Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/03/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCILIBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 7 REGULAR PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS C)o - 0 7 APRIL 3, 2000 7:00 P.M. (3-4) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (5-12) 2) Request to Increase Taxi Cab Fares (13-14) 3) Enter into New Parking Lot Operating Agreement with Republic - Taylor Parking (15-16) 4) Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc./McGhie & Betts and Request to Advertise for Bids for Parking Lot and Entrance Drive Improvements (17-28) 5) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action (29-32) 6) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (33-34) 7) On -Sale Wine & 3.2% Beer Application for Roscoe's Rootbeer & Ribs (35-36) 8) Approval of Accounts Payable (37-38) 9) Reappointments/Building Code Board, Heating Code Board, Housing Board (39-52) 10) Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement for Weatherstone Development (53-54) 11) Donation for Police Honor Guard (55-56) 12) Donation of Preliminary Breath Tester (57-58) 13) Development Agreement with Michael Younge Development, Inc. (59-60) 14) Development Agreement with IBM (61-62) 15) Development Agreement/Yates First Sub. Development Agreement (63-64) 16) Development Agreement Amendment/Yates First Subdivision Development Agreement (65-66) 17) Owner Contract/Orchard Ridge First Addition (Phase 1) (67-68) 18) Owner Contract/Wedgewood Hills 3rd Subdivision/Phase II (All of Block 3 & Outlot A Council Agenda April 3, 2000 Page 2 (69-70) 19) Owner Contract/Rose Harbor Estates (All of Block 10; Lots 2-25, Block 3; & Lots 11-23, Block 2) (71-72) 20) Request Bids for Replacement of High Roof at Traffic Operations Building (73-74) 21) Miscellaneous Concrete Repairs Change Order No. 2 E) HEARINGS (75-76) 1) Continued Hearing/Revised Final Plat to be Known as Orchard Ridge First Addition (77-88) 2) Continued Hearing/Type III, Phase I, Final Plat to be Known as Yate's First Subdivision (89-98) 3) Zoning District Amendment by Freedom Development and Consulting to Amend Zoning District for 40 Acres Along East Side of 40'" Avenue SE, East of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision/Change Zoning Designation from H District to R-2 District (99-126) 4) General Development Plan by Freedom Development and Consulting to be Known as Valley View Estates (127-146) 5) Type III, Phase ll, Preliminary Plat to be Known as Hypointe Subdivision (Name will be Changed to Summit Pointe) (147-164) 6) Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat by Arnold Bomgaars to be Known as Northern Heights North Fourth Subdivision (165-184) 7) Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned Unit Development/Northgate Shopping Center to Allow 2"d Floor Addition and Exterior Alterations/South of 7w St. NW, West of 11 a, Ave. NW (185-196) 8) Amendment to PUD R-40 to Allow for Dentist Office to be Used for Other Business and Office Uses/1617 Skyline Drive SW (197-210) 9) Type III, Phase III, Conditional Use Permit by Willow Creek Golf Course to Allow Fill within Floodway & Flood Fringe Districts to Facilitate Expansion of Golf Course (211-220) 10) Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned Unit Development to Allow Roscoe's Ribs to Serve 3.2 Beer and Wine/North of 4151 St. NW, East of 18"' Ave. NW and West of Cedarwood Mall (221-228) 11) Sanitary Sewer to Serve Marvale Addition and Whynaught's Sub. (229-236) 12) Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Baihly Woodland Sub. (237-244) 13) Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Woodland Hills Sub. F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (245-246) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS Council Agenda April 3, 2000 Page 3 (247-280) 1) Amended Findings of Fact Document for Bituminous Plant Operation in Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 for Property South of 40"' Street SW, West of TH 63 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT N� nn REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING A 5ECTIUN: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD I , GM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: 4 3'Oo IT NO. A S. KVEti-%OLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. 1UNCILACTION: Moeonby: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4 3 UO CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CITY ADMINISTRATOR I D-1-21 PREPARED BY: G. NEL-NIAMN' This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have remo� ed 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. Request to Increase Taxi Cab Fares D-3. Enter into New Parking Lot Operating Agreement with Republic -Taylor Parking D-4. Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc./McGhie & Betts and Request to Advertise for Bids for Parking Lot and Entrance Drive Improvements D-5. Consideration of Public Utility Board Action D-6. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-7. On -Sale Wine & 3.2% Beer Application for Roscoe's Rootbeer & Ribs D-8. Approval of Accounts Payable D-9. Reappointments/Building Code Board, Heating Code Board, Housing Board —D-10. Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement for Weatherstone Development D-11. Donation for Police Honor Guard D-12. Donation of Preliminary Breath Tester D-13. Development Agreement with Michael Younge Development, Inc. D-14. Development Agreement with IBM D-15. Development Agreemeno'Yates First Sub. Development Agreement — D-16. Development Agreement Amendment/Yates First Subdivision Development Agreement D-17. Owner Contract/Orchard Ridge First Addition (Phase I) D-18. Owner ContracUWedgewood Hills 3 b Subdivision/Phase II (All of Block 3 & Outlot A D-19. Owner Contract/Rose Harbor Estates (All of Block 10; Lots 2-25, Block 3; & Lots 11-23, Block 2) D-20. Request Bids for Replacement of High Roof at Traffic Operations Building D-21. Miscellaneous Concrete Repairs Change Order No. 2 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. _OUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING v� DATE: 4 3 00 v SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMIMSTRATOR DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO INCREASE T.NXI CAB FARES ITEM NO. D - a, S.KVENVOLD Rochester Transportation Systems requests the City Council to adopt an ordinance amendment to increase the maximum rates of faze allowed to be charged by taxi companies operating in the City of Rochester. The current ordinance maximums and the proposed maximums are as follows: CURRENT PROPOSED Minimum Fare $3.30 S3.50 Wait Time per Hour $18.00 $22.00 Mileage Charge $1.70/mile $1.95/mile Rochester Transportation Systems' justification for the ordinance amendment request is included in their attached letter. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion instructing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment reflecting the requested maximum fare increases and rewording of the fare cards required to be displayed in taxi cabs. r C %Lfe Q�//,ccen)` alfoa a'" jeze- �K �taK51 .r 7�� r�c7�r G�r�clS /1� J c�r�cls G�ft� -1Ae OCv�� NCIL ACTION: Moeon by: second by: M Rochester Transpmrtadan Systems, Inc, dba: Yellow Cab, Go -For Delivery, Care Van, Tots to Teens, Airport Shuttle, Courtesy Shuttles, ZIPS, Limousine Services 3731 Enterprise Drive SW — PO Box 6758 Rochester, MN 55903 (507) 282-2222 FAX (507) 287-0658 03-27-00 Steven Kvenvold City Administrator City of Rochester 201 41' St SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Mr. Kvenvold, Rochester Transportation Systems, Inc. requests consideration by the Rochester City Council of a revision of the current ordinance regulating the maximum rates of fare allowed by taxi companies operating in the City of Rochester. We request an increase in the maximum rates of fare as proposed and outlined in the following paragraphs and enclosures. The last actual rate increase, outside of the minimum charge for a fare, was in February of 1995. Since that time the consumer price index has increased by approximately 11%. The cost of doing business has also increased over the same time frame. Even with the last minimum rate increase in October, which was given completely as an incentive to drivers to increase their wages, we continue to have difficulty recruiting new drivers and retaining them. The competition to pay higher wages inhibits our ability to recruit, as we are unable to compete with higher paying jobs. We look to this increase to give the drivers a percentage increase in wages, which is in line with the consumer price index. We see our drivers as ambassadors for the city as they often are a visitor's first contact with the city and what it has to offer. First impressions are lasting impressions to use a ciich6. As ambassadors we have invested huge expense in providing our drivers uniforms and ties, we've made a considerable financial investment to upgrade our dispatch center and taxis with state of the art GPS computerized dispatching to better serve our customers and the city. We are currently revising and writing a new and more intensive and comprehensive training program with a strong emphasis on customer service for new employees/drivers. FA The expenses with all the above listed improvements coupled with already higher costs prohibit us from being able to continue to hirer and invest in our employees and to give the city the high standards of service that visitors to Rochester are accustomed to. This does not even include the drastic increases in petroleum costs over the past couple of months and the impact these prices are having not only on RTS but also on the transportation industry as a whole. Rochester will continue to see positive growth and with that will come increased traffic congestion. We will see within the next year or two the start of the planned expansions to U.S. Hwy 52 and 63. This will only add to driver difficulties and frustrations because they will not be able to serve as many calls per hour as they currently can which in turn impacts their ability to meet their economic goals. These delays will only increase the demand for more cabs on the streets. Area cities such as Minneapolis and St. Cloud recently passed increases in their ordinances to accommodate the cab services in their respective cities. Some increases we have found were fairly dramatic. We are only looking for an increase to bring us in line with the increase in consumer price index over the past five years. In evaluating the new rate, that we are proposing, we took into consideration the elderly and lower income population within the city and the common requests for transportation that we receive from these areas. We realize the need to keep their fares as economical as possible because we understand that even the smallest increase has the biggest impact on these persons. We currently offer 20°% discount to seniors citizens who purchase coupon books for taxi fares. We wanted to keep the increase for these persons as minimal as possible. We also realize the need to keep taxi fares from the Rochester International Airport affordable and reasonable to those visitors flying into the city. We do not feel this request will negatively impact the cab user but will permit us to maintain the quality of service and drivers the city deserves and needs. Yellow Cab also offers "super saver rates" to those people who reserve, in advance, taxis service to or from a local residential address and the Rochester International Airport. These rates would adjust to the same percentage as the increase we are asking. We therefore ask that the new rate be set at the following: Minimum Fare: $3.50 Mileage Charge: Flip increase to $1.95 for the first 1/8h mile Per mile charge increase to $1.95 per mile Waiting Time: $22.00 per hour We would also ask that the line in the ordinance allowing for the minimum of $3.30 be repealed. The increase in rates and leaving the drivers current r commission levels the same will result in approximately a 12% increase in driver wages overall. We feel this is a fair increase for the drivers as it is in line with the increases in the Consumer Price Index over the past 5 years. The last thing that we ask is that the rate cards that are printed by the city and required in the cabs be rewritten. Many of the customers who use cab service have difficulty understanding legalese and they are often alarmed when they first get into a taxi. Their understanding, when reading the card, is that there is a minimum fare of $3.30 plus $1.70 for the first 118"' of a mile and $1.70 for each additional mile over that. The waiting time when broken down is simply $ .30 per minute. It is easier to understand than $.45 per 1'% minute. We would ask that should the proposed rate be adopted the cards be rewritten to display the following: Minimum Fare: $3.50 $1.96 for each additional mile over the minimum fare or a fraction thereof $.37 for each minute or fraction thereof waiting time. Rochester Code of Ordinances 96A3, City of Rochester, MN Enclosed you will find copies of our proposed increase as well as the results of the research we conducted on area communities and their rates of service. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted Jeffery A. Amundson, Vice President & General Manger =O7���tnZv�D Vl `G fD D _a 0 0 ,.. O _ to CD O �c01iDvD(DA2 O m 0 m m to w 0 O N E Z v y 0 o O- o tD m C) C� o m O O N y 7 0 n 7 y Q o 7 0 O O O 7 C 7 n a 7 N O V (J1 N W W A V W V tW V W tD O W W 000000000 s N NO WNOiAOmW OOOCONONCJ� OOOOO(JtOUtO O O N O O O O O W tD V W V W tll io N OOOOOCn Ot"o N N W O W t7D W W �tnN�Nt0�OO J J J J O O O O O O O C O q � � n 3 97 CD .. O 3 C L c D 3 a w -} W tD CD W O O O ll N m -n tp�3 CCD ^ N 3 W !D fD m 3O O- N N fA W u 7 n N Cn COD O O y O 7 1 N N Im 10 // // [ § ■ I a j( c §\ U 3 2 (2 n C 4 n a 2 �_ ,9 'o Q £ £ Ik , ;0 E \\ �� ƒ // } aE ma m (A e \[ \ �a \ k 82 ® m ' k 0 ƒ/ )\ \ I� f £ ƒ w E° c ; Eƒ ƒ f a :3} \ k§ 0 e { 7 S � ( / % § «a I= 49 w0 §\ CD k }m / \ / i 10 CD E% m $} co es = k �2 \ 2; ƒf ƒf 'a § �n o• ( fZ a§ a aE CL% m �E ;0 - &E CD Fr \2 \ 0 f mE k] \R S.S \3 0) /\ \CD ƒ 0= §k —m ;� &/ §(D ELJ 3 m m\ 2 E i v cn v cn cn I C C ? O S. N N 0- O 7 (D m p > N C n a 7 DI O 1lCC y s N A (rD CDCDCDN N CD a a a CD a a i m a W O N N W J Ln p go j O O W O O O 0 3 � 3 0 a fR G9N G� Cn3 6 �� IJN NN O V O O o A (T O D O O v O N A QD y 0 O d O (D O 01 W 01 9 n O 3 ('� -� C] n 0 � � (D 0 N (D S N 3 (A 7' fACD 3 3 N c c S N c (D @ O W W § g § 8 3 CD m (D m ni 3. 