ _ Page 2
February 17, 2000
Rochester Golf and Country Club.
Zoning:
The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family)
district.
Proposed Development:
This development consists of 12.45 acres to be
subdivided into 8 lots for single family residential
development. There is an existing home located on
Lot 3, Block 1.
Streets:
The plat dedicates proposes to dedicate the right-of-
way for one public roadway, which is an extension of
Fox Chase Road SW.
Utilities:
Utilities are available to serve the subdivision within
the existing Fox Chase Road ROW. Some utilities
already existing within the properly.
Sidewalks:
In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along the roadway being dedicated in this
plat.
Drainage:
Elevations on the property range from approximately
1180' in the northeast to 1120' in the southwest
portion of the Plat. The property generally drains to
the southwest. The plat proposes to capture
stormwater and outlet it at the west property line.
This proposed outlet and detailed grading and
drainage plans will need to be reviewed further.
Wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be
reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils.
There do not appear to be hydric soils within this plat.
Spillover Parking:
The spillover parking requirements for this
development would be 10 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:
This property is included within a General
Development Plan that was approved in 1995. The
roadway alignments and lots are generally consistent
with the approved GDP.
Page 3
February 17, 2000
Staff Review and Recommendation:
Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be made 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 LDM
Sections 61.225 (effective 51151199). The staff recommends that the following modifications or
conditions be imposed on this preliminary plat in order to insure that the above -mentioned criteria
are met:
1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. The storm sewer
outlet at the west property line will need to be reviewed further along with detailed
grading and drainage plans.
2_ The Plat shall be revised change the roadway name to "Fox Chase Road Sr'.
3.. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash payment in lieu of
land consistent with the attached memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation
Department dated February 1, 2000.
4. The preliminary plat proflle sheets do not include sidewalk. Consistent with adopted
codes and policies, sidewalk will be required along both sides of Fox Chase Road SE_
5. A temporary turn around shall be provided at the easterly end of Fox Chase Dr. SW,
until the road is extended as shown on the GDP, and Gates Drive SW is vacated.
6. Fire hydrants shall be relocated to be within the right-of-way, as speciffed by the
Rochester Fire Department.
7. Relocation of any existing utilities shall be done at the developers expense.
REMINDER TO APPLICANT'•
• Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract
for construction of the public roadways and utilities.
• This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May fS,
1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed
Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the final plat application if the
applicant Intends to record the final plat documents prior to completion of
infrastructure improvements.
(I
V' 1 Page 4
February 17, 2000
CRITERIA POR LAND SUBDIVISION PERMIT (PRELfMINARY PLAT)
Effective May 15, 1999
61.225 Findings for Land Subdivision:
The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing
a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are
made:
A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and
variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance.
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 sail 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.
0. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans
and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service
standards in Section 61.526.
E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and
emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each
lot for planned uses.
F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -
Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the
subdivision.
G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, -addresses the need for
spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426.
H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are -provided for the
purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the
development
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;
M. That the sous, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all
lots are developable for their designated purposes.
Page 5
February 17, 2000
N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City s adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
O. That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and
Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that
the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil
and rock formations with severe limitations 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.
M-O
r
r
park 8
�eL'e8'Id0
DATE: February 1, 2000
ROCHESTER PARK AND R :REATION DEPARTMENT-
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
Planning
RE: Orchard Hills North
Preliminary Plat #00-04
Number of dwelling units ............................................. 8 units
Density factor............................................................ .0244
Dedication............................................................... .20 acres
Fair market value of land ............................................. $25,000/acre
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Cash in lieu of land
ApplkaM:
Mke Ytwrga
1765 Grewmew Od" SW
�\City_of_rochester\cityhall\PARK\➢STOT2\2000\1)EDICATION\SW 2897\0RCHAR0 HILLS NORTH.DOC
ROCHESTEk
Minnesota
2/10/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2-122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 40 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
Preliminary Plat 00-04 on Orchard Hills North Subdivision (Michael Youncle)
property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. Storm Water Management needs to be addressed for this
development.
2. A grading plan must be submitted and approved.
3. 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.
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, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for
public infrastructure.
5. Pedestrian facilities shall be located along both sides of the public
road, and constructed concurrent with this development.
6. A temporary turnaround is needed at the easterly extent of the
proposed Fox Chase Or SW, until the road is extended as shown on
the GDP, and Gates Dr SW is vacated.
Charges & fees for the following are applicable for the development of this
property:
❖ Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per developable_
acre.
❖ Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1605.50 per developable
acre
•:• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic
Division.
❖ Stormwater Management Fee @ $1983.50 per acre (base
residential rate)
CATEM"P#00-04.doc
i
Ne pledge, we de4ref
February 2, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-04 by Michael Younge to be known as
Orchard Hills North Subdivision.
Dear Ms. LaPalm:
Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our continents 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. For maintenance purposes typically water mains for this type of development are located
within the street pavement. To allow the existing water main to remain in the yard areas as
shown; trees, retaining walls and other permanent landscaping must not be placed within 10'
of the main.
3. The Fire Prevention Bureau will need to approve the 2 fire hydrants located farther away
than typical from the street pavement.
4. We have provided the applicant's engineering firm with other comments on the proposed
water system layout.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
R
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates
Mike Younge
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
G crryROCHESTER
_.
y9
7 �/� �A�rt lLAC GGSt•a•.
✓//GG/Z�LE,I4LCL
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
DATE: February 10, 2000 FAX #(507) 285-8256
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning
FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
SUBJECT: Type III, Phase 11 Land Subdivision Preliminary Plat #00-04, Orchard Hills
North, located north of Fox Chase Dr SW and west of Gates Dr. SW.
This project is within the 4 minute fire response standard and is adding 8 residential
home lots on 12.45 acres, to the fire protection area of the Rochester Fire Department.
With that regard the fire code 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.
X' The two existing hydrants shown appear to be outside of the right -away must be
relocated to within 10 feet of the roadway. All hydrants shall be in place prior to
commencing building construction.
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.
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 3r° Avenue SE, Rochester, Mn. 55904
Mike Younge, 1785 Greenview Dr. SW, Rochester, Mn. 55902
a1;4r
rpu
:ue nfedye, we'ler'wer
507/280-1579
February 2, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
SUBJECT: Type III Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-04 by Michael
Younge to be known as Orchard Hills North Subdivision. The Plat proposes to
subdivide approximately 12.45 acres of land into 8 lots for single family
development. The Plat also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for one new public
road. The property is located north of Fox Case Road SW, west of Gates Drive
SW.
RPU has electric facilities in place to serve the Mike Younge residence. If any of these facilities
need to be relocated, it will have to be done at the expense of the developer.
Sincerely,
V---
Michael J. Engle
ks
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906.2813
telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542
PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE
DATE: 2-10-00
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff
CC:
RE: ORCHARD HILLS NORTH
A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following address related issues:
Illustrated CHASE DRIVE is a continuation of FOX CHASE ROAD SW as platted in Foxcroft
North Third.
RECOMMENDATION: Change CHASE DRIVE to FOX CHASE ROAD SW.
P' �,e 12
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 23, 2000
Mr. Burke made a motion to approve Preliminary Plat #00.03, Sith staff -suggested
findings and ditions. Ms. Petersson seconZthemot'whichcarried 7.0.
Conditions:
1. Outlot A shallbesed to be a minimum th and shall include a trail
or sidewalk to be co cted by the applic
2. Any necessary easement tside lbprovided
lot that maybe needed for utilities,
drainage, or temporary turn- and prior to or concurrent with final plat
recording.
I The applicant shall enter into a v ment agreement with the City that outlines the
obligations of the appticant r ling t ut not limited to, stormwater management,
park dedication, traIsshall
impements, p estrian facilities, right-of-way dedication,
infrastructure imprand contrib . ns for public infrastructure.
4. The cul-de-sac on 'ane NE" shall b igned "No Parking — Fire Lane" since
the diameter is not o provide the nee !um -around radius with parking
or the cut -de -sac rae increased to ali for both parking and the needed
turn -around radius.
5. Additional hydre(s) be provided as required by the kDepartment and RPU Water
division.
6. Parkland dedi/ation for this plat shall be met via a reducti'nexisting dedication
credits 2.631cres from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres wh the Century High
School site as nurchasad_
Type III Phase 11 Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-04 by Michael Younge to
be Known as Orchard Hills North Subdivision The Plat proposes to subdivide
approximately 12.45 acres of land into 8 lots for single family development The Plat
also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for one new public road The property is located
north of Fox Chase Road SW west of Gates Drive SW.
Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated February 17, 2000, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby explained the property location and noted there is a GDP that was approved for the
property in 1995. He stated the plat consists of 12.45 acres to be divided into 8 lots for single
family residential development. He pointed out that a home already exists on lot 3. Mr. Svenby
referred to the criteria and staff -suggested findings, noting approval is recommended with the
seven conditions listed in the report.