3 n 3 CD a o f° m m (O 0 1 J J co co 07 M M t�f 6► � N M D 3 3 A 3 H o H a c y N 3 h o l N N M H M o + C � o g CD_3 Q c m H 101' (p¢��5��� � t ✓� �-c�1Ct S . ��c�,igsf r��rih'�y So r F rS Qo St�+� `� cLC�lS7�c�kc_ RATES 4F FARE $3.30 MINIMUM FARE $1.70 for 1st 1/8 of a mile $1.70 each additional mile $ .45 for each 1 1 /2 minutes or fraction thereof waiting time. Rochester Code of Ordinances 95.13, City of Rochester MN REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING '2 DATE: 4/3/00 J 11 SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA _._. DESCRIPTION: Enter into a new Parking. Rochester International Airport lot operating agreement The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: A-3 Steven W. Legve Enter into a new parking lot operating agreement with Republic -Taylor Parking. Republic/Taylor Parking has had the parking concession at the airport for the past several years. The Rochester Airport Company has been extremely pleased with the service received from Republic/Taylor Parking. As part of this agreement, Republic/Taylor Parking will invest approximately $500,000 to increase parking lot capacity and to install new equipment to meet the needs of the traveling public. The new agreement would be a ten- year agreement with the following rental terms: Minimum Annual Guarantee: $135,000 to be paid in equal monthly installments. (This represents a $50,000 increase over the previous operating agreement.) Percentage Rentals: Republic -Taylor Parking will pay the City of Rochester/Rochester Airport Company the following: 50% of Annual Gross Receipts from $0.00 to $200,000.00 60% of Annual Gross Receipts from $200,000.01 to $400,000.00 80% of Annual Gross Receipts from $400,000.01 to $600,000.00 83% of Annual Gross Receipts from $600,000.01 to $750,000.00 93% of Annual Gross Receipts in excess of $750,000.01 (All the above percentages represent an increase over the previous operating agreement.) The percentage rental payments will be paid quarterly. The proposed initial parking rates for the redesigned parking lots are as follows: SHORT TERM 0 - % Hour $.75 '/2 - 1 Hour 1.50 $.75 Each Additional %s Hour Daily Maximum $8.00 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: LONG TERM 0 -1 Hour $1.00 1 - 2 Hours 2.00 $1.00 Each Additional Hour Daily Maximum $5.00 Weekly Maximum $30.00 Resolution authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the agreement. 1NCIL ACTION: Motion second to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING W DATE: 4/3/00 CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Rochester International Airport D _4 BEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with ACSG. Inc./McGhie & Betts and PREPARED BY: request to advertise for bids for parking lot and entrance drive improvements. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc./McGhie & Betts for engineering and design services for parking lot and entrance drive improvements. The canopy that will be built in front of the terminal this summer requires some roadway and parking lot improvements. This project was in the current CIP. (J6967) Agreement is not to exceed $106,900 Funding: 60% State 40% Local (The parking lot company at the airport will be paying for a portion of the improvements) 2. Advertise for bids for the parking lot and entrance drive improvements. This project was in the current CIP. (J6967) :)UNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement and authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. DUNCILACTION: Motion by: second 11 jn Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date a/3/00 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO CONSENT AGENDA OCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES D—S ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on March 27, 2000 and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with Turbo Power and Marine for a FT8 Twin Pac Pratt & Whitney gas turbine generator, and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement. The amount of the agreement is estimated to be $15,850,00.00 and Turbo Power and Marine being lowest responsible bidder. The Council is also requested to approve financing of the gas turbine generator installation (approximately $23,000,000.00), the upgrade and maintenance of the existing gas turbine generator ($2,700,000.00), and electric system improvements ($7,300,00.00) through the issuance of electric revenue bonds totaling approximately $33,000,00.00 plus bond sale and closing costs. The total bond issue would be approximately $37,000,000.00. to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with TMI Coatings, Inc. and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract for water storage tank repair/repainting. The amount of the agreement to be $45,600.00 and TMI Coatings, Inc. being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Bergerson- Caswell, Inc. for replacement of pumping units (Wells 17, 18, 28, 32). The amount of the agreement to be $88,670.00 and Bergerson-Caswell, Inc. being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve payment of an invoice from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for 2000 emission fee — Silver Lake Plant. The amount of the payment to be $98,132.63. to approve a resolution to approve a purchase agreement and supplemental Letter of Understanding with Windsor Chase Drive Homeowners' Association for the purchase of the Windsor Chase Water System. The amount of the purchase agreement to be $1.00 and other valuable consideration, including those obligations set forth separately by contract or agreement. The Common Council is also requested to approve the individual Agreements for Municipal Water Service with each of the twelve Windsor Chase Water System owners. GENERAL MANAGER: e,4� ;OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: "r u (507) 280-1601 E-mail: lkoshire@rpu org DATE: March 29, 2000 TO, Rochester Common Council General Manager's Office MEMORANDUM FROM: Larry Koshire Y'"I SUBJECT: RPU Combustion Turbine Generator and Electric Revenue Bonds At the March 27, 2000 RPU Board meeting, the Board approved the purchase of a new combustion turbine generator, electric revenue financing of the generator, and other electric system improvements. We have attached the detailed explanation of this project and the financing that was in the For Board Action form presented to the RPU Board. This cover memo will summarize that information as well as discuss the financial impacts on RPU that were not contained in the for Board Action form. Three specific actions were taken by the RPU Board and recommended for approval by the Rochester Common Council. The RPU Board recommends the purchase of a gas turbine generator from Turbo Power Marine for a 49 megawatt Pratt & Whitney unit at an estimated cost of $15,850,000.00. The unit will be installed for the 2002 electric peak. 2. The RPU Board recommends Council approval of financing with electric revenue bonds of the gas turbine generator and material and equipment installation of the unit at approximately $23,000,000,00 3. The RPU Board approved electric revenue bond financing of expansion of the existing electric transmission and distribution infrastructure at $7,300,000.00, and the upgrade and maintenance of the existing Cascade Creek gas turbine generator at $2,700,000 0& The Board approved total electric revenue bond proceeds needed that would equal approximately $33 million plus bond sale and closing costs. The total bond issue would be approximately $37 million. A tabulation of the bids received for the project, the consultant's evaluation and recommendation, and the financial advisor's review and recommendation are all included with the FBA material. The consultant is recommending purchase of the larger gas turbine generator (49 megawatts) because of the low total installed cost and greater efficiency over the other units. In addition, as the consultant pointed out, the larger unit provides additional incremental capacity at a price that is lower than the transmission cost for purchasing additional power on the market. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 Facsimile 507,280.1542 website www.rpu.org Rochester Common Council �� March 29, 2000 Page 2 RPU staff evaluated the project and anticipated $37 million bond issue in its financial forecast for the next four to five years. In reviewing the cash flow and bond payment costs, this project does not result in the need, based on current forecasts, for an electric rate increase. In addition, with the dramatically declining cash reserves in the last few years because of the rapid growth in Rochester and the pressure to finance this capital growth out of operating revenue, the bond proceeds result in lower near term revenue needs. The bond sale will allow us to finance electric system substation and transmission line improvements that are needed to not only serve load growth in the future, but to relieve existing electrical facilities that are now overloaded. These are projects that absolutely must be completed and the present cash flow cannot support the capital needed for these projects. The major cost factor behind the RPU revenue needs still is the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency's (SMMPA) power supply costs that are 651No of our revenue requirements. This rate as well as future growth will be the determinants of future revenue requirements. Purchase of a new combustion turbine will allow us to ensure stable energy prices in a highly volatile electric energy market. It will provide assurance of RPU's capacity to serve the rapidly growing load of the Rochester area. It will also provide an opportunity to market low cost energy and capacity when it is not needed to serve the RPU load. The consultant further indicated that this unit would position RPU with low cost incremental capacity with which to enter into a future retail competitive market. We recommend approval of the resolution passed by the Utility Board on March 27, 2000. Attachments LJK:kaw FOR BOARD ACTION Agendaltem# 3.a. Meeting Date: 3/27/00 SUBJECT: Combustion Turbine Generator - Cascade Creek Unit 2 and Bond Financing PREPARED BY: Wally Schlink, Manager of Power Production ITEM DESCRIPTION: On March 10, 2000 seven bids were received for the above referenced project. Two of the bids were rejected because they did not contain a required bid bond. The remaining five bids were accepted and evaluated. Specifications were distributed to six combustion turbine generator -manufacturing firms. The installation of a combustion turbine at the Cascade Creek site is an integral part of RPU's power supply plan. Previous system studies have identified this as the most reliable and economical method of satisfying CROD load system demands and to meet future growth requirements in the Rochester electrical system. Attached are a copy of the purchase contract, a matrix comparing the bid packages and a copy of the recommended bidder's bid form. Also attached are the evaluation and the recommendation for award from Burns & McDonnell, who have been retained as the engineer and architect representing RPU for the project. A memo is attached describing the financing proposal, including electric system requirements. Also included is a letter from the financial advisor supporting this plan. A representative from Burns & McDonnell will be in attendance for a presentation and to answer any further questions relating to the project. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution requesting the Common Council to approve a purchase contract agreement with Turbo Power and Marine Systems, Inc for the purchase of one Pratt & Whitney FTS Twin Pat combustion turbine generator as defined in the specification. The purchase contract agreement will be for a firm price of $15,850,000.00. The resolution also recommends financing the generator with electric revenue bonds in an amount of $23,000,000.00, and as part of the issue includes financing of the upgrade of the existing gas turbine and electric system requirements. dK Geqdal Manager 3 -1j.,lC ate rpu we pledye, we de�i�er (507)280-1601 E-mail: ikoshire@rpu.org DATE: March 23, 2000 TO: RPU Board FROM: Larry Koshire 4e f SUBJECT: Electric Revenue Bonds al General Manager's Office MEMORANDUM The proposed installation of a gas turbine generator to meet RPU's future power supply requirements will necessitate issuance of electric revenue bonds to finance this project. As indicated in the For Board Action form, the cost of the turbine generator plus the material and equipment for installation of the generator will total approximately $23 million. At this time, Board and Council action are requested only for the purchase of the Pratt & Whitney gas turbine generator. The material work, the substation equipment, and generator step-up transformer will all be bid out separately and brought back to the Board and Council for approval as part of the $23 million material and equipment installation contract. As we reported in the year 2000 budget, the rate of growth of the City of Rochester has required RPU to draw heavily on its reserves for electrical system infrastructure. This growth has also necessitated the need to make one-time investments in the near term in new electric distribution substations and expansion of existing substations to serve the expanding electrical load growth. Expansion of the substations would include a new transformer and expansion of the Northern Hills substation, a new Eastside substation and feeder exits, and expansion to serve an overloaded Willow Creek substation. Also included is the final leg of the completion of our 161kV conversion from the Bamber Valley to the Cascade Creek substation. This will require purchasing of new transformers and substation modification. Since reserves are already low, it would be prudent to finance as a part of the financing for the electric generator, the needed expansion of the RPU electric infrastructure. Based on an analysis of cost for the above -mentioned projects, including some feeder extensions, we estimate the need for $7.3 million for this use for the next approximately three years. This is money that is not readily available out of reserves, and this would be an investment that will be in service for the next 30 to 40 years for the electric customers. In addition to the transmission and distribution system improvements, the existing gas turbine generator and oil tank are in need of upgrade and maintenance. Monies are needed to satisfy environmental regulations for oil tank storage and unloading, and the existing 25-year-old gas turbine generator will require a major teardown or refurbishment. In addition, we are proposing to convert the existing gas turbine generator from strictly oil firing to dual fuel firing using oil and natural gas. This would allow us to have the option of the most economical energy to be Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 95, RPU Board March 23, 2000 Page 2 generated off the unit since we have notified Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) that we will be using the unit for our own purposes starting in the year 2001. The total for this upgrade work is $2.7 million. Therefore, we have been working with our financial advisor to determine the economics of a total bond sale to finance the above projects. The total sale would be estimated at approximately $33,000,000.00. This figure does not include the bond issuance costs, cost for the bond counsel, financial advisor, etc. A letter is included in this packet from the financial advisor indicating their support of the issuance of electric revenue bonds in this amount with initial indications from the bond rating agency of investment grade and a preliminary rating level. This bond issuance will allow us to continue to support electric growth in Rochester, while providing reliable service and much needed and economical generation to serve this growth in the future. LJK:kaw Rece_ved: 3123;00 12:13; 03/23,00 13:08 F.0 6312213002 85 SEVEN T11 PLACE FAST, SUM 100 SAINT PAUL. MN 551014887 ZI 651-223-3000 FAIL 651-223.3002 9412233002 -- RPU; Page 2 SPRI: fGSTID INC. SPRINGSTED A(66 Fvwvr A.duum March 23, 2000 Mr. tarry Koshire, General Manager Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) 4000 East River Road North East Rochester, MN 55906-2813 E� Re: Financing of Turbine and Annual Capital Improvements Dear Mr. Koshire: Z 002/007 A 3 We understand the Utility is moving forward with a decision on the acquisition of a gas turbine generator. This decision is, in part, affected by the determination of the ability to finance such a capital asset investment. We have been asked to provide the Utility with our opinion as to the ability to obtain financing at market interest rates. The Utility has provided us with an estimate of the total expenditure budget. This budget includes direct Utility costs of approximately $23.0 million for the generator, $2.7 million for enhancements to the existing turbine; and $7.3 million for general electric system capital improvements. The total direct costs are approximately $33.0 million, to which would be added financing costs including a debt service reserve fund required for marketing. Preliminary Financing Plan The financing of this acquisition would be secured by electric system revenues only. The issue would not be secured by general property taxes nor is it expected at this time by all revenues of the utility, namely water revenues. Currently, the Utility has no outstanding debt These 'revenue' bonds would therefore be structured with a negotiated set of security conditions which would become contractual obligations of the City and the Utility. Our estimates have anticipated typical market standards for these conditions, but they will only become final as the process unfolds. Wdh this projected expenditure budget we have estimated a preliminary bond issue size of approximately $37.04 million. It is expected the bond issue would be repaid over a 20-year term with relatively even annual payments. Our current estimate of interest rates is based on comparable bond sales at this time. The source of repayment would be net revenues of the electric system after factoring in a number of market -permitted adjustments, such as the non -cash depreciation expense. The Utility also makes a payment to the City in lieu of taxes, which we understand totaled $5.8 million in 1999. An industry guide of security is termed 'coverage', which is the ratio of available net revenues as adjusted to average annual debt service. The preliminary estimate of this issue's coverage, based on adjusted 1999 net revenues, is 1.3 times. It is also customary SAMr PAUL.. MN - XNNEAMW. MN - MILWAUK=, W1 - 0VWU lNn MIJC. Icy - WASre a%'ON, DC - M M0W0, lA Receav" : 3/23/00 12:13; 03/23/00 13:08 FAd 6512233002 e612233002 -- RFU; -age 3 SPRINGSTED INC. Z 003/ 007 Rochester Public Utilities March 23, 2000 Page 2 to review the coverage figure with inclusion of any payment to the City as available net revenues. For 1999, the coverage figure would be approximately in excess of 3.0 times. Based on these figures and information to -date, we believe the capital acquisition could be financed at market levels. Credit RatinglSecurity Conditions We have discussed this financing and the Utility on a preliminary basis with Moody's Investors Service as to the potential credit rating level. Their primary question areas center on the strategic cost of electric supply given this project, the coverage factors, the underlying economy, the overall level of Utility system debt (here modest), as well as customary rating factors. On a preliminary basis, these discussions have lead us to the conclusion that the bond issue would be, at minimum, `investment grade', with a potential for the 'A' category. The final determination is far from complete but this dlaiogue helps the Utility both focus As efforts and its expectations. We would be glad to respond to any questions you may have on this financing. Ily, l David N. MacGi livray t / Principal mlk ... cc: Mr. Dale Martinson, Finance Director, City of Rochester Mr. Jim O'Meara, Briggs & Morgan FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Rem # 3. b . Meeting Date: SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BIDS WATER STORAGE TANK REPAIR / REPAINTING PREPARED BY: Cary Johnson, Supervisor of Water Operations ITEM DESCRIPTION: 3/27/00 Two bids were received and opened on March 21", 2000 for water storage tank repair/repainting work to be completed during 2000. A third bid, received after the bid opening time was returned to the prospective bidder unopened. This work consists of exterior only coating replacement and replacement of exterior tank safety climb. A breakdown of the bids is attached. TMI Coatings, Inc. was the overall project low bidder with a total bid of $45,600. The Water M&C budget for 2000 includes $80,960 for this project. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED: Staff recommends the Utility a contract for the project $45,600, and to authorize contract. Revzcuieci 3-Z3-m IsGY\.P,- Board request the City Council to approve with TMI Coatings, Inc. in the amount of the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the �lW ee�'-Z�-Z GeniVal Manager 3 ,tom ate FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Rem # 3. c. Meeting Date: 3/27/00 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF BIDS REPLACEMENT OF PUMPING UNITS (WELLS 17,18,28. &32) PREPARED BY: Cary Johnson, Supervisor of Water Operations ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bids were received and opened on March 21", 2000 for replacement of pumping units at Wells #17, 418, #28, and Well #32. A breakdown of the bids received is attached. Bergerson-Caswell, Inc. was the overall low bidder on each of the four pumping unit replacements with a total bid of $88,670. The Water M&C budget for 2000 includes $54,648 for three pumping replacements. Since the budget was prepared a need for an additional pumping unit replacement has risen. This was noted in the Approval to Advertise for Bids. Additional monies are available for the 40 pumping unit as bids for tower maintenance came in lower than expected. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED: Staff recommends the Utility Board accept the low bid from Bergerson- Caswell in the amount of $88,670 and request the City Council to authorize a purchase order agreement for the entire bid with Bergerson- Caswell the four proposed pumping unit replacements. Rek--);2wed 3-Z3 - 00 LWn y c• i,C 3�} c.c GeneS9 Manager bate FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 6 SUBJECT: ' 2000Air Emissions Fee Silver Lake Plant PREPARED BY: Joseph S. Hensel, Manager of Environment & Facilities ITEM DESCRIPTION: Meeting Date: 3/27/00 Minnesota Rules Parts 7002 and 7005 require facilities with air emission permits to pay an emission -based annual fee to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to fund air quality programs. Currently, emission fees support approximately 68% of the air program budget. (air quality budget for this fiscal year is $12,600,000; emission fees generate $8,629,365.) The 2000 air emission fee for the Silver Lake Plant is $98,132.63. The fee is based on actual emissions from 1998 and a rate of $24.65 per ton. The following is a summary of fees from 1994-2000: FEE YEAR EMISSION YEAR EMISSIONS(TONS) FEE RATE FEE 2000 1998 3,981 24.65 $98,132.63 1999 1997 3,657 23.75 $86,854.94 1998 1996 3,521 23.48 $82,694.22 1997 1995 2,018 22.60 $45,598.89 1996 1994 2,930 21.62 $63,355.25 1995 1993 2,422 18.30 $44,328.08 1994 1 1992 3,316 18.91 $62,729.64 UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Utility Board and Council approval of the resolution authorizing payment of the Silver Lake Plant 2000 air emission fee in the amount of $98,132.63 Reviewed 3-ck-00 Gengal Manager Date FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item# 7 Meeting Date: 3/27/00 SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF WINDSOR CHASE WATER SYSTEM PREPARED BY: Doug Rovang, Senior Civil Engineer ITEM DESCRIPTION: RPU staff and representatives of the Windsor Chase Drive Homeowners' Association have agreed to terms under which the City would acquire the Windsor Chase Water System, a suburban water system with 12 customers located within the urban service area just southwest of the City. (The water system customers are not currently RPU electric customers.) The proposed Purchase Agreement and a separate Letter of Understanding are attached for Utility Board review. The Agreement specifies a total purchase price of $1 and other considerations and a closing date of May 1, 2000. If approved by the Utility Board, the City Administrator will be asked to present the Board's resolution for concurrence by the City Council at its first meeting in April, 2000. If acquisition of the water system is completed, RPU will assume operation of the Windsor Chase Water Svstem at 12:00 noon on May 1, 2000. The customer accounts acquired by RPU will be handled under the same service rules and regulations which apply to all other customers receiving water service from RPU, with Windsor Chase Water System customer rates 2.0 times the customer and commodity charges in RPU Rate Schedule WTR. If at some future date the Water System is connected directly to the municipal water system or the area is annexed to the City, Windsor Chase Water System customer water rates would be the same as municipal water customers. Customers of the Windsor Chase Water System own the System. Therefore, one of the conditions for City purchase of the System is that each property owner signs the Agreement for Municipal Water Service included in Attachment A to the Letter of Understanding. This Agreement, prepared with assistance of the City Public Works Department and the City Attorney's office, contains terms and conditions required by the City Council prior to extension of City water and/or sewer service to areas outside the City within the Urban Service Area, e.g., agreement to future annexation, and acceptance of future water and sewer related assessments and fees. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends the Utility Board approve the Purchase Agreement for the Windsor Chase Water System and the separate Letter of Understanding dated March 21, 2000, and request the Common Council to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Purchase Agreement for the Windsor Chase Water System and the individual Agreements for Municipal Water Service with each of the twelve (12) Windsor Chase Water System owners. 3 03 12eve Gene al Manager Date ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES CONSENT AGENDA _M DESCRIPTION: LICENSES REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY CLERK & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES MEETING DATE: 4, + 00 ITEM NO. D -!o DONNA JSCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. GAMBLING — TEMPORARY Trout Unlimited — Hiawatha Chapter 131 Rena Belle St. Eyota, Mn. 55934 Raffle 5/6/00 AT Radisson Centerplace Hotel 150 South Broadway Rochester, Mn. 55904 St. Pius X Catholic Church 1315 12'" Ave NW Rochester, Mn 55901 Raffle 5/19/00 AT St. Pius School 1205 12'h Ave NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 EMU Association of Minnesota Rt 1, Box 195A Vergas, Mn. 56587 Raffle 6/ 10/00 AT Kahler Hotel Banquet Hall 20 2"d Ave SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 IUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PAGE 2 APRIL 4, 2000W GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT RENEWAL Lourdes Foundation 621 West Center St. Rochester. Mn. 55902 Premise Renewal AT Circus World Bingo 2828 East Frontage Rd NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 HAVC LICENSE Mcgill Plumbing Inc. 2015 25" St SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 MASTER INSTALLER Terry McGill 2015 25' St. SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 MASTER PLUMBER Mcgill Plumbing Inc. 2015 25" St SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 SEWER & DRAINS Schumacher Excavating, Inc. 15770 440" St. Zumbrota. Mn. 55992 SIDEWALKS — CEMENT Thomas Ryan Cement Contracting 307 17t' St SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES �� PAGE 3 APRIL 3. 2000 MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE Suzanne Ringhofer Race to Remember Run -Walk In Memory of Katlin Ringhofer NW Park - Douglas Trail — Behind IBM 4/39/00 Lourdes High School Habitat for Humanity Walk-A-Thon 4/29/00 South Fork Zumbro Trail Rochester Track Club Spring Run 5/13/00 Essex Park Area American Veterans Freedom Run for Veterans 5/21/00 Apache Mall to Broadway North Rochester Track Club Women's Running Race 7/22,100 Silver Lake Park COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/3/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D - 6 DESCRIPTION: LICENSES. BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: ADDENDUM DONNA J SCHOTT The following ADDENDUM 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. MASTER PLUMBER Randy Holtan K & S Heating, Air Conditioning & Plumbing 4205 Hwy 14 West Rochester, Mn. 55901 SIGN ERECTION Elements, Inc. 4920 Otter Lake Road St. Paul, Mn. 55110 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above ADDENDUM licenses. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4.3 00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK 'D _ n _.VI DESCRIPTION: ON SALE WINE AND 3.2% BEER APPLICATION FOR PREPARED BY: ROSCO'S ROOTBEER & RIBS DONNA J sCIIOTT Application for an On Sale Wine and 3.2% Beer Licenses has been received from Steven and Barbara Ross for Rosco's Rootbeer & Ribs Inc. located at 4180 18b' Ave NW, Rochester, Mn. 5 590 1. They are requesting that the licenses be effective as soon as possible. Issuance of the license would be pending all departmental approvals, the required insurance. fees and any outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. A confidential investigative report has been completed and satisfied. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED A motion to approve the On Sale Wine and 3.2 % Beer license for Roscoe's Rootbeer & Ribs. UNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ;35� DATE: 4/3/0[r 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 $1,177,920.52. Less: Any exceptions :OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: — S Dale Martinson REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ME=,ING DATE: "0 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational Business Mayor's Office V w9 TEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Reappointments: Bldg Code Bd; Heating Code Bd.; Housing Bd Mayor Canfiel The following persons are eligible for reappointment to serve another term on respective boards: BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS: Dr. David Edmondson 801 1st Street NW Second 3 year term to May 2002 HEATING VENTILATING AIR COND. BOARD OF REVIEW: Lee Tapper 2244 67 Street NW Second term to November 2003 :OUNCIL ACTION: modon by s.oaw by ea: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT40N i MEETINGS DATE: 4-3-0O AGENDA March 29, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. PLANNING b_10 Decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the PREPARED BY: Weatherstone development. Mitzi A. Baker. An EAW was prepared for the Weatherstone development in February, 2000 to determine the potential environmental effects of a residential development that includes 89 acres and up to 585 dwelling units west of 501h Ave. NW, north of the Douglas Trail. The 30 day comment period on the EAW expired on March 22, 2000. Three comments were received (see attached). Responses to the written comments from MPCA, MN DNR and MN Historical Society are enclosed. Minnesota Rules require that a decision on this matter must be made by the RGU (Common Council) no later than 30 days after March 22, 000 (end of comment period). Council Action Needed: Adoption of a resolution setting forth the City's declaration on the EAW adequacy. The resolution Auld include specific findings. This resolution will be transmitted by the Planning Department to the tironmental Quality Board. Attachments: Copy of March 29, 2000 report from Planning Staff which includes a copy of the Weatherstone EAW, comment letters received and responses to the agency comments. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on April 3, 2000 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Rochester -Olmsted Government Center Building 6. McGhie & Betts Environmental Services, Inc. I94"�c Ot uDI NESTER yr,YYA \ B� Tf D•4 GGLSS •• ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING TO: Rochester Common Council GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner HOUSING/HRA 5071285.8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 DATE: March 29, 2000 wELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Weatherstone Background: The 1973 Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, administered statewide through the Environmental Quality Board, is the basis for the present Environmental Review Program of the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 - 7900 were promulgated to administer the mandates of the Policy Act, spell out the specific environmental review procedures, and define when and how they must be employed. The intent of the environmental review program is identify early the potential impacts of a project and provide time for the decision makers to require that mitigative measures are incorporated into the project design before local permits are granted. The first level of environmental review under the program is known as an Environmental Assessment Worksheet or "EAW". The specific content, environmental scope, and procedures for an EAW are specified in Minnesota Rules. The rules mandate what type of projects must go through the EAW process and who will act as the responsible unit of government to determine if additional environmental review is necessary in the form of a much more detailed Environmental Impact Statement Or "EIS". The Weatherstone development project exceeds a mandatory EAW category in that it will eventually result in the permanent conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural land to a more intensive use (Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 Subp. 36). The rules assign the responsibility for the EAW preparation and determination of adequacy to the local unit of government which is charged with the responsibility to approve or deny permits for the project to proceed. In this case, the local responsible governmental unit would be the Rochester Common Council. EAW Process: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Weatherstone was transmitted to the Environmental Quality Board on February 15, 2000. The Planning Department notified and provided a copy of the EAW to the various state and federal agencies prescribed by Minnesota Rules. Copies of the EAW were made available to the City Clerk, County Administrator, and Public Library for public display, as well as a copy at the Planning Department. A press release �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Weatherstone EAW was made to the Rochester Post Bulletin which explained the procedures for submitting comments. On February 21, 2000, the notice of availability was published in the EQB Monitor. The 30 day comment period expired on March 22, 2000, The following comments were received regarding this EAW: 1. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (see attached) 2. Minnesota Historical Society (see attached) 3. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (see attached) Rochester's Responsibilities in the Process: Under Minnesota Rules the City of Rochester is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) to determine the need for further environmental review of a project by preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The decision facing the City is whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects and compare the impacts that may be expected to occur from the project with four criteria outlined in the rules (and listed below). This report could act as a record of the findings made by the City and a basis for the decision that is made. The City must make either a negative or a positive declaration. If a negative declaration is made on the need for an EIS, then the City must notify all persons or agencies that originally received copies of the EAW. The Environmental Quality Board shall publish the decision in the EQB Monitor. If a positive declaration is made, meaning an EIS must be prepared, then it should include the scope of what specific issues must be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. A positive declaration should include the time, date and location of the public meeting to discuss the scope of the EIS. Response to Comments: Under the environmental review process, the RGU's record must provide written response to substantive comments received during the EAW comment period. In this instance we received written comments from those agencies and individuals listed above. The comments received generally related to: 1. Additional Environmental Review 2. Wetlands 3. Erosion Control/Water Quality 4. Compatibility with the Douglas Trail 5. Request for Photographs Please see the attached letter from McGhie & Betts Environmental Services, Inc., dated March 27, 2000 for responses to the concerns and issues raised by these agencies. This letter states that Item 20 will be addressed by the Planning Department. Response to Item 20: Demolition permits are required from the Rochester Building Safety Department. Contractors are responsible for proper disposal at a licensed facility. Criteria for Determining Sianificant Environmental Effects: In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the City must consider the following factors as outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410,1700 subp. 7: 3 Weatherstone EAW A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; 8. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a resuit of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer including other EIS's. Findings: The Planning Staff recommends that based on the following findings that the City make a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for Weatherstone and that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects: 1. The anticipated environmental effects of this project are found to be similar to those experienced with other development in the City of Rochester. This site has no unique environmentally sensitive features which warrant more detailed investigations. 2. Water quality of surface waters from runoff or waste waters from the site should not be significantly degraded because of this project. Erosion and water quality of runoff will be controlled by the installation of a stormwater detention pond. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual provides for an ongoing regulatory authority of the City over erosion control practices. Wastewater from this project will be treated at the City of Rochester Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is capable of accepting the estimated amounts of wastewater generated by this project. 3. The potential for groundwater contamination is found to be reduced by the use of a stormwater collection system which employs a detention basin as compared to the existing unrestricted overland flow in the property's present state. Spills on the ground surface will have the potential to be intercepted in the stormwater detention area before they reach the project/property boundaries. 4. The anticipated cumulative loss of agricultural lands within the urban service area of the City of Rochester (where sewer and water service is available) to urban land uses is an anticipated effect of the orderly growth of the City. Land use policies direct development to growth centers such as Rochester to reduce the pressure on agricultural lands in the outlying area to be converted to residential uses. The more efficient use of land for residential purposes where increased densities can be realized because of sewer and water availability is expected to help conserve truly prime agricultural areas. 5. Dust and noise which will be generated because of the construction of this project will be no more than typical for other residential or commercial development. The City of Rochester has a noise ordinance which will protect nearby residents from unreasonable noise from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Methods for controlling dust will need to be implemented by the developer. Detailed grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City prior to construction and will need to incorporate erosion control measures. 6. This property is within the City of Rochester 25 year Urban Service Area according to the Olmsted County Land Use Plan. Cumulative effects of development within the Urban Service Area will include the loss of prime farmland and wildlife habitat. The loss of terrestrial habitat and prime farmland caused by this development should actually help the efforts to retain more significant habitats and farmlands in less developed areas of the Weatherstone EAW County by removing residential pressures and concentrating them in planned areas where the density of development creates a more efficient use of land. ATTACHMENTS: 1, Weatherstone EAW 2. Letter from the MN Pollution Control Agency 3. Letter from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 4. Letter from Minnesota Historical Society Minnesota Pollution Control Agency March 14, 2000 Ms. Mitzi Baker Senior Planner City of Rochester 2122 Campus Drive Southeast Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Weatherstone Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Ms. Baker: Thank you for the opportunity to continent on the Weatherstone Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), in the city of Rochester (City), Olmsted County. Based on the information contained in the EAW, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be warranted to address the cumulative environmental effects that may result from this project and any impacts that may result due to the proximity of this project to the Badger Ridge Development Project. Also to be considered, are the comments listed below: Item 11: Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources: According to the development plans, it appears that wetlands A, F and G, will be eliminated and that well over half of wetland E will also be developed. While there are some additional wetlands added on to the development site, it states that there were 5.8 acres of wetland before development and that there will be 5.8 acres of wetland plus two storm water ponds after development. The EAW also notes that there are 5.8 acres of constructed drainage -ways. Drainage -ways as partial wetland replacement should be examined carefully. Drainage -ways along major roads will not have the same water quality, water fluctuations, or habitat as the pre-existing off - road wetlands had, even if they were already degraded. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 (TTY) St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20 % fibers from paper recycled by consumers. 