Ms. Petersson noted that conditions 2 and 4 stated "Fox Chase Road SE,- which should be
changed to "Fox Chase Road SW."
Mr. Slaver asked if Fox Chase Road will terminate in a cul-de-sac or extend to Gates Drive.
Page 13
C4 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 23, 2000
eN
asp
Mr. Svenby explained that it will eventually end in a cul-de-sac, which he pointed out on the
map. He also referred to a lot that Mr. Younge doesn't own and noted that in 1995, Mr. Younge
petitioned to vacate Gates Drive in that area, but the vacation will not be recorded until the area
is developed and the new right-of-way dedicated.
Representing the applicant, Wade Dumond of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the
Commission, and stated that in regard to the vacation of Gates Drive, it will become effective
when the road is platted to the area where the exception has access, He stated they are in
agreement with the conditions.
With no others wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve Preliminary Plat #00-04, to be known as
Orchard Hills North Subdivision, with staff -suggested findings and conditions. Mr.
Burke seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
Conditions:
I. Storm water management must be provided for this development The storm sewer
outlet at the west property line will need to be reviewed further along with detailed
grading and drainage plans.
2. The Plat shall be revised to change the roadway name to "Fox Chase Road SW'.
3. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash payment in lieu
of land consistent with the attached memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation
Department dated February 1, 2000.
4. The preliminary plat profile sheets do not include sidewalk. Consistent with adopted
codes and policies, sidewalk will be required along both sides of Fox Chase Road
SW
5. A temporary turn around shag be provided at the easterly end of Fox Chase Dr. SW,
until the road is extended as shown on the GDP, and Gates Drive SW is vacated.
6. Fire hydrants shalt be relocated to be within the right-of-way, as specified by the
Rochester F7re Department.
7. Relocation of any existing utilities shall be done at the
ANNEXATION:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION: CONTINUED
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Works
ra -/0
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Project Hearing: 'Reconstruct 7" Street NW from 46" Avenue
PREPARED BY:
NW west approximately 1250 feet' (J9594).
D. Nelson
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project No. 62074-00 J —9594
"Reconstruct 7"St NW from 46'" Avenue NW west approximately 1250 feet'
The estimated costs are:
Street Grading & paving $212,500
Curb & gutter 25,000
Storm sewer, subdrain 31,250
Sanitary sewer 26,400
Watermain 50,000
Sub -total $345,150
Engineering, Interest & Contingency 103,545
Total $448,695
This project has been requested by the developers of Diamond Ridge and Manorwood West. This
project is proposed to be funded with Developer Contribution, Utility Funds and Tax Levy.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution ordering the project to be made.
Attch: Feasibility Report
Budget & Assessment Schedule
Map
L.JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: ( to:_yG
If'
'7_0'
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY
OF
PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project No. 6207-4-00
J No. 9594
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing the following project :
'Reconstruct 7h Street NW from 46' Avenue NW west approximately 1250 feet'
Public Works prepared the Engineers Feasibility Report.
Feasibility Report
We report the project is technically feasible and recommend it be constructed contingent
on participation by the requesting developers. Property in the vicinity of this section of
7" St NW is being developed. Diamond Ridge development lies to the north and
Manorwoods West to the south. In addition, there are three properties that contain a
single-family dwellings with a combined 903 feet of street frontage along this section
that currently lie outside the corporate limits of the city.
The project would upgrade a narrow road with a poor pavement section in an area
where traffic volumes are increasing due to development. The Project as proposed
would involve the construction of a 36-foot wide urban bituminous street (concrete curb
& gutter and storm drainage) with a structural design thickness adequate for the existing
soils and projected traffic volumes. Construction would also include sanitary sewer and
watermain.
Sewer and water services will be stubbed to future parcels to the extent that the
locations can be determined. The three existing residential dwellings would be eligible
for connection consistent with the Water Quality Protection Program.
The estimated costs of the Project, made without completed plans or survey are as
follows:
Street grading & paving
$212,500
Conc. Curb & Gutter
25,000
Storm sewer, subdrain
31,250
Sanitary sewer
26,400
Watermain
50,000
Sub -total
$345,150
Engineering, Interest & Contingency
113,545
Total $448,695
The estimated revenues of the Project are as follows:
(1) Street Reconstruction:
a. City Share: 50% of street costs
Street
212,500
C&G
25,000
Storm & subdrain
31,250
Subtotal:
268,750
Engr, Cont, Int,
80,625
Total:
349,375
b. Street rate for developing properties:
X .50 = $174,687.50
$174,687.50 / 2515.80 ft (total front footage of project) = $69.44 per foot
Forbrook - Bigelow: $69.44 / ft X 745.02 ft = $51,734.19
Western Walls: $69.44 / ft X 867.16 ft = $60,215.59
Total: $111,949.78
c. Future substandard street charge:
903.62 ft X $30 = $27,108.60
(2) Water — watermain will run entire length of project. Developers to pay cost for their
frontages. Potential Water connection charges for remaining properties for the
remaining 903.62 ft could be realized in the future.
Forbrook-Bigelow: 745.02 ft X $201 ft = $14,900.40
Western Walls: 867.16 ft X $20/ft = $17,343.20
Total:
$32,243.60
(3) Sanitary Sewer -- Sewer will run from terminus MH near 46" Ave, 660 ft west to
Manorwoods West connector street. Developers to pay cost for their frontages:
Potential Sewer connection charges for remaining properties for the remaining
903.62 ft could be realized in the future.
Forbrook-Bigelow: 280 ft X $20 = $5,600
Western Walls: 360 ft X $20 = $7,200
Total: $12,800
a4;6-
(4) Revenue Summary:
Forbrook Bigelow: $51,734.19 + $14,900.40 + $5,600 = $72,234,19
Western Walls: $60,215.78 + $17,343.20 + $7,200 = $84,758.98
Total Developer Contribution: $156,993.17
City Street Share:
Total:
$174,687.50
$331,680.67
The Public Works Department reports that the project is feasible contingent on the
developers entering into contribution agreements for the costs outlined above.
If the Council wishes to proceed, the Developers of Diamond Ridge and Manorwoods
West are required to execute Contribution Agreements for the stated costs prior to the
City Council authorization to schedule a Project Hearing for March 20, 2000 for the
construction of this public improvement project.
Doug Nelson
Manager of Engineering
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6207-4-00
J No: 9594
Date: February 3,2000
Description: "Reconstruct Ph Street NW from 461" Avenue west approximately 1250 feet'
Construction
Street Grading & Paving
Curb & Gutter,
Storm Drainage & Subdrain system
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Engineering, Interest & Contingency
Total Construction & Expense
Distribution
Street Construction contribution (Developers)
San. Sewer & Watermain (Developers)
Potential Sewer / Water Connection Charges
City Share Street Costs
City Share Sewer & Water
TOTAL
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
Project Contract Final
Budget Cost Cost
212.500
$25,000
$31,250
$26,400
$50,000
$ 103 545
$448,695
$111 949.78
$45 043.60
$64 157.02
$174 687 50
$52 857 10
$448 695
FTT 11�1..�T'ii � l lii • : n:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING OL105
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT.
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Works
/
jr, • rl
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Project Hearing: 'Public Improvements to Sunset Ave, Rose
PREPARED BY:
Ave, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor"
J-9656
D. Nelson
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement
project:
"Public Improvements to Sunset Ave, Rose Ave, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor"
Project No. 8701-8-97, J-9656
The estimated costs for this project are:
I
Street
$126,600
Sanitary Sewer
137,712
Watermain
64,680
Storm sewer & Subdrain
172,098-
Service Connections
26,400
Engineering, Interest & Contingency
$158,247
TOTAL:
$659,337
Total Estimated Funding Distribution:
Special Assessments Frontage
$626,587
Tax Increment Financing
32,750
City Share
0
Total:
$659, 337
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution ordering the project to be made.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
l to:
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE
SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN AND
ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION
TO SERVE VACANT LANDS LYING IN ROSE
HARBOR
February 3,2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing the following project:
Sanitary Sewer, Waterrnain, and Roadway to serve vacant lands within Rose Harbor. A petition has been
filed with the City Clerk and approved by the City Council on January 3, 2000.
Feasibilitv Report
We report that this project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of this project is
within an area proposed for residential development. Development of the area has been very slow due to
number of different owners of land within the project area. This project would allow the vacant properties
to develop on public sewer, watermain and a new roadway.
This project has not been budgeted for in the City's Capital Improvement Program. The costs of this
project should be paid from assessments collected from the benefiting properties.
The project consists of the construction of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, subdrain and an urban
bituminous roadway with concrete curb & gutter to serve the vacant lots within a portion of Rose Harbor.