45 Ms. Mitzi Baker Page 2 March 14, 2000 • Item 16. Erosion and Sedimentation: The EAW indicates that there will be a disturbance of approximately 80 acres for about 18 months. It should be noted that opening up an 80-acre area all at once could make it very difficult to control erosion. If possible, phasing should be scheduled to opening areas on the order of about 20 acres at any one time to help control the erosion. Minimum required Best Management Plans (BMP's) or controls may not be adequate for an 80 acre disturbance and efforts may have to be stepped up by a considerable degree to address sediment and erosion control. Item 17. Water quality: surface water runoff: "post development runoff from the site should therefore be similar to predevelopment runoff quantity and quality." This statement may be somewhat misleading. Even with treatment, the water quality coming off of 45 acres of impervious surface will not be at all similar to the water quality coming off of 79 acres of established CRP grasslands. This site will go from minimal impervious surface to over 50 percent impervious surface. Many pollutants such as salts, bacteria and total phosphorus will likely be increased in surface waters by the proposed changes. Item 20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks: All demolition and construction waste must be hauled/disposed of at a permitted disposal facility. It is important to ensure that all waste is handled properly whether recycled or disposed. Item 29. Cumulative impacts: This development, along with neighboring development, will have the secondary effect of adding more impervious surfaces through necessary road upgrades. Additional storm water concerns will be generated off -site by this project that will have to subsequently be managed by the City. We look forward to receiving the required responses to our comments, and your decision on the need for an EIS. If you have any questions regarding our comment letter, please call me at (651)297-8236. Sincerely, ztl-ze� Denise Leezer Project Manager Operations & Planning Unit North and South Districts DL:lk cc: Dave Morrison, MPCA, Rochester Subdistrict Office M a 111\.\F:.�nT1 HISTI)RI(. Q `III;IET) March 17, 2000 Ms, Mitzi Baker City of Rochester 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: EAW - Weatherstone Cascade Twp., Olmsted County SHPO Number: 2000-1519 Dear Ms. Baker: Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above -referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given to the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act and through the process outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1600. In order to fully assess the adequacy of the response to question 25a, we request that you submit photographs of any buildings in the project area which were built before 1950. In particular, the existing farmstead referred to in the discussion under #9 should be submitted. Contact our office at 651-296-5462 with questions or concerns. Sincerely, J Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs & Compliance Officer i Il; KEl.ruL(; Bi)t LEN u3u %X tiSr: ;SIN -r Pu L. III n',E�u1'� 55103-I91a. TF LI, I'I I(ON I. :.I.'-u.-,.i'. 0 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 5W Lalavclte Road Si. Paul, N1inneaoin 55155-40 March 20, 2000 Mitzi A. Baker Senior Planner Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Re: EAW for Weatherstone Residential Development Dear Ms. Baker: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the above -referenced document and provides the following comments for your consideration. Item 9, Land Use. The Douglas State Trail is mentioned as an adjacent land use, although no discussion is provided as to the compatibility of the proposed development with recreational trail use. The Douglas State Trail provides opportunities for horseback and snowmobile riding as well as walking, biking, in -line skating and skiing. Generally, development adjacent to the trail will negatively affect the trail from an aesthetic point of view. This impact could be mitigated considerably by the provision of additional buffer area and/or screening of the trail from the adjacent development. The portion of the property immediately adjacent to the trail is an abandoned railroad grade, and the potential exists to manage this 75 to 100-foot strip as green space or recreational open space, which would provide an ideal buffer, both from the trail user's standpoint and that of the residents of the new development. The MDNR would be open to managing this buffer area as part of the Douglas Trail through either purchase of the property or a cooperative agreement with the City. Should you wish to explore this idea further, please contact MDNR Area Trails Coordinator Joel Wagar in our Rochester office at (507) 280-5062. Item 17, Water Quality surface water runoff. The developer should ensure that stormwater from the project area is not routed directly onto the trail right-of-way and/or that it will not cause water to be impounded on the right-of-way, which could create management problems on the trail. While it does not appear that this will be a problem, if water is directed into the waterway immediately adjacent to the trail, erosion and sedimentation problems could result. DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TrY:651-296-5494 • 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Oppommiry Employer }� P.I.. on Recycled Paper Coreekwig a Who Values Diveniry 0 Mlnmrm of to%PoslCcrnumer Weate qq March 20, 2000 Page 2 Item 2S, .Nearby resources. This section discusses impacts of this and other developments on the safety of Douglas Trail users due to the expected increase in traffic levels on 50th Avenue. We agree that protection measures will be needed if the traffic levels reach the estimated 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day. Grade separation would probably be the best treatment of this intersection because of the number and variety of uses occurring on this segment of trail. Item 26, Visual Impacts. This section describes the visual impacts associated with the change in land use from rural to urban residential. Reserving the strip of land adjacent to the Douglas Trail as a buffer zone, as discussed above, either as part of the Douglas Trail or as City park/trailYopen space, should be given serious consideration to minimize interactions between the two adjacent land uses. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Based on the information provided, we see no need for further environmental review on the project. We look forward to receiving your Record of Decision and responses to comments. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Please contact Ken Wald of my staff at (651) 296-4790 if you have questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, or� z� ` V"4-77 Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Environmental Planning and Review Section Office of Management and Budget Services Joe Oschwald Con Christianson Larry Nelson Roger Carlsen, White Oaks Development eaw weathenstone letwpd 000208-1 3-28-200 = -AM FROM I McGhee Betts Environmental 4 TN Services, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue S E_ Rccneste,. MN $5904 507 289.3919 Fax 507.289-7333 :March 27, 2000 Ms. Mitzi A. Baker Senior Planner Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: EAW Comments for the Proposed Weatberstone Development; MBI #1112B/8387 Dear Ms. Baker: Thank you for forwarding the comments you received regarding the Weatherstone EAW. Our response to these comments follows. Response to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comments: EIS requirements: The proposed Weatherstone Development is independent of any other potential projects within this rapidly growing area of Rochester. The developer of Weatherstone has no interest in Badger Ridge, or any other proposed projects within the Rochester Urban Service Area of Cascade Township. The Badger Ridge Development mentioned in the MPCA letter is more than two rniles from the Weatherstone Development and is in a different subwatershed. The trunkline sewer, water tower, and road system are all different between these developments and so the impacts from these developments are distinct and not cumulative. Both areas have been identified in the City of Rochester Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the facility plan as within the 25- year urban service area. Item 11: The before and after wetland acreage is similar due to the allowances provided in the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) for wetland replacement In accordance with Section 8420.0540, Subp. 2 (D) (4) of the WCA, a portion of the proposed stormwater pond meets the public value credit for wetland replacement. Our proposal to include a percentage of the stormwater pond in the wetland replacement plan has been discussed with Mr. John Harford in the Planning Department. Item.16: The land clearing within the proposed Weatherstone Development will occur in phases to minimize soil disturbance. The first phase will disturb approximately 40 acres, with smaller areas of disturbance in the following phases- The entire project will require an erosion control and sedimentation plan in accordance with NPDES requirements. A series of silt fences will be installed and maintained in key areas on the site instead of just wm.am E. Tointon, CET. P-nmam Jamn E. Swanson, RLS. Socroary Oand L. Mo,M1. PE. Noswa Jeffrey S. Broberg, CPO. Vme ►rn,denl Bryce Campoell Cowers Poch Larlore F. MaMen Payuler" 4nrirantnemu manage, Can,lnd Ewnpnmeval Avdndr Carrot" SW acNnM1et Enr,ronnynlal Spec.441 An Frrnwl Din rb rniry Fmnrn,war 3-ZS- 20 � S74M C-RCM 3 n a perimeter silt fence. Other erosion, control measures will be implemented as necessary to prevent water quality degradation. Item 17: As specified in the City of Rochester, Draft Surface Water Management Plan, a three -celled, vegetative filter basin stormwater pond will be constructed in Weatherstone. Of the four pond types recommended in the Surface Water Management Plan, the vegetative filter basin pond provides the maximum treatment of surface water runoff. Item 20: To be addressed by the Rochester Planning Department. Item 29: The stormwater facilities within the proposed Weatherstone Development have been oversized to address additional runoff generated within this sub -basin, up to 20%. In accordance with the City of Rochester requirements, the stormwater facilities on the Weatherstone Development.have been designed as a regional facility and will be dedicated to the City. The City of Rochester through implementation of the Surface Water Management Plan will address any additional runoff generated by off -site improvements. Response to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comments: Item 9: The applicant of Weatherstone is researching The DNR purchase and/or management of the drainage easement along the Douglas Trail. Item 17: The drainageway that is proposed within the drainage easement on Weatherstone, within the vicinity of the Douglas Trail, will help to stabilize the soils and minimize erosion by providing a wider, and flatter vegetated channel. The drainage way has been designed to spread the water out over a larger area, which will slow the water velocity and decrease the erosional forces. The concerns expressed in the letter will be further addressed with DNR staff. Item 25: Due to the location of the Douglas Trail within the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Rochester. the tong -term impacts to the trail should be addressed mutually by the Department of Natural Resources and the City of Rochester. The most appropriate time to address the impacts, especially the traffic impacts associated with the intersection of 5e Avenue NW and the Douglas Trail, is during the imminent design phase for the upgrades to 50'h Avenue. Impacts to the Douglas Trail should also be addressed during the revision of the Rochester Urban Growth Boundary and the revision of the Olmsted County Comprehensive Plan. Item 26: An 80-foot drainage easement is proposed along the Douglas Trail right-of-way within the proposed development. This drainage easement is for the construction and maintenance of two drainageways, where no structures will be allowed. The easement 3-28-200 2:SEAM FROM will have a natural appearance that will provide some buffer between the Douglas Trail and the proposed structures within the Weatherstone Development. Response to Minnesota Historical Society: photographs of the existing homestead were taken and sent to the Minnesota Historical Society as requested in their correspondence. The photographs were sent to the historical society on March 24, 2000. If you have any questions regarding our reply or you need additional information, please call me at 289-3919. Sincerely, MMccGHIE &`B-ETTS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Q'— -� m Lenore Marken Environmental Coordinator C: Roger Carlsen, White Oaks Development REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Consent Agenda i i rM DESCRIPTION: Donation for Police Honor Guard Police 91426 MEETING 3 DATE: 4 3 0 ITEM NO. D -11 PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson Rochester Bank has donated $1,000 to the Police Honor Guard. The intended purpose of this donation is for paying for equipment used by members of the Honor Guard Unit. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve acceptance of Rochester Bank donation to assist in equipping the Police Honor Guard Unit. Appropriate to 4110-13223. . jUNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION A SECTION: Consent .Agenda Donation of Preliminary Breath Tester ORIGINATING DEPT: Police MEETING P5/ DATE: 4-3-O0 ITEM NO. Steve Johnston The local chapter of M.A.D.D. would like to donate a preliminary breath tester to the Police Department. This device is used as a field testing device for suspected intoxicated drivers. This equipment is very useful and valuable in our DUI enforcement efforts. The device costs S310. M.A.D.D. would like to present this device to our department on April 27, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Police Department requests permission to accept this contribution from M.A.D.D. ..OUNCIL ACTION: motor by second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING .51 DATE: 4/3/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA i i cM DESCRIPTION: reement ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works D— j pment, Inc. I PREPARED BY; R. Freese t The Public Works Department staff has prepared a Development Agreement for the City Council's consideration and approval for the Orchard Hills Subdivision. The proposed agreement between the City and Michael Younge Development, Inc. includes the following provisions as they apply to Orchard Hills North and Orchard Hills South Plats: • Right-of-way dedication for future 23rd Avenue SW • Platting of the entire subdivision within five years • Payment of all charges and fees within five years • Stormwater Management and Fees • Parkland Dedication Contribution • Substandard Street Charges for portions of 23rd Avenue SW • Contributions for the construction of 23rd Avenue SW • Contributions for the construction of water and sewer to serve the Property • Sewer and Water Availability Charges • Vacation of Gates Drive SW • Voiding two existing Agreements between the City and Michael Younge (attached) The Developer has signed the Agreement. The Public Works Department would recommend that the City Council approve the Development Agreement with Michael Younge Development, Inc. _0 ablryutrc�s oh OQ5Los COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to: 1) execute a Development Agreement with Michael Younge Development, Inc. for the Orchard Hills North and South Subdivisions, and 2) void the Agreement between the City and Michael Younge dated 9/18/95. void the Assessment / Development Agreement between the City and Michael Younge dated 9/25/95. _ DUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second l� D -15 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Revised 1/21/00 This Agreement, made this _ day of , 1999, by and between Michael Younge Development Inc. (hereinafter "Owner") and the City of Rochester, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (hereinafter "City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner owns certain real property located in Olmsted County, Minnesota described as (hereinafter "Property"): Orchard Hills North First Subdivision Plat, except Lot 3, Block 1 Orchard Hills North Second Subdivision Plat Orchard Hills South First Subdivision Plat Orchard Hills South Second Subdivision Plat WHEREAS, Owner and prior owners of the Property have previously prepared General Development Plans (Exhibit "A") that reflect the Owner's general intent to develop the property in a manner consistent and compatible with the single family homes found in the surrounding neighborhoods of Baihly Heights and Fox Croft, and WHEREAS, Owner and City executed an Assessment / Development Agreement on September 25, 1995 for a portion of the Property, and WHEREAS, Owner, Darwin and Glenda Johnson and City executed an Assessment Agreement on September 18, 1995 for a portion of the Property, and WHEREAS, Owner and the City agree that a Development Agreement will serve to facilitate the orderly and efficient development of the Property and other adjoining property to the mutual benefit of the Owner, adjoining property owners, and the City; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; That the Owner and the City agree to the following obligations and conditions related to the development of the Property as single family dwelling units compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods of Baihly Heights and Fox Croft; OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS: I. Owner agrees to develop the Property as single family dwelling units compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods of Baihly Heights and Fox Croft.Owner agrees to commence development of the Property within one (1) year of the date of this Agreement.Owner agrees to execute a City -Owner Contract for the construction of public improvements to serve the Property, except for those public improvements that the City elects to construct as a City Project(s), as enumerated under City's Obligations, or as ordered by the City Council. 2. Owner agrees to plat the entire Property within five (5) years of the date of this Agreement. 3. Owner agrees to dedicate through the platting process a 66 foot wide street right-of-way within the Property for the extension of 23rd Avenue SW from Gates Drive SW to Fox Valley Drive SW consistent with the revised Orchard Hills General Development Plan #99- 1 14, except for the portions of the right-of-way that lie outside the Property. 4. Owner agrees that the Property is subject to Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) fees for voluntary participation in the City's regional stormwater management facilities constructed or planned for this watershed. The current SWMP fees are $1,983.50 per acre for residential type development, and are a one-time charges for the availability of connection to the regional stormwater facilities, representing the contribution of the connecting development to existing and prospective stormwater facility capital cost obligations of the City. These area rates are adjusted annually on August I of each year based on the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area during the preceding twelve-month period. The SWMP fees will be in effect for the year in which each phase of development of the Property occurs and will be used to calculate the SWMP fees for that phase of development. The charges are made against the developable acreage of each phase of development and shall consist of the gross acres of the phase less wetlands, privately constructed stormwater sedimentation and detention facilities, and natural slopes in excess of 18% remaining after site grading, as reflected on an approved Grading Plan. Owner agrees to pay the SWMP charges within 60 days of the execution of the City -Owner Contract for each platted area of the Property. 5. Owner agrees to deed to the City the street right-of-way owned by Owner that lies outside of the Property needed for the construction of 23rd Avenue SW consistent with the City's official right-of-way plan for 23rd Avenue SW. Owner agrees to deed this right-of-way to the City, without cost to the City, within 60 days of written request by the City. Owner agrees that Owner's property that abuts the deeded right-of-way is subject to a Substandard Street Charge for the entire frontage along the west side of 23rd Avenue SW. The Substandard Street Charge rate is currently $30.00 per foot of frontage. This rate is adjusted annually on August 1 of each year based on the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area during the preceding twelve-month period. Owner agrees to pay the Substandard Street Charge within 60 days of written notice by the City that the City Council has initiated the 23rd Avenue SW reconstruction project. 6. Owner agrees to make a payment in -lieu of Parkland dedication at a rate based on a value of $25,000 per acre. The cost of the Parkland dedication shall be based on the following formula: [0.0244 x #Units x $25,000]. Owner agrees to make the payment in -lieu within 60 days of the approval of each platted area of the Property and prior to the recording of the Plat. 7. A. Owner agrees to pay a street, storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewermain construction contribution (hereinafter "Contribution A") towards the construction of these public improvements by the City as City Project(s) for those platted lots within the Property that have direct access frontage on 23rd Avenue SW. Owner agrees to pay this Contribution A; I two (2) years after the date that the construction of the public improvements(s) are substantially complete and within 30 days after Owner receives written notice from the City that Contribution A is due or; 2) at the time a lot that fronts on these streets is sold, whichever occurs first. The current Contribution A for residential type development is $114.38 per foot of lot frontage. The Contribution A rate is adjusted annually on August I of each year based on the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area during the preceding twelve-month period. The Contribution A rate will be in effect for the year in which each phase of development of the Property occurs and will be used to calculate the Contribution A for that phase of development. The construction of sidewalks along the street frontage will remain the responsibility of the homebuilder / homeowner. B. Owner agrees to pay a street, sidewalk, and storm sewer construction contribution (hereinafter "Contribution B") towards the construction of these public improvements by the City as City Project(s) for those platted lots within the Property that DO NOT have direct access frontage on 23rd Avenue SW. Owner agrees to pay this Contribution B within two (2) years after the date that the construction of the public improvements(s) are substantially complete and within 30 days after Owner receives written notice from the City that Contribution B is due. The current Contribution B for residential type development is $51.90 per foot of lot frontage. The Contribution B rate is adjusted annually on August I of each year based on the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area during the preceding twelve-month period. The Contribution B rate will be in effect for the year in which each phase of development of the Property occurs and will be used to calculate the Contribution B for that phase of development. C. Owner agrees to pay a watermain and sewermain contribution (hereinafter "Contribution C") towards the cost of constructing these public improvements within 23rd Avenue SW as City Project(s) if used by the Owner to provide direct service connections to the Property. Owner agrees to pay this Contribution C within two (2) years after the date that the construction of the public improvements(s) are substantially complete and within 30 days after Owner receives written notice from the City that Contribution C is due. The current Contribution C for residential type development is $71.00 per foot of lot frontage. The Contribution C rate is adjusted annually on August 1 of each year based on the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area during the preceding twelve-month period. The Contribution C rate will be in effect for the year in which each phase of development of the Property occurs and will be used to calculate the Contribution C for that phase of development. D. Owner can, in lieu of 9A-C above and in advance of a City initiated project described above, construct that portion of 23rd Avenue SW and associated utilities traversing the Property as a part of an approved City / Owner Contract project. 8. Owner agrees that the Property is subject to a Water Availability Charge (WAC) and a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) for use of the public trunkline sewer and water tower facilities. The current WAC and SAC are $1,606.50 per acre and $1,606.50 per acre respectively, and are a one-time charges for the availability of connection to water and sewer, representing the contribution of the connecting development to existing and prospective water tower and trunk sanitary sewer capital cost obligations of the City. These area rates are adjusted annually on August I of each year based on the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area during the proceeding twelve- month period. The WAC and SAC rates will be in effect for the year in which each phase of development of the Property occurs and will be used to calculate the WAC and SAC for that phase of development. The charges are made against the developable acreage of each phase of development and shall consist of the gross acres of the phase less wetlands, privately constructed stormwater sedimentation and detention facilities, and slopes in excess of 18%. Owner agrees to pay the WAC and SAC charges within 60 days of the execution of the City -Owner Contract for each platted area of the Property. 9. Owner agrees that in exchange for the City's consideration of the contributions and charges detailed in 94, 45, 47A, #713, #7C and #8 above, Owner hereby waives right to notice and a hearing for any determination of the stormwater management contribution, park land payment in -lieu, the public improvements Contribution, the WAC and SAC charges and waives any right to contest the park land payment in -lieu, the stormwater charges, Contribution charges, the WAC and SAC charges in any subsequent judicial proceeding. 10. Owner agrees to relocate the existing watermain within the proposed Gates Drive SW right- of-way or grant an utility easement to the City at the time of platting the Property. 11. Owner agrees that all Obligations required of Owner in Items 94, 45, 47A, 97B, 47C and 48 will be paid in full to the City no later than five (5) years from the date of this Agreement. In the event the Owner fails to make payment according to terms of the Agreement, the City reserves the right to assess the unpaid amount against the Property and the Owner agrees to waive his rights to a special assessment hearing as provided in Minnesota statutes Chapter 429 and further waives all rights to file an appeal of the special assessments costs and benefits in a court of law. 12. Owner agrees to petition the City to vacate those portions of Gates Drive SW that are inconsistent with the Orchard Hills General Development Plan 499-1 14 approved by the City within five (5) years of the date of this Agreement. 13. Owner agrees to connect the single-family residence located at 2410 Gates Drive SW to the City sewer and water system within five (5) years from the date of this Agreement. 14. Owner agrees that this Agreement supersedes and makes void the Assessment / Development Agreement with the City dated September 25, 1995. 15. Owner agrees to provide, at no cost to the City, temporary construction easements, as needed, for the construction of City Project(s) on or adjacent to the Property. 16. Owner agrees to provide, at no cost to the City, permanent utility easements across lands outside the Property, as necessary, to serve the Property with public utilities. 17. Owner agrees that this Agreement supersedes and makes void the Assessment Agreement with the City dated September 18, 1995. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS: 1. The approved Orchard Hills GDP #99-114 shall be held valid consistent with the terms of this Agreement. 2. City agrees that this Agreement supersedes and makes void the Assessment / Development Agreement with the City dated September 25, 1995. 3. City agrees that this Agreement supersedes and makes void the Assessment Agreement with the City dated September 18, 1995. 4. City agrees to cancel, effective the date of this Agreement, all currently valid postponed, levied and deferred special assessments against the Property. 