As part of the cost estimates we have anticipated the presence of subsurface rock, which may increase the
cost of construction.
i
-2-
FEBRUARY 3, -100
The estimated costs of the project were developed without the benefit of construction plans, topographic
survey, soil borings or other engineering information. The estimated costs are outlined as follows:
LoriligiLe o
Street Construction
Street Construction
1700
$74.47
$126,600.00
Sanitary Sewer
1700
$81.01
$137,712.00
Watermain
1845
$35.06
$64,680.00
Storm Sewer & Subdrain
1760
$97.78
$172,098.00
Service Connections
33
800
$26,400.00
Sub Total
Engineering/Contingency/Interest 30%
TOTAL
Total less service connections
$527,490.00
$158,247.00
$685, 737.00
$659,337.00
The total assessable frontage for the project is estimated at 2840 front feet. We recommend that the
necessary costs to be collected for this project be done so in accordance with the existing assessment and
connection charge policies. There is not any City share for this project. This project is well short of the
desired 60% guideline the Council desires for an economically feasible project. However, considering the
number of different land owners in the area and the amount of construction needed, a City assessment
project is the logical method to construct the needed infrastructure.
For this project to proceed the petitioner should enter into an agreement for the proportionate share of the
costs applicable for their property. Staff would recommend that the petitioner's costs be assessed over a 2
year period. The assessment term for the remaining parcels should be consistent with the current policies
in effect.
Submitted for your consideration:
Michael igbur
Land Development Manager
i� L�,—
Douglas Nelson, PE
Engineering Manager
11
- 3 - FEBRUARY 3, 2000
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: Date (Orig.)
J No:
Description: Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer. Subdrain and Roadway to serve vacant lots within
Rose Harbor.
Contract
PProdeet Cost Summary Project Budget Cost Final Cost
Roadway $126,600.00
Sanitary Sewer $137,712.00
Water Main $64,680.00
Storrs Sewer $172,098.00
Services $26,400.00
Subtotal $527,490.00
Engineenng/Cont.1 Interest $158.247.00
Total Construction & Expense $669,337,00
Total Assessable Frontage
Undeveloped Property 2838.24
_
Total 2447.07
fiawara
Water- Roadway•
Project Assessment Rate $239.91$71.0orrr $166.31
Distribution
To be presently collected 5567,i
To be deferredipostponed
City's Share $0.00
Tax Increment Financing _$321710.0
Municipal State Aid $0.00
Total $659,337.00
Revenue Sources Total Revenue
Connecdon/Assessment
Charge $626,587.00
Water Availability Charge $0.00
Sewer Availability Charge $0.00
Tax Increment Financing
City Share $0.00
TOTAL $659,337.00
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
�ar000 �'J�u ��'r' ►�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ;)IJ I /
DATE: 3/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Works
�► -'�,
tteM DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: "Public Improvements to Sunset Ave,
PREPARED BY -
Rose Rose Ave, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor" J-9656
D. Nelson
This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public
improvement project:
"Public Improvements to Sunset Ave, Rose Ave, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor"
Project No. 8701-8-97, J-9656
The estimated costs for this project are:
Street $126,600
Sanitary Sewer 137,712
Watermain 64,680
Storm sewer & Subdrain 172,098
Service Connections 26,400
Engineering, Interest & Contingency $158,247
TOTAL: $659,337
Total Estimated Funding Distribution:
Special Assessments Frontage $626,587
Tax Increment Financing 32,750
City Share 0
Total: $659,337
Project Assessment Rate: $239.92/ft (Sewer & Water: $71.00/ft; Roadway: $168.91/ft)
Assessment Period = 10 years
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 the
property abutting the project at that time.
COUNCIL ACTION REQIUESTED:
Adopt a resolution levying the proposed assessments.
vJUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
7 -o
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION: NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
MEETING ;t?
DATE: _'U 00
ITEM NO.
-I
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
Jerry Dooley has served as the Neighborhood Development Coordinator for the past two years and has been
paid through a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant.
Mr. Dooley's contract expired on 311100 and it has been determined that this type of expenditure can no longer
be legally paid by the federal grant funds.
Mr. Dooley has indicated that efforts are underway to establish a Neighborhood Foundation by 1/1/01, which
would be independent of the City of Rochester and would be seeking their own funding sources for a Director.
Therefore, if Mr. Dooley's position is to be continued for the remainder of 2000, some action will need to be
taken to extend the agreement with Mr. Dooley or formulate a new agreement and identify a funding source.
The revenue from the alarm ordinance has been mentioned as a funding source; however, I believe that the
Contingency Account would be the most appropriate funding source, if it is determined that the Neighborhood
Development Coordinator position is to be continued to 12/31/00.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
The Council should determine:
If the Neighborhood Development Coordinator position is to be continued to 12/31/00.
If so, the existing agreement should be extended or a new agreement formulated.
The rate of compensation should be determined. Mr. Dooley was compensated at the rate of $17,000 per
year or $1,417 per month for the past 12 months.
4. The necessary funds should be appropriated from the 2000 Contingency Account.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
IWO MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 16, 2000
TO: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Atkinson, Assistant Finance Director
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Development Coordinator
The Council approved the extension of the agreement with Jerry Dooley as
Neighborhood Development Coordinator on 3/1/99, for a one year period for an amount
of $17,000, From 3/1/99 through today, Jerry Dooley has been paid $16,999,65,
through the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant #3. $16,183 in funding remains
available in that grant. There are no funds budgeted to fund Jerry Dooley's contract in
the new LLEB grant, recently approved.
It appears that in order to continue the agreement with Mr. Dooley, Council needs to
take action to extend the agreement and specify a source of funding.
Cc: 227-4117-Law Enforcement Block Grant #3
Finance Department
Bruce Atkinson
N: \FINANCE\B R UC E\W P DOC\PO LIC EE\L EBGRN7\DooleyExt.doc
03/16100
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE S C >; 9l / 57
Vendor: 230501
^�partment:
om Date: 3 99
.,,ru Date: 2 00
DATE SRC FND DEPT
2 29 00 1 227 4117
2 1 00 1 227 4117
12 28 99 1 227 4117
11 23 99 1 227 4117
10 29 99 1 227 4117
10 8 99 1 227 4117
9 28 99 1 227 4117
8 27 99 1 227 4117
7 30 99 1 227 4117
6 25 99 1 227 4117
6 4 99 1 226 4119
6 4 99 1 226 4119
5 25 99 1 227 4117
4 30 99 1 227 4117
3 23 99 1 227 4117
Name:
DOOLEY GERALD R
Address: 117'2'COLL9GE AVENUE
City/ST: RED WING.,........
MN
SUBLD
GENL
REFERENCE
CHECK
C OR J
AMOUNT
11390
2461
FEB2000
97995
J4117
1,416.55
11390
2461
JANUARY 2000
97139
J4117
1,416.55
11390
2461
DECEMBER 99
95875
J4117
1,416.55
11390
2461
11/1-30/99
94836
1,416.68
11390
2461
10/1-10/31/9
93899
1,416.77
13090
2461
93297
135.00
11390
2461
9/1-9/30/99
92905
1,416.55
11390
2461
8/1-8/31/99
91859
1,416.70
11390
2461
7/1-7/31/99
90938
1,416.66
11390
2461
89949
1,416.66
12111
2461
NUSA5/26WISC
88987
387.60
13040
2461
J MCKNIGHT
88987
57.00
11390
2461
5/1-5/31/99
88951
1,416.66
11390
2461
4/1-4/30/99
88019
1,416.66
11390
2461
3/1-31/99
86994
1,416.66
1>;•JJ-
3J1•-�J-
10+9�3•oJ+
F7=A/R SCAN F8=VENDOR INQ F9=ALPHA SCAN TOTAL 17,579.25
a' `p REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEE7NG
DATE: 3/1199
CONSENT
COORDINA,70R
D-2-
S
�2_Z-7-�Iri>
,LG4S96
Jerry Dooley has a one-year contract with the City of Rochester to serve as the Neighborhood Development
Coordinator. The current contract pays Mr. Dooley $14,000 for his services. The source of funding is a Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant.
Mayor Canfield requests that the City of Rochester enter into a new one-year contract with Mr. Dooley and that
the payment for Mr. Dooley's services be increased to $17,000. The funding for the contract would come from a
Law Enforcement Block Grant (#3) accepted by the City Council on 12/7/98. The amount of this grant was
$61,424.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
Request a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Mr. Dooley for
Neighborhood Development Coordinator duties in the amount of $17,000.
0- n
17,U91•-
24•=
7133.33r
7'J .3 • 3 3 � �¢•/;�ti�crt-v � ���� //.a.�rvr�z�
OUNCIL ACTION: mcdon W. sewna W.. to:
C97?
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
AND
GERALD R. DOOLEY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 14777Y day of H
1998, by and between the CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and GERALD R. DOOLEY, of
Rochester, Minnesota, 55402, hereinafter referred to as "Coordinator."
WHEREAS, the City is interested in obtaining the services of a
neighborhood organization coordinator in the City of Rochester; and,
WHEREAS, the Coordinator is able to provide professional services
in the coordination of neighborhood associations;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and
agreements hereinafter set forth, the City and Coordinator agree as
follows:
1. Purpose
Coordinator will provide professional consulting services to
the City relating to the coordination of Rochester
neighborhood organizations and City will pay Coordinator using
funds from a federal grant.
2. Services to be Provided
Coordinator will provide consulting services to the Mayor
relating to the following goals:
a) building and strengthening of neighborhoods through
neighborhood organizations;
b) locating and sharing the existence of public and private
resources available for neighborhood groups, and assisting the
groups' efforts to receive those resources;
c) increase the effective and meaningful communications among
neighborhood.groups and community resources;
01
Payment for Services
City shall pay Coordinator the sum of $14,000 per year payable
in equal installments on the 16th of each month beginning on
March 16, 1998.
4. Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall be effective for one year beginning on
March 16, 1998, and may be renewed for additional time periods
as mutually agreed to by the parties.
Independent Contractor
Nothing contained in
construed as creating
City and Coordinator.
including workers'
medical care, sick le
or other benefits ava
Coordinator or his
agreement.
lea
Insurance
this Agreement is intended or should be
an employment relationship between the
No tenure or any rights or benefits,
compensation, unemployment insurance,
ve, vacation leave, severance pay, PERA,
lable to City employees, shall accrue to
employees performing services under this
Coordinator shall secure and maintain such insurance as
Coordinator deems necessary or appropriate to protect himself
from claims under Workman's Compensation, accidents, claims
for bodily injury, death or property damage, or errors or
omissions which may arise from the completion of the services
contracted under this Agreement.
7. Records and Data Practices
Pursuant to Minn. Stat., Section 16H.06, subd. 4, Coordinator
agrees that the City, the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor
as appropriate, or any of their duly authorized
representatives at any time during normal business hours and
as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have
access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and
transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which
are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of
Coordinator and involve transactions relating to the
Agreement.
Coordinator agrees to maintain these records for a period of
three years from the date of termination of the Agreement.
`r9
2
Merger and Modification
it is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between
the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement
supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the
parties relating to the subject matter. All items referred to
in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed
to be part of the Agreement.
Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or
waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only
when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment and
signed by the parties.
9. Default and Cancellation
If Coordinator fails to perform any of the provisions of this
Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger
the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute
default. Unless Coordinator's default is excused, the City
may, upon written notice, immediately cancel this Agreement in
its entirety. Coordinator may cancel this Agreement thirty
days following City's receipt of written notice of such
cancellation.
10. subcontracting and Assignment
Coordinator shall notify the Mayor of any subcontracts entered
into for the performance of any services contemplated under
the Agreement. Coordinator shall be responsible for the
performance of all subcontractors.
11. Nondiscrimination
During the performance of the Agreement, Coordinator agrees to
the following:
No person shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, age,
sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status,
criminal record, creed or national origin be excluded from
full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the
benefits of or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under
any and all applicable federal and state laws against
discrimination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
seals the day and year first above written.
n
CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota GERALD R. DOOLEY
Municipal Corporation
B
At
y 7 By CGl
Its/'Mayor - }
test �i�✓
Its City* Clerk
Approved to Form
jaw fQko'-s
city AtZ6tney
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF OLMSTED )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /64�1 day
of Wa(.- Yl , 1998, by Charles J. Canfield and Judy Scherr, the
Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Rochester, a
"Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
VpaPETS METrewl,
pAY PUEUC - MIIiNE50TA
OOOM EXON is& 31. 2000
4
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
� ss
COUNTY OF OLMSTED )
On this 1G� day of 1998, before me, a notary public
within and for said county personally appeared Gerald R. Dooley
personally known to me to be the person described in and who executed
the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as
his free act and deed on his own beh lf.
® VALIG.PETERSON �
1���
t OTi1RYPUBLIC - C4N4E" Notary Public
My c mm. E=raz "A
3
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
,PORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
rrEM DESCRIPTION: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT DOCUMENT FOR BITUMINOUS PLANT
OPERATION IN THE RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #98-05, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF 40T" STREET S. W WEST OF TH 63
MEETING" 3
DATE: 20+00
ITEM NO.
F- R
PREPARED BY:
At the March 6, 2000, Council meeting, the Council reviewed the bituminous plant operation portion of
Mr. Kottschade's proposed Restricted Development Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #98-05. The
Council "review" occurred as required by paragraph 11 of the March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order. That paragraph stated that "the Council should review that portion of the
request concerning the operation of the bituminous plant no later than July of 2000."
During the March 6" public hearing, there was considerable confusion as to the term "review." Did the
Council intend the "review" to simply be an opportunity to receive a progress report on the bituminous
plant's operation? Or, did the Council intend to provide a temporary conditional use permit for the
bituminous plant to expire in July, 2000, but which may be further extended following a review of the
plant's operations?
After reviewing the various documents in my possession and in the possession of the Planning and
Zoning Department, as well as listening to the audio tapes of the March 15, 1999, Council meeting, it is
my conclusion that the Council's March 15, 1999, action was to grant a temporary conditional use permit
the bituminous plant which would expire in July, 2000, but which may be renewed depending upon a
liew of the plant's first year of operations.
The audio tape contains a discussion among Council President Hunziker, Council Member Hansen and
Attorney John Arnold which suggests the Council intended to approve the bituminous plant operation
only for a specific time period to be followed by some decision in determining whether to extend the
permit. For example, Council Member Hansen asks "if we could put a year, yearly, not yearly, but a time
limit or a number of years so that we could go back and review it." Attorney John Arnold tells Council
President Hunziker that "I understand it would expire. I guess what we'd like to see if we got to come
back to the Council, that's fine at that time." He also states, "[i]t would be just to say it was a temporary
permit that we could extend subject to its meeting its conditions."
It is my opinion that the March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact document needs to be amended to accomplish
three objectives. First, the document should state that the Planning Commission recommended denial of
the proposed amendment (the document erroneously states the Commission recommended approval of
the proposed amendment). Second, the document should note that the portion of the amendment to
Conditional Use Permit #98-05 concerning the operation of the bituminous plant is a temporary permit
which will expire on a specific date, but which may be extended based upon a review of the plant's
operation. Third, the document should note the expiration date of the temporary permit is November 6,
2000 (which is the date agreed -upon at the March 6, 2000, Council meeting).
WUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
second
id % --o
Wi
Request for Council Action
Page 2
March 20, 2000
At the conclusion of the March 20, 2000, council meeting, I indicated to the Council
that there was no need for a Findings of Fact document in order to implement the
change to the November 6, 2000, date. A simple resolution making that change
should suffice. However, after reviewing all of the materials and discovering the
need to amend the March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact document so that it more
accurately reflects the Council's intent, I now believe there is a need for an
amended Findings of Fact document.
Accordingly, I have prepared an Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order. The Amended Findings of Fact document is attached for your review. A
number of documents are attached to this document including a partial transcript
of that portion of the March 15, 1999, Council meeting audio tape which discussed
the operation of the bituminous plant.
On March 13, 2000, I sent a copy of this Request for Council Action along with the
attachments to Attorney John Arnold so that he and his client are aware of my
recommendation for an Amended Findings of Fact document.
Council Action Requested
If the Council agrees with the Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order, it should move to adopt the document.
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
In Re: Restricted Development Amended
Amendment to Findings of Fact,
Conditional Use Permit Conclusions of Law,
#98-05 by and Order
Franklin P. Kottschade
On March 15, 1999, the City of Rochester Common Council conducted a public hearing,
upon notice to the public, to consider the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation in
response to a request by Franklin P. Kottschade (hereinafter "Applicant") for a Type III, Phase II
Amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05. The amendment would
allow the Applicant to expand a granular material processing area on the south side of Willow
creek by approximately 9.42 acres and to add a portable bituminous drum mixer facility
(hereinafter "Bituminous Plant"). The mining operation is generally located on a portion of the
property bounded by 40"' Street S.W., Trunk Highway 63 South, 1 Vh Avenue S.W., (hereinafter
referred to as "Site").
On January-27, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing
and adopted a recommendation concerning the requested amendment. The Commission filed
its findings and recommendation with the Common Council pursuant to Section 60.532(4) of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances. This hearing resulted as required by R.C.O. §60.532(5).
At the hearing, Attorney John Arnold and other persons representing the Applicant
testified in favor of the Applicant's request. No one appeared in opposition to the request.
i
The Council adopted Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order which approved the
Applicant's request subject to nine conditions. (This document was signed on March 31, 1999).
In the Findings of Fact document, the Council included the following statement in its decision:
Council member Hansen indicated that the Council should review that portion of
the request conceming the operation of the bituminous plant no later than July of
2000. That review should come directly to the Council without payment of any
application or filing fee.
On March 6, 2000, the City of Rochester Common Council conducted a public hearing,
upon notice to the public, to review the Bituminous Plant's operation. During the March 611
hearing, there was confusion and doubt about the scope and extent of the term "review" as it
was found in the March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact document. Additionally, the Council
determined that, since the Bituminous Plant had not yet begun its operation, there was a need
for another review to occur in the future.
In order to more adequately state the Council's March 31, 1999, decision and intent, and
in order to remove all doubt from this process, the Council has determined it is appropriate to
amend its March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. Furthermore, the
Amended Findings of Fact document will incorporate the Council's March 6, 2000, decision to
extend that portion of the Restricted Development Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #98-05
relating to the Bituminous Plant to November 6, 2000.
Accordingly, based upon the evidence presented at all of the public hearings, the
Common Council of the City of Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order.
rN
s.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This matter is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.532(5)
and Minn. Stat. §462.3595, subd. 2.
2. Franklin P. Kottschade applied for a Type III, Phase 11 Amendment to Restricted
Development Conditional Use Permit #98-5 so as to allow for the following modifications to
Permit #98-5:
a) extension of the area designated for processing of granular materials by 9.4
acres to the west;
b) addition of a bituminous batch mixing plant, the location of which would be
limited to the most easterly part of the processing area and that includes the
following: addition of traffic associated with the bituminous plant,
processing of materials originating off -site as needed for producing and
processing the bituminous and an extension of the hours/days of operation
limitations for the bituminous plant from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday
through Friday that currently applies to processing on -site to allow the plant
to operate 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday and on Saturdays
as needed;
c) modification of haul roads; and
d) addition of stock pile locations
3. Multiple provisions of the Rochester Code of Ordinances apply in analyzing the
request.
4. R.C.O. §61.146 lists the standards for conditional use permits and reads as
follows:
61.146 Standard 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:
3
I
FM
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 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.
8) 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.
5. R.C.O. §61.147 states that in considering an application for a development permit
to allow a conditional use, the Council shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions
to the extent they are needed to ensure compliance with the criteria provided by R.C.O. §61.146.
a
6. R.C.O. §62.824 states that when reviewing a conditional use permit in any of the
flood districts, the following factors, in addition to the standards of R.C.O §61.146, shall also be
considered:
1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities
caused by encroachments.
2) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to
the injury of others.
3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these
systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary condition.
4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage
and the effect of such damage on the individual owner.
5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the
community.
6) The need for a waterfront location for the facility.
7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the
proposed use.
8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and
development anticipated in the foreseeable future.
9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood
plain management program for the area.
10) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and
emergency vehicles.
11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment
transport of the flood waters expected at the site.
12) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of Paragraph 62.800
5
Wqo
7. Other ordinances that apply to this request include Sections 62.1006 and 62.1010.
8. Following its January 27, 1999, public hearing, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the testimony, applied the applicable criteria and recommended denial
of the Applicant's request.
9. The Planning and Zoning Department staff had recommended approval of the
Applicant's request subject to the following eight conditions:
(1) Report dates included on the supplemental report do not coincide with
report dates on file with the Planning Department. The Applicant shall
correct dates or clarify with staff the reason for the discrepancies. Also,
corrections to the report be made that refer to available access to Highway
63 since no permits have been issued by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for the mining/processing uses;
(2) The Applicant shall provide proof of approval from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to utilize access directly to Highway 63 for
this use;
(3) Importation of materials for processing be limited only to that necessary for
the bituminous batch plant/bituminous production;
(4) All conditions, modifications or restrictions applied to conditional use permits
previously approved remain in effect except for the extension of hours/days
of operation applied to the bituminous plant which may operate from 7am-
7pm, Monday through Friday and on Saturdays as needed;
(5) Additional signage and warning signals be utilized along 400 Street S.W.,
and Highway 63 to maximize safety and identify slow moving trucks within
the area;
(6) Access to 40"' Street S.W., east of Willow Creek, is temporary and direct
access to Highway 63 for mining/processing uses has not been approved or
issued by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Applicant shall
identify alternative access routes and haul road accesses to public
roadways that may be utilized if the current accesses shown on the Plan
are not available for use in the future;
6
kiu
(7) A wetland investigation shall be completed and approved for potions of the
Site not previously field -reviewed by the local government unit and the
Applicant shall obtain a No Loss Certificate, exemption or approved
replacement plan prior to disturbing the area;
(8) Revised plans be submitted to the Planning Department that correctly
reflect previous approvals and that include any modifications required
through this amendment.
10. At the March 15, 1999, Common Council public hearing, Attorney Arnold and the
City Attorney mutually agreed that the seventh condition should be amended to read as follows:
(7) Subject to the final result of any declaratory judgment action which may be
filed concerning this issue, a wetland investigation shall be completed and
approved for portions of the Site not previously field -reviewed by the local
government unit and the Applicant shall obtain a No Loss Certificate,
exemption or approved replacement plan prior to disturbing the area.
11. At the March 15, 1999, Common Council public hearing, Attorney Arnold testified
iat the Applicant agreed to all eight conditions, including the seventh condition as amended,
and agreed to a ninth condition that should read as follows:
(9) When the bituminous plant is operating, other adjacent mining operations
would not be operating so as to minimize truck traffic.
12. The Council adopted Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, dated
March 31, 1999, in order to memorialize its actions on March 15, 1999. A copy of this document
is attached and identified as Exhibit A. The March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact document included
the following statement:
Council member Hansen indicated that the Council should review that portion of
the request concerning the operation of the bituminous plant no later than July of
2000. That review, should come directly to the Council without payment of any
application or filing fee.
ri
Aq�-
13. The Council conducted the "review" as described above at a public hearing held
on March 6, 2000. During that hearing, there was considerable confusion among staff and
Council Members as to what was meant by the term "review" as used in the March 31, 1999,
Findings of Fact document.
14. Following the March 6, 2000, hearing, the City Attorney provided the Council with
various documents which will allow the Council to determine correctly its intent with respect to
the approval of the Bituminous Facility as well as the need for a review in July, 2000.
15. Specifically, the Council reviewed a transcript of relevant portions of the audio tape
of the March 15, 1999, Council Meeting. A copy of the transcript is attached and identified as
Exhibit B. That transcript indicates the Council intended to grant a temporary Restricted
Development Amendment to Conditional Use Permit #98-05 with respect to the operation of a
Bituminous Plant. Specifically, the temporary Restricted Development Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit #98-05 would expire in July of 2000, but would be eligible for renewal or
extension depending upon the Council's review of the operation of the Bituminous Plant and its
effect upon the adjacent properties.
16. The Council also reviewed Attorney John Arnold's February 9, 2000, letter to Mitzi
Baker. A copy of that letter is attached and identified as Exhibit C. In that letter, Attorney Arnold
states that '[w]e are also requesting that the permit for the operation of the bituminous plant be
extended to coincide with the length of time that the Restricted Development Conditional Use
Permit #98-05 is in existence rather than having continued reviews."
a
BE
17. The Council also reviewed Michael Nigburs December 18, 1998, memo to the
Consolidated Planning Department. A copy of that memo is attached and identified as Exhibit D.
In that memo, Mr. Nigbur states that "[t]he various CUP Permits should be reviewed annually for
conformance of the original conditions. Specifically the access to the site on 40t' Street was only
approved as a temporary two year permit. Any activities utilizing this access should be subject
to the terms (of the] temporary drive way (sic] permit. The expiration of the permit is July 20,
2000."
18. The Council also reviewed Mitzi Bakers handwritten notes to her copy of the
March 15, 1999, Request for Council Action. A copy of her notes is attached and identified as
Exhibit E. In her notes, Ms. Baker states, "approve till July 2000."
19. At the March 6, 2000, public hearing, the Council was unable to review the first
year operation of the Bituminous Plant as the plant had not yet begun operations. According to
Attorney Arnold's letter, the Bituminous Plant was not placed into operation during the 1999
construction season. See Exhibit C. The reason the Bituminous Plant had not yet begun to
operate, according to Attorney Arnold, is that the Applicant had not yet satisfied condition #7 as
amended.
�0101 ► w IL1,606MR116rawlyin
1. This matter is property before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.532
and Minn. Stat. §462.3595.
E
2. The Council determines there is ambiguity and confusion concerning the use of
the term "review" in the Council's March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order. This document memorializes the Council's decision reached at its March 15, 1999,
meeting in response to the Applicant's request.
3. Accordingly, it is appropriate and useful for all parties concerned to adopt this
Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in order to supersede the March 31,
1999, document and to resolve all doubt and confusion.
4. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Common Council determines
that there is a legal basis to approve the amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use
Permit #98-05 to allow the expansion of a granular material processing area on the south side of
Willow Creek by approximately 9.42 acres if the Applicant complies with the nine conditions
described herein.
5. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Common Council determines
that there is a legal basis to temporarily approve the amendment to Restricted Development
Conditional Use Permit #98-05 to add a Bituminous Plant for a specific time period if the
Applicant complies with nine conditions described herein. This temporary approval shall expire
on November 6, 2000, but may be renewed or extended by the Council at that time following its
review of the operation of the Bituminous Plant. The Council's decision on any renewal or
extension of this temporary permit shall be guided by the criteria set out in R.C.O. §§61.146,
62.708, 62.824, 62.1006 and 62.1010 as well as the nine conditions described herein.
10
Kwo
6. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Council determines that the
nine conditions and the temporary approval of the Bituminous Plant should be imposed,
pursuant to Section 61.147, to ensure compliance with R.C.O. §§61.146, 62.708 and 62.824.
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §§60.532(5), 61.146,
62.708, 62.824, 62.1006 and 62.1010 does hereby approve the amendment to Restricted
Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 so as to expand a granular material processing
area on the south side of Willow Creek by approximately 9.42 acres subject to the nine
conditions listed herein.
The Common Council also temporarily approves the amendment to Restricted
^-velopment Conditional Use Permit #98-05 so as to add a portable bituminous drum mixer
racility for a specific time period if the Applicant complies with nine conditions listed herein. This
temporary approval shall expire on November 6, 2000, but may be renewed or extended by the
Council at that time following its review of the operation of the Bituminous Plant.
The Common Council also orders the rescission of its March 31, 1999, Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order which it adopted in response to Applicant's request.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this day of March, 2000.
Fot.zone\coaduee2.amd985.ia[
John Hunziker, President of the
Rochester City Council
11
ME
ON. c
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNES07A
in Re: Restricted Develooment
Amendment to Findings of Fact,
Conditional Use Permit Conclusions of Law,
#98-05 by and Order
Franklin P. Kottschade
On March 15, 1999, the City of Rochester Common Council conducted a public hearing,
upon notice to the public, to consider the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation in
response to a request by Franklin P. Kottschade (hereinafter "Applicant") for a Type III, Phase II
Amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05. The amendment would
allow the Applicant to expand a granular material processing area on the south side of Willow
Creek by approximately 9.42 acres and to add a portable bituminous drum mixer facility. The
mining operation is generally located on a portion of the property bounded by 40' Street S.W.,
Trunk Highway 63 South, 11' Avenue S.W.,(hereinafter referred to as "Site").
On January 27, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing
and adopted a recommendation concerning the requested amendment. The Commission filed
its findings and recommendation with the Common Council pursuant to Section 60.532(4) of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances. This hearing resulted as required by R.C.O. §60.532(5).
At the hearing, Attorney John Arnold and other persons representing the Applicant
testified in favor of the Applicant's request. No one appeared in opposition to the request.
i
Based upon the evidence presented at both hearings, the Common Courul of the City -of
Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
This.matter is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.532(5)
and Minn. Stat. §462.3595, subd. 2.
2. Franklin P. Kottschade applied for a Type III, Phase II Amendment to Restricted
Development Conditional Use Permit #98-5 so as to allow for the following modifications to
Permit #98-5:
a) extension of the area designated for processing of granular materials by 9.4
acres to the west;
b) addition of a bituminous batch mixing plant, the location of which would be
limited to the most easterly part of the processing area and that includes the
following: addition of traffic associated with the bituminous plant,
processing of materials originating off -site as needed for producing and
processing the bituminous and an extension of the hours/days of operation
limitations for the bituminous plant from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday
through Friday that currently applies to processing on -site to allow the plan
to operate 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday and on Saturdays
as needed;
c) modification of haul roads; and
d) addition of stock pile locations
3. Multiple provisions of the Rochester Code of Ordinances apply in analyzing the
request.
4. R.C.O. §61.146 lists the standards for conditional use permits and reads as follows:
61.146 Standard 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:
2
WOI
?) Previsions for vehicular leading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and
cedestnan 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 detnmentai to other private development in the neighborhood or will 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.
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with ail 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.
5. R.C.O. §61.147 states that in considering an application for a development permit
to allow a conditional use, the Council shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions
to the extent they are needed in ensure compliance with the criteria provided by R.C.O. §61.146.
3
6. R.C.O §62,824 states that when renewing a ccrditicnal use permit in any Cf t:e (
locd districts, the following factors, in addition to the standards of R.C.0 §61.146, shall also de
considered:
1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities
caused by encroachments.
2) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to
the injury of others.
3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these
systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary condition.
4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage
and the effect of such damage on the individual owner.
5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the
community.
6) The need for a waterfront location for the facility. 1
0
7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the
proposed use.
8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and
development anticipated in the foreseeable future.
9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood
plain management program for the area.
10) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and
emergency vehicles.
11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment
transport of the flood waters expected at the site.
12) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of Paragraph 62.800.
a
7 Other ordinances that apply to this request ncluce Sectors 62.1006 and 62.1010.
B. Following its January 27, 1999, public hearing, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered the testimony, applied the applicable criteria and recommended
approval subject to the following five conditions:
(1) Report dates included on the supplemental report do not coincide with
report dates on file with the Planning Department. The Applicant shall
correct dates or clarify with staff the reason for the discrepancies. Also,
corrections to the report be made that refer to available access to Highway
63 since no permits have been issued by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for the mining/processing uses;
(2) The Applicant shall provide proof of approval from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to utilize access directly to Highway 63 for
this use;
(3) Importation of materials for processing be limited only to that necessary for
the bituminous batch plant/bituminous production;
(4) All conditions, modifications or restrictions applied to conditional use permits
previously approved remain in effect except for the extension of hours/days
of operation applied to the bituminous plant which may operate from 7am-
7pm, Monday through Friday and on Saturdays as needed;
(5) Additional signage and warning signals be utilized along 400 Street S.W.,
and Highway 63 to maximize safety and identify slow moving trucks within
the area;
(6) Access to 400' Street S.W., east of Willow Creek, is temporary and direct
access to Highway 63 for mining/processing uses has not been approved or
issued by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Applicant shall
identify alternative access routes and haul road accesses to public
roadways that may be utilized if the current accesses shown on the Plan
are not available for use in the future;
(7) A wetland investigation shall be completed and approved for portions of the
Site not previously field -reviewed by the local government unit and the
Applicant shall obtain a No Loss Certificate, exemption or approved
replacement plan prior to disturbing the area;
5
�I'
(8) Revised plans be submitted to the Planning Department that correctly
reflect previous approvals and that include any modifications required
through this amendment.
9. At the March 15' Common Council public hearing, Attorney Arnold and the City
Attorney mutually agreed that the seventh condition should be amended to read as follows:
(7) Subject to the final result of any declaratory judgment action which may be
filed concerning this issue, a wetland investigation shall be completed and
approved for portions of the Site not previously field -reviewed by the local
government unit and the Applicant shall obtain a No Loss Certificate,
exemption or approved: replacement plan prior to disturbing the area.
10. At the March 151 Common Council public hearing, Attorney Arnold testified that
the Applicant agreed to all seven conditions, including the seventh condition as amended, and
=greed to a ninth condition that should read as follows:
(9) When the bituminous plant is operating, other adjacent mining operations
would not be operating so as to minimize truck traffic.
11. Council member Hansen indicated that the Council should review that portion of
the request concerning the operation of the bituminous plant no later than July of 2000. That
review should come directly to the Council without payment of any application or filing fee.
[GEORL01•
1. This matter is property before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.532
and Minn. Stat. §462.3595.
6
2By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Common Council determines that
there is a legal basis to approve the amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use
Permit M98-05 to allow the expansion of a granular material processing area on the south side of
Willow Creek by approximately 9,42 acres and to add a portable bituminous drum mixer facility if
the Applicant complies with nine conditions, as amended.
3. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Council determines that the
nine conditions should be imposed, pursuant to Section 61.147, to ensure compliance with
R.C.O. §§61.146, 62.824, 62.708 and 62.824.
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §§60.532(5), 61,146,
62.708, 62.824, 62.1006 and 62.1010 does hereby approve the amendment to Restricted
Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 so as to expand a granular material processing
area on the south side of Willow Creek by approximately 9.42 acres and to add a portable
bituminous drum mixer facility subject to the nine conditions listed above.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this J /st- day of March, 1999.
-_.a and.,&L.&md999.1a:
_,W n Hunziker, President of the
Rochester City Council
7
303
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF MARCH 15, 1999
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
E-4 AGENDA ITEM
Key: JH:
John Hunziker
JA:
John Arnold
DH:
Dennis Hansen
TA:
Terry Adkins
MB:
Mitzi Baker
(during the public hearing, in response to information concerning "portability" of
bituminous plant)
JH: I appreciate hearing that because there was in amongst all the rest of the
testimony, there was a notice made that a temporary use permit would give time
to evaluate any concerns and if this is something that does go up in the summer
and down at the end of summer, maybe that would be a feasible altemative if, I
have no idea what to expect from the rest of the testimony, but it sounds like it is
portable enough so it could be looked at year by year or something in that order.
(following the closing of the public hearing)
DH: How long is this permit for?
MB: The Council should probably specify a date at which it expires along with
your action.
DH: The reason I ask is it, since this is a new project on the south side of town
anyway, if we could put a year, yearly, not yearly, but a time limit on the number
of years so that we could go back and review it and then just, if there's no
problems, no harm, no foul, we just approve it for another consecutive amount of
years. Just a thought.
JH: Somebody brought up that something happens in July, 2000. What is that?
MB: The temporary access at 40"h Street which has been negotiated with the City
Public Works Department or the City does expire in 2000.
JH: Could we look at this when that one expires just to see how things are
going? Any problems with that?
a
DH: That's fine by me.
JH: At least that way you would have two things coming up at the same time.
DH: Right. And we'd have a year to see how it operates and maybe give it a go
for maybe two years, whatever the case after that, 2, 3, 4, 5.
JH: All right, so well revisit this operation in July, 2000. Is that right? OK.
Anybody else? Everybody understands what we're doing. Nope?
JA: Could I just inquire about this requirement. Would that be, I understand it
would expire. I guess what we'd like to see if we got to come back to the Council
tats fine at that time. We don't want to go through a whole new application
process again and pay all the fees.
311-11: How would that --?
3A: It would be just to say it was a temporary permit that we could extend
subject to its meeting its conditions rather than going through this whole process
all over again.
DH: I guess that is what I'd like to see instead of going hearing after hearing.
JH: I think what we're looking for is a way to revisit this if there are concerns.
Mr. Adkins or Ms. Baker? People are conferring.
TA: Well, the concern being raised by the Planning Staff is that if there is no
initial application, then there is no opportunity for the neighbors to speak on the
issue if it just came back for a renewal. My response is that this Council is always
free to set a matter on for public hearing whenever it wants to. You're not bound
by the statutes or the Land Development Manual. So, with the understanding that
the review will be in the form of a public hearing and if the applicant is willing to
agree to that, I don't see why it could not be noted that this matter will be
considered solely by the city council.
JH: OK, is it possible ---?
TA: Can we get Mr. Arnold's response to that first?
JH: Please come forward.
3A: That's agreeable to us. The only thing we were concerned about here
would be the having to make application fees all over again.
365-
)H: I don't think thaYs the intent.
]A: The public hearing would be fine.
DH: All I want it for is if somebody, there's a huge problem down the road,
whether it be traffic or noise, whatever, we can readdress it and if the neighbors
want to come up and say something, fine. If not, we just say it's a done deal, let's
extend it for x amount of years.
]H: Is that reasonable? Mr. City Attorney?
TA: Yes.
7H: OK. Everybody understands what we're doing. All right, then all those in
favor signify by saying aye.
Council: Aye.
]H: Opposed? Motion carries unanimously.
E iMIT C
LAW oRtcm
DLrNLAP & SEEGER, P.A.
' &ONALD L SKEG33
33.TCN A. W9XSDtAD
2w sovM ARGAD WAY. 9Ur1•E iW
PAULA. FL`tSM
"WGrnw dANZ AUI012Vo
DANIEL Z. 3ZRNVr
Po BOX •iO
JOHN R. ARNOLD
ROCHZr=. IdUrAMYOTA MM-411 NY
PCrSR C. 3AND8L7tt:
PdLZPNONL lion i/69222
TINA L MOHR
AUFTRZY A HANSON
FAZ (WI) 2i "a
xSNNErH A MOZN
FAX lion =4612
WILLi" J. RYAN
PAUL W. Hi' 1
RONCIT R. DUN AP
DOUOIJdA. Wx0Z
li(1161DM)
Feaniary
MITZI BAKER
OLMSTED COLIN Y CONSOLIDATED PLAT NU';G
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904
RE: Restrictive Development Conditional t se Permit -98-u5 as Amended
Franklin P. Konschade
Dear Ms. Baker:
VARY a DUNIAP
WILIJAY P. vOtJWAR
MAM A FC68i
RZN D. 9CHL'LLat
GADGORr J. GRIFrmin
t4CRAM S. DM=
EEC 0. LAR90N
9HAWN C. ZERE
Of cawod
FRANXLIN YICHALIS
A.M. 3ANur EUM
Our firm represents Mr. Kattschadc concemurg the abo%e referenced Restrictive Development
CUP. On March 111. 1999, the Cummon Council appru%ed the amended Restrictive
Development Conditional Use Permit. Paragraph 11 of the Findings of Fact specifically
provided that the Council should review that portion of the permit concerning the operation of
the biruminous plant "no later" than July 2000. It was also specifically provided that the
review should come directly to the Council without payment of aay application or filing fee.
We would like to have the Council review the operation of the bituminous plant at this time in
preparation, for the 2000 construction season. rather than waiting until July 2000.
i,jc hirltninaus plant was not put into operation durin; .hc 1099 c.-risclad to . SeasOC. AS A
consequence, we are not sure what the revic%k would cnnsist of as there would be no
operational history, but we believe that under the terms of the amendment it is necessary to
have a review by the Council. Therefore w e are requesting that the matter be scheduled for a
review before the Common Council at its earliest convenience. We are also requesting that the
permit for the operation of the bituminous plant be extended to coincide with the length of time
that the Restricted Development Conditional use Permit 198-05 is in existence rather than
having continued reviews;
00. 0' 00 t5 .17 FkA 30 _ _S' 2' - I ;03
W /
Page 2
February 9, 2000
As we discussed in our phone couversaticn. ''neing that zmb is not an appiicanon nor subject to a
filing fee and merely a review �A c have adopted this format of requesting the review through
your offices.
Very truly-Y,curs.
w wm
JBA/ck
cc Terry Adkins
Franklin Kortschade
t-:
DUNLAP k SEgaF.x. PA-
20gallIBIT D
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
12/18/98
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
Public Works has reviewed the requested Conditional Use Permit Amendment #98-5 for the SJC
Property. The following are the Public Works Comments on the proposal:
Applicants requesting changes to approved Conditional Use Permits should be
required to provide a detailed listing of items they are requesting to be modified.
Items that the applicant may wish to have modified is not always apparent when
staff members compare previously approved permits to the requested amendment.
For example, the applicant has submitted text that states, in the introduction, a
request to amend the CUP to allow the Bituminous Batch Mixing and not change the
context of the approved CUP. However, it appears that the hours and days of
operations have been expanded as outlined elsewhere in the text.
There are currently three access points which serve the property and are currently
being used. Only two of those locations are approved. The access adjacent to the
bridge on 40'" Street must be permanently removed.
A significant amount of material from the mining site is being tracked onto 401"
Street. The 4r01° Street roadway must be swept routinely.
The CUP amendments will result in an increased amount of traffic that was not
considered in the original CUP requests. Additional signage and warning signals
should be provided for the additional time periods of the operation of the Plant.
The various CUP Permits should be reviewed annually for conformance of the
original conditions. Specifically the access to the site on 400 Street was only
approved as a temporary two year permit. Any activities utilizing this access should
be subject to the terms temporary drive way permit. The expiration of the permit is
July 20, 2000.
o A phasing plan should be provided covering the new area included in the
application.
The original conditions of the CUP 98-5 shall remain in effect until an amendment to
the CUP is approved.
EXt3IEii e
REQUEST )R COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 3-15-99
DEPT: / I ITEM NO.
CO -PUBLIC ARING ZPLANNING
ITEM DESCR1PTI Type III, ase II Amend ent to Restri d Developme Conditional PREPARED .
Use Pednit #98 by Franklin . Kottschade expand a g ular material oeessing are Mitzi aker,
on the'south ide of Wfllo reek by appr ximateiy 9.42 res and to a a portable anner
bituminous drum mixer facility. The pr, arty is locate south of 40'" . SW, west of H.
63 and is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commerciiii-industrial).
March 11, 1999
This item was previously scheduled for a public hearing but was continued to March 15, 1999 at the request of the applicant.
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 27, 1999 to consider this zone change request.
The Applicant and his representatives were present to address the Commission. Persons opposing the amendment also
spoke and expressed concerns with traffic, safety, dust and odors.
The Commission reviewed this request and considered the applicable criteria and considered the testimony provided during
the meeting. The Commission discussed the proposal and recommended denial of the proposed amendment that would
include adding a portable bituminous drum mix facility to the site. The Commission did not specify findings but did identify
concerns with traffic, noise and smell and Incompatibility with the surrounding area. Please see the Commission minutes for
more detail. The criteria which apply to reviewing this request are attached to the staff report and include Sections 61.146,
62.708, 62.824, 62.1006, 62.1010 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual.
Ms. Petersson made a motion to deny the amendment to Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-5.
aver seconded the motion. Motion carried 5.3, with Wiesner, Petersson, and DeWitz voting nay.
Zoning Administrator's Action and Report:
The City Clerk scheduled this Type III, Phase II, Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit for a public hearing as
required by the Land Development Manual. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Friday, February 5, 1999,
edition of the Rochester Post -Bulletin.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council shall hold a public hearing according to the procedures of Paragraphs 60,650 and 60.651 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. If the Council wishes to proceed. A should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution and findings of fact either
approving, approving with conditions, or denying this request based upon the criteria of Sections 61.140, 62.708, 62.824,
62.1006, 62.1010 (these sections are attached to tlhe staff report). 0. � �
Attachments: ^f 01T'vw`Q a { ,6-A } c...i� dpaa�U L ^cwvuw
bK plum- 40.
1. Staff report dated March 11. 19.
99
OUNCILACTION: taoeonby: secmdby: to: Q urvP A4tt V f
,]i-evvy, cVuvcum;;, 4b 40i-ii� gl--
p T>W q Cn1d 'S 1 cur eel I rnadG 'a a ctdAia ar4 rw
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I PARK & RECREATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION: MAYO CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION
MEETING 311
DATE: 3 20 00
ITEM NO.
F
PREPARED BY:
SUTHERLAND
On March 14, 2000, bids were opened for the redesign of the Mayo Civic Center expansion project. Unlike last
fall when we opened bids and were $3 million over the estimate, this time we were $1 million under projections.
Although the project has been scaled back, it will still be a facility that meets the needs of the community and
something we can all be proud of.
The new bid allowed the Park Board to accept all of the alternates that were designed to bring the project in on
budget, but are very important to how the facility works and looks.
There is no question that TSP and CPMI earned their money on the redesign effort. This was a major
undertaking and every aspect of the project was looked at for potential savings. It appears that the delay and
redesign saved close to $3 million.
On March 15, 2000, the Park Board, at a special meeting, approved the low bid from Market & Johnson and
alternates #1, 3, 4, 5, 6B, 7 & S. The total with the alternates is $11,837,306.
For this project to move forward, the Council will need to allocate $1,490,124 in additional funding to fully fund
the project as bid.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
Authorize the project to move forward and the City to add S1,490,124 to the project.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
Second
Worn
Memo
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Stevan E. Kvenvold
Date: March 16, 2000
Subject: Mayo Civic Center Expansion
In order to fully fund the Mayo Civic Center project as revised and currently bid, the City
Council will need to appropriate $1,490,124 of additional funds.
I have previously indicated to Roy Sutherland that I would recommend to the City Council
that any additional funding needed to accomplish the Mayo Civic Center expansion project
be appropriated from "excess" sales tax revenues.
The City was allowed to collect sales tax revenues for the City Hall, Library and Fire
Station building projects until 12/31 /98 even though the costs of these projects were paid
for prior to the end of 1998.
The City was left with approximately $3.4 million in "excess" sales tax revenues, minus
any sales tax reimbursements to be paid to local industries for industrial purchases which
were exempted from sales taxes by State law.
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $1,490,124 of these sales tax
revenues to fully fund the bids for the proposed Civic Center expansion project.
o,,
Q�t1t RectO'��
315
Park and Recreation Department
City of Rochester
201 Fourth Street SE • Room 150 • Rochester, >IN 55904
(507) 281-6160 • FAX (507) 281-6165
MAYO CIVIC CENTER & ROCHESTER CIVIC THEATER
NORTH EXPANSION BIDS
MARCH 14, 2000
SUMMARY BID REVIEW
Construction Rebid Fund Budget
Mayo Civic Center Budget:
Rochester Civic Theater Budget:
Additional Authorization Requested from City Council:
Maximum Funds Available for Construction:
Lowest Responsive Base Bid:
Recommended Alternates:
91 - Brick walls in lieu of precast:
93 - Add operable partition (P3 & P4) for classrooms:
44 - Adhesive attachment to EPDM roof:
45 - Exterior metal letters:
46 - B lighting control system:
97 - Elevator fit -up:
#8 - Add clock tower:
Total of Other Alternates:
TOTAL OF BASE BID AND ALTERNATES:
TOTAL FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION:
AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZATION ACTUALLY NEEDED:
$9,075,447
$1,271,735
$2,500,000
$12,847,182
$11,195,000
$209,920
$165,424
$61,621
$22,850
$-963
$50,548
$132,906
$642,306
$11,837,306
$10,347,182
S1,490,124
03; 15 00
CPMI
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Park Commissioners
Rochester Mayo Civic Center
FROM: CPMI and TSP/ODELL
DATE: 15 MARCH 2O00
RE: Mayo Civic Center Complex Improvements Project
The bids for the project were received 14 March 2000. Five bids were received ranging from
$11,195,000 to $12,267,000. Bids for eight alternates were received.
Market & Johnson, Inc. is the apparent low responsive bidder. Their base bid is $11,195,000. The
staff recommends Alternates 1, 3, 4, 5, 6B, 7 and 8 be accepted. The total bid with alternates is
$11,837,306. A Summary of the lowest responsive bid and available funds is attached.
Please advise of your approval. Thank you.
Cc: Roy Sutherland
Jim Ibister
Steve Sorensen
Paul Oberhaus
Randy Westbrook
8221-1 1 1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING gr I
DATE: 3/20/2000
;ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: IT
;;SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY,
S OFFICE G
ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY ADKINS
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS y� A, .� �'
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. 'i
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
a) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 195.47 Acres of Land Legally
Described as the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19, the South Half of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 20, and a Part of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section
20, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located
South of Valleyhigh Road NW — West of Circle Drive.
b) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 40.17 Acres of Land Located in
the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 107 North, Range 14 West,
Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located South of Va eyhigh Road NW — West of West
Circle Drive.
c) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 40 Acres of Land Located in the
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 106 North, Range 13 West,
Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the East Side of 40'' Avenue Southeast East
of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision.
G.4. MISCELLANEOUS
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
i
n
o
a
o
5
-
a
w
w
o
N
q
n
-
w
a
O
o
0
o
a
A
r a
o
a
p
m
o
a
0 Z =
y
r
N
m
O
n
nl
m
O
Q
N
N
N
N
H
a
0
p
o
O
p
o
p
0
o
0
C O p V y
O
a
N
O
m
m Z m a
V VI
m
w
m
q
m
q
m
q
m
a
p
O
O
O
O
q
O
O
O
O
O
� N
N
Q �
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
q o_
^' O m V c m
O
O
Or
S
m
�
H
a -
a
o
a 0
a 0
p
0
p
0
q o
C O
O
O
O
O
n
weN-
Z m
"
a
O
o
a
O
p
O
p
O
p
O Z I
O
m
O
N
a
N
N
H
H
w
a
a
a
O
O
a Y
a
w
w
w
w
w
a
a
a
a
a
o
a
LL�
O
O
O
m
O
Y
• Z
66
m
m
N
m
Q
N
VI
P
M
p
m
N
N
m
N
a
O
O
p
O
O
m 2
m
n
m
m
m
Q t V
N
N
N
N
N
a
a
a
a
a
o
ac
ao
m
a
a
Q a O
fl
q
N
m
v
o
N
N
H
N
N
N
a
O
O
O
O
a
a
a
O
O
m y
H
m
N
a
N
v
e
m
p
N
q
H
a c
m �
x
x
x
x
X
a7
a
a
6
P
Y
Y
v
Q
a
n
_
Y
v
O
U
l
U
C
U
4Q
?
=
�
U
�
Y
N
C
-
<
1
Y
21
319;
t v CPM i MAYO CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS 3/14/00
TOTALS WITH ALTERNATES 1, 3, 4, 5, 6B, 7 & 8
Contractor Knutson Const. Weis Builders
BASE 810 $12,267,000 $12,200,000
Alternate No.t
Bock,n lieu of Pm t
Alternate No.3
Cowable Pan. 3 d a
Alternate No.4
Adhm At . Ro g
Alternate No.5
EA Metal La et9
Alternate No.6B
LevibontColm. Con Wy W119991
Alternate No.7
Elavna Flit Up
Alternate No.8
Chet Ta
TOTAL
316,000 250,000
156,000 146,000
65,000 60,000
21,500 20,000
-1,000 46,000
57,000 52,139
327.s2Q4 167.75
$13,108,500 $12,931,898
Alvin E. Benike
$11,746,600
183,900
145,800
68,890
16,850
-950
50,750
202,150
$12,413,990
A.J. Lysne
$11,740,000
141, 000
180,000
64000
20,000
Market & Johnson
$11.195,000
209,920
165,424
61,621
22,850
-900
-963
62,000
50,548
140.000
132,906
$12,346,100
511,837,30fi
BICTAB.xls/Bid Alts Page 1