5. City agrees to plan and budget for the construction of 23rd Avenue SW from Gates Drive SW to Fox Valley Drive SW and related sidewalk, storm sewer, watermain and sewermain in the year 2003. The City will proceed with the construction of this collector streets in the year 2003 only if it receives a petition signed by the Owner or by other adjoining property owners prior to May 1, 2001. The petition must state that the property owners agree to enter into Contribution Agreements to pay for their proportional share of the public improvements to be constructed as a City Project. The street frontage owned by the City will not be used in the calculation of the percentage supporting or not supporting the street construction project. The City may proceed with the construction of this collector street, sidewalks, storm sewer, watermain and sewermain in any given year if; 1) it receives a petition signed by the owners of real property along these this street; or 2) it orders the street(s) to be constructed after a Public Hearing on said street(s). 6. City agrees that Property is subject to the Substandard Street Charges, Stormwater Management Plan fees, Parkland Payment in -lieu, Contribution charges, and Water and Sewer Availability charges as described under Owner's Obligations at Items #4, #5, #6, 97A, #713, #7C and #8 respectively. 7. City agrees that if the Stormwater Management Plan fees, Parkland Payment in -lieu, Contribution charges, and Water and Sewer Availability charges as described under Owner's Obligations at Items #4, 95, 96, #7A, #7B, 47C and #8 are increased or decreased by a formal action of the City Council within five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, then the City shall apply those increased or reduced fees, charges and rates for the year in which each phase of development of the Property occurs. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented, or amended in any manner whatsoever except by written agreement signed by both parties. 2. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, beyond those specified in this agreement. 3. The obligations set forth in this document shall apply to the Owner, their heirs, successors or assigns. 4. This agreement shall survive closing. 5. The Owner and the City are subject to other regulations, ordinances and policies in effect including, but not limited to: zoning ordinance, grading ordinance, drainage policies, building code requirements, substandard street charges and parkland dedication. 6. This agreement is subject to the approval of the Common Council of the City of Rochester. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTAGENDA TEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Agreement with IBM ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works MEETING DATE: 4/ /00 ITEM DNO. i PREPARED BY: F R. Freese The Public Works Department staff has prepared a Development Agreement for the City Council's consideration and approval for the IBM Campus. The pending sale of the portion of the IBM property lying south of 41 st Street NW and north of the employee parking lot to Ryan Companies for development of Rochester marketplace has prompted the need for changes to IBM's vehicular accesses from 37th Street and 41 st Street and stormwater drainage from their property. The proposed agreement between the City and IBM includes the following provisions: • Right-of-way dedication for future TH 52 West Frontage Road south of 37th Street • Right-of-way dedication for turn lanes on 41st Street NW • Dedication of land for regional stormwater pond south of 41 St Street NW • Dedication of stormwater drainage easements • Contribution for proportional share of regional stormwater pond construction • Construction and maintenance of private street bridge over future TH 52 West Frontage Road at 37th Street NW plant entrance • -Contribution of 25% of the cost of a future traffic signal at the intersection of 41 st Street and 3 l st Avenue NW IBM has signed the Agreement. The Public Works Department would recommend that the City Council approve the Development Agreement with IBM. -710 I5r6q Ca u nc r i 6/u .P COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Se7±f ,SrPo-zfe (V La`s l�hS f/�j_ Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Development Agreement with IBM. :OUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: Development Agreement 3/21/00 This agreement ("Agreement') entered into this _ day of 2000, by and between the City of Rochester, a municipal corporation, whose principal business address is 201 Fourth Street SE, Rochester, Minnesota, 55904, hereinafter referred to as "City," and International Business Machines Corporation, a New York corporation, and hereinafter referred to as "IBM". WHEREAS, IBM owns and operates a development and manufacturing facility in Rochester located at 3711 Street NW and TH 52 North, hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, IBM intends to sell to Ryan Companies US, Inc., hereinafter referred to as. "Developer", a portion of the Property containing 53.63 acres that is hereinafter referred to as the "Development; and WHEREAS, the City and IBM wish to formalize the rights and obligations of each relative to the activities needed to allow IBM and Developer to develop their respective properties. In consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, IBM and City agree as follows: REAL ESTATE A. IBM will dedicate to the City without charge the real estate shown and described in the attached Exhibit A to be used for the construction of the TH 52 West Frontage Road from the south limits of the Development southerly to the south limits of the Property. The dedication shall occur upon the substantial completion of the bridge to be constructed over the TH 52 West Frontage Road. IBM is responsible for all costs associated with the creation of the legal description contained in Exhibit A. B. IBM will dedicate to the City without charge the real estate shown and described in Exhibit B to be used for the widening of 4151 Street NW west of 31" Avenue NW. The dedication shall occur on or before the date of the closing between IBM and Developer. IBM is responsible for all costs associated with the creation of the legal description contained in Exhibit B. C. IBM will deed to the City on or before the date of closing between Developer and IBM as referenced herein, the real estate shown on Exhibit C to be used by the City for a regional storm water management pond including the area necessary for the installation of storm sewer pipes and / or_drainageways to convey storm water to and from the regional pond. IBM reserves the right to drain stormwater from its property into the pond and the right to maintain the same if the City fails to fulfill its maintenance obligations. The final location and the amount of the area to be deeded to the City for use as a regional stormwater management pond and related storm sewer facilities is subject to IBM's review and approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. D. The City agrees to hold IBM harmless from liability associated with the possible contamination of IBM property resulting form the City's use of the stormwater pond and related facilities described herein that are constructed adjacent to IBM's property. E. IBM shall replat the relevant portions of the property, within 120 days of a written request from the City, but not before October 15' in any calendar year. IBM and the City shall equally share in the costs associated with the replatting of the Property or portion thereof. DETENTION POND and STORM SEWER A. The City will, by November 1, 2000, prepare at the City's sole cost and expense, the design for the new regional stormwater detention pond ("Pond") south of 4151 Street NW and west of 3151 Avenue NW, and related storm sewer pipes and manholes within the real estate deeded to the City, or dedicated to the public by platting, and shown in Exhibit C. The Pond shall have capacity of sufficient size to handle the northerly portion of the IBM property surface drainage as reflected on the approved Grading Plan. B. The City will, by October 1, 2001, construct the new regional stormwater Pond described in Section A above, including storm sewer pipes and/or drainageways and manholes as set forth on the completed design plans and specifications furnished by the City. Wetland mitigation and/or replacement, if needed, will be considered a project cost of constructing the Pond. The Pond area shall be landscaped and this cost shall also be considered a project cost. The City is entitled to sell or use excess excavated materials from the Pond without charge by IBM. The City shall maintain the new regional stormwater Pond, discharge lines and manholes. C. IBM shall pay to the City, within 90 days of the award of a Public Bid to construct the Pond and related storm sewer pipes and/or drainageways and manholes, an amount equal to IBM's proportional share of the project cost to design and construct the stormwater facilities described in Section B above. IBM's % proportional share of the project costs is the percentage of IBM stormwater diverted to the pond as compared to the total amount of stormwater diverted to the pond from all sources and the percentage is based on drainage reports prepared by an independent consultant and approved by the City. The Pond has been sized based upon IBM's planned stormwater discharge as reflected in the drainage reports for a 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm. Any increase in the IBM stormwater discharge volumes or rates that exceed 10% of the IBM design discharge volumes and rates will require IBM to pay to the City a storm water management fee, consistent with the fee paid by others in the City, for the increase in storm water discharge volumes and rates resulting from change in the impervious area of the Property. D. IBM may, at no additional charge, connect its storm sewers to the City's storm sewer lines and/or manholes upon review and approval of plans and specifications submitted to the City Engineer provided the additional stormwater flow does not exceed the capacity of the City's facilities. E. IBM shall grant to the City a 30 foot wide storm sewer easement as shown and described in Exhibit D. STREETS and PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES A. IBM will design and construct, at its sole cost and expense, all street and pedestrian facility improvements for the 41'` Street NW eastbound, right turn lane at 31" Avenue NW to serve their new plant entrance. All city street improvements shall be designed to Minnesota Municipal State Aid Street standards for a 10-ton urban section road. B. The relocation cost of the existing electric facilities along the 415' Street NW frontage of the Property at the intersection of 3151 Avenue NW shall be the responsibility of Rochester Public Utilities. C. IBM will design and construct at its sole cost and expense a bridge extending westerly from 37`" Street NW over the new TH 52 West Frontage Road to serve as a replacement access to their Property. The bridge shall be owned and maintained by IBM. The geometric layout and final design plans and specifications are subject to review and approval of MnDOT's District Engineer and the City Engineer prior to construction by IBM. The bridge shall be open to traffic no later than eighteen (18) months after all governmental approvals have been obtained by IBM. D. The City shall grant to IBM, or IBM may reserve in its deed to the City, an easement for the construction and use of the bridge over the TH 52 West Frontage Road and the placement of utilities under the TH 52 West Frontage Road right-of-way as described in Exhibit A. IBM shall prepare, at its sole cost and expense, the easement documents for review and approval by the City. E. IBM agrees to defend and hold harmless the City from liability associated with the design, construction, use and maintenance by IBM of the bridge as described in Section C above. F. The City and the Minnesota Department of Transportation will construct at their sole cost and expense all street and pedestrian improvements for the new TH 52 West Frontage Road extending from the south line of the Developer's property to the south line of the IBM property within the right - of -way -dedicated to the City by IBM, as described in the Real Estate Section A above. City agrees not to assess IBM for any cost associated with the initial construction of the street, utilities, and pedestrian facilities in conjunction with the TH 52 West Frontage Road project. Future development of the portion of the Property that abuts the TH 52 West Frontage Road may result in the imposition of sewer availability charges, water availability charges, and connection charges for sanitary sewer and water pursuant to general City policies. Should IBM sell any portion of the Property abutting the TH 52 West Frontage Road and that portion of the Property is developed by others, the owner shall be required to pay a street improvement charge of $150.00 per front foot at the time that portion of the Property is developed. Beginning August 1, 2001, this charge shall be annually adjusted based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI) for the Minneapolis, MN area. The base ENR CC] for this calculation is 6880. G. IBM will provide, at its sole cost and expense, the street name, traffic signs and poly pre -formed pavement markings for all public street improvements to be constructed in Parts A and C of this Section. IBM shall provide to the City for its review and approval a signage and pavement marking plan that follows the MUTCD guidelines and City Standards. TRAFFIC SIGNALS A. City will design and construct traffic control signals at the intersections of 41" Street NW & TH 52 West Frontage Road and 41" Street NW & 3151 Avenue NW pursuant to Minnesota Municipal State Aid standards and warrants. The City will have the traffic signal at 41" Street NW & TH 52 West Frontage Road operational by not later than December 1, 2000. The traffic signal at 41"Street NW & 31 s' Avenue NW will be installed after traffic signal warrants, as defined by the Institute for Traffic Engineers, are met. B. IBM will pay to the City an amount equal to 25% of the cost, but not more than $40,000, for the design and construction of the traffic control signal to be installed at 41s` Street NW & 31st Avenue NW within 90 days of the award of the public bid contract for the signal installation. The $40,000 contribution limit will be adjusted upwards or downwards on August 15' of each year based on the change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index ("ENR CCI") for the Minneapolis, MN area. The City will be responsible for all other costs associated with the design, construction and operation of this traffic signal. C. The City will be responsible for all costs associated with the design, construction and operation of the traffic signal at the intersection of 41" Street NW and the TH 52 West Frontage Road. D. In recognition of the contribution, described in Section B above, to be made by IBM towards the cost of design and construction of the traffic signals, the City agrees that IBM shall not be responsible for any special assessments levied by the City in conjunction with the traffic signals as described in Section A above. PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVES TO 41s` STREET AND FRONTAGE ROAD A. IBM will construct at its sole cost and expense the private driveway accesses to 41s' Street NW and the new TH 52 West Frontage Road to serve its property as shown on the approved Site Plan. No additional accesses will be permitted by the City. Access control shall be provided by separate instrument or on the Replat of the IBM property. n REMEDIES A. In the event of the City's or IBM's default which is not cured within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to the defaulting party, the non - defaulting party shall have all rights and remedies available under law or equity with respect to the default. In addition, and without limitation, the parties shall have the following specific rights and remedies: 1. With respect to matters that are capable of being corrected by the non - defaulting party, a non -defaulting party may, at its option enter upon the Property for the purpose of correcting the default and the non - defaulting party's reasonable costs in correcting same, plus interest as provided in Part C below, shall be paid by the defaulting party to the non -defaulting party immediately upon demand; 2. Injunctive relief; 3. Action for specific performance; and, 4. Action for money damages. B. Reimbursement. Any amounts expended by the non -defaulting party in enforcing this Agreement, including reasonable attorney's fees, together with interest provided in Part C of this Section, shall be reimbursed or paid to the non -defaulting party. C. Interest. Interest shall accrue on all amounts required to be reimbursed by the defaulting party to the non -defaulting party pursuant to Part B above at the rate of Prime Rate as established from time to time by U.S. Bank, Rochester, Minnesota, plus two percent per annum from the date of payment by the defaulting party until the date reimbursed in full with accrued interest. D. Remedies are Cumulative. All remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and the exercise of one remedy shall not preclude the use of any other or all of said remedies. E. Failure to Enforce not a Waiver. Failure of any party to enforce any provisions contained herein shall not be deemed a waiver of that party's rights to enforce such provision or any other provision in the event of a subsequent default. MISCELLANEOUS A. Permits. Upon execution of this Agreement and submission of all requisite plans and other preliminary matters, the City shall promptly and s expediently process the building permits for the development of the Property. B. Conditions. IBM's performance of the Agreement is conditioned upon Developer purchasing the Development property from IBM, and upon performance by City of its obligations herein. C. Severability. If any term, provision or condition contained in the Agreement shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement (or the application of such term, provision or condition to persons or circumstances other than those in respect of which it is invalid or unenforceable) shall not be affected thereby, and each term, provision or condition of the Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by Minnesota law. Any obligations under this Agreement run only to IBM and not to subsequent owners of any portion of the Property, except for Paragraph F under the Streets and Pedestrian Facilities Section. D. Binding On Future Parties. The perpetual easement and all covenants and easements herein shall run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties, their successors and assigns. E. Mercier. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by all parties. F. Assignment. No party shall assign or transfer its interests, rights or obligations in this agreement without the express written consent of the parties. G. Counterparts. This Agreement (and the acknowledgement hereto) may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. H. City Council Approval. This Agreement is subject to review of the City Attorney and approval of the Rochester City Council. If this Agreement is not approved by the City Council by April 20, 2000, either party can terminate. Waiver of Jury Trial. Consent to Federal Court Jurisdiction. The parties hereto waive any and all rights to trial by jury. The parties hereto consent to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota State District Court. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (p ( DATE: 4/3/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA rEM DESCRIPTION: Agreement ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works D - f S PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur 11114 The Developers of the Yates First Subdivision and City Staff have had discussions relating to construction of the subdivision and impacts on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following: • Responsibility of providing of pedestrian facilities. • Payment of other development related charges including Substandard Roadway Charge, SAC, WAC, Storm Water Management and Parkland Dedication. • Grading of the site to match future roadway profile. 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 the Yates Family for Yates First Subdivision. 'OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0 � DATE: 4/3/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works I D —((p EM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement Amendment — Yates First Subdivision PREPARED BY: Development Agreement M. Nigbur'/' Habitat for Humanity, buyers of Lots 2 & 3 of Yates First Subdivision, have requested the City to review the development agreement relating to timing of the payment of substandard roadway charges and pedestrian facilities for 2V Avenue. Habitat for Humanity has also requested the payment for Parkland dedication be waived for the two lots they are purchasing. Based on our review City Staff are willing recommend to the City Council the deferment of the 23rd Avenue related charges until commencement of the reconstruction of the roadway. Staff anticipates the reconstruction project to occur in the 2001-2002 timeframe. Staff, however, does not agree with the waiver of Parkland dedication for these or any residential lots in this situation. Staff has developed an amendment to the original agreement including only the staffs recommendation for deferring the 23r° Avenue charges until reconstruction of the roadway. Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement as staff has presented. Habitat for Humanity has not yet executed the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: c Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Habitat for Humanity U for Lots 2 & 3 of Yates First Subdivision. .-OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (v�7 DATE: 4'3i00 F. GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 1> -( 7 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract, Orchard Ridge First Addition (Phase 1) PREPARED BY7;01P M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Orchard Ridge First Addition — Phase 1 — K & P Properties (Owner) & Elcor Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9672 consisting of basic construction to serve that part of Orchard Ridge First Addition described as Lots 6-8, Block 2, Lots 1-7, Block 3, Lot 4, Block 4, Lots 1-16, Block 5, Lots 1-13, Block 6, Lots 1-8, Block 7, Lots 1-8, Block 8, Outlot C, including 65"' St NW, and Freedom Dr NW from 65" St NW to Outlot D. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9672 "Basic construction to serve Lots 6-8, Block 2, Lots 1-7, Block 3, Lot 4, Block 4, Lots 1-16, Block 5, Lots 1-13, Block 6, Lots 1-8, Block 7, Lots 1-8, Block 8, Outlot C, including 65t° St NW, and Freedom Dr NW from 65" St NW to Outlot D, all in Orchard Ridge First Addition, COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/3/00 iENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D-(g ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract; Wedgewood Hills 3rd Subdivision -Phase II (All PREPARED BY:vl;"- of Block 3, & Outlot A) M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Wedgewood Hills 3' Subdivision -Phase II (All of Block 3, & Outlot A) - Mr. Leslie Lurken (Owner) & S. L. Contracting (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9683 consisting of basic construction to serve that part of Wedgewood Hills V Subdivision described above. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9683 "Basic Construction in Wedgewood Hills 3" Subdivision - Phase II. to serve all of Block 3, & Outlot A COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /G%� DATE: tt[[ 114/3/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works D—%q ..'EM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract, Rose Harbor Estates (All of Block 10, Lots 2 - PREPARED BY: � R 25, Block 3 & Lots 11 - 23, Block 2) M. Baker �/ Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Rose Harbor Estates (All of Block 10, Lots 2 — 25, Block 3 & Lots 11- 23, Block 2) — Western Walls Inc. (Owner) & Elcor Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9680 consisting of basic construction to serve that part of Rose Harbor Estates described above. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City I Owner Contract for J9680 "Basic Construction in Rose Harbor Estates to serve all of Block 10, Lots 2 — 25, Block 3 & Lots 11 —23, Block 2" OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4 1 1 DATE: 1-3-2000 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA EM DESCRIPTION: Request Bids for Rt Operations Building ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works D-o-LO at the Traffic I PREPARED BY: ,,, D. Rossman This is a recommendation to set a bid date for City Project No. 9501B (J-2005) "Traffic Operations Building— High Roof Replacement". This project is listed on page 385 of the 2000 City budget. The work consists of removing & replacing the existing roof with a fully adhered EPDM roof membrane. The bids are requested for April 25, 2000 with Council approval of bids at the May 1,2000 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing a bid date of 4-25-00 for; " City Project No. (J-2005) ) "Traffic Operations High Roof Replacement" OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q3 DATE : 4/03/2000 AGENDA SECTION: asent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Water Reclamation Plant ITEM NO: D ..EM DESCRIPTION: Miscellaneous Concrete Repairs PREPARED BY: Change Order No. 2 Lyle J. Zimmerma There were several changes to the scope of work on this project as described below: 1. Second stage Aeration Basin crack sealing: After some initial work was completed it was determined that the crack sealing was not necessary at this time and this work was eliminated from the project. Deduct $38, 400. 2. Compensation for crack scaling completed: Some preliminary and investigative work was completed on the crack sealing prior to eliminating this item. Add $2,479.50. 3. Elastomeric coating on concrete slabs around the Chlorine Contact Basins: Cracking occurred in the topping slabs placed in these basins which could not have been anticipated. For long term protection of the concrete it will be necessary to place an elastomeric coating on the concrete surfaces. Add $14,900. Total contract price change for Change Order No. 2 is a deduct of $21,020.50. Original Contract Amount $274,300.00 Change Order No. 1 8,960.00 Change Order No. 2 - $ 21,02050 Revised Contract Amount $262,239.50 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED It is requested that the contract with Gridor Construction be modified by Change Order No. 2 in the amount of a $21,020.50 decrease in the contract amount. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 4- 3-00 AtitNUA JGG I IVIV: CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PLANNING I �M DESCRIPTION: Revised Final Plat t#9941 to be known as Orchard Ridge First PREPARED BY: Addition Mitzi A. Baker, March 29, 2000 This item was continued from the March 20, 2000 City Council meeting at the request of the applicant. At this time, staff is waiting for a letter from the applicant formally withdrawing this request to amend the Plat already approved by the City Council. Public Works staff has informed Planning staff that the applicant has decided to proceed with the plat approved by the City Council on October 4, 1999. Council Action Needed. No action is necessary. We expect to have a letter from the applicant formally withdrawing this request prior to the April 3, 2000 Council meeting. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attomey 3, Planning Department File 4. Planning Department, GIS Division 5, Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 6. GGG Engineering on Monday April 3, 2000, in the Council/Board ,)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: -RC X wi:1zw Ridge Dev.%Lowest Perez PHONE 'AO. : 5072E206?2 ^^ar. C0 220C 3775 Willow Ridge Drive SW Rochester, W 55902 ice 507/255-5722 Fcxx 507/536-2751 March 30, 2000 Mitzi Baker Planning Dept City of Rochester Dear Mitzi, Per your request, I am putting this in writing: Please be advised that we are withdrawing our request for a REVISION of the Orchard Ridge Plat. Also, please be advised that the above phone number is my business/day number. Calls to that number during the day, rather than at home, will get them to me more quickly. Thank you Sincerely, Lowell Penz -2 . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4-3-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. rONTPVUED PUBLIC I-IE.-\RINGS PLANNING E —� EM 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 Mitzi A. Baker, three lots for single family dwellings. Located west of 23`d Avenue SW and south of Senior Planner 5d' Street SW. March 29, 2000 If the Development Agreement for this Plat is approved at the April 3, 2000 City Council meeting, this plat may proceed. 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. 7)Lo Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department, GIS Division 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Ol7tdmy Government Center. 7. Geoffrey G. Griffin (GGG) "OUNCIL ACTION: anonon by: Second by to: N w U3 U z o � i fed 91 — -- _ HINON J -�o�- U- A&S aay A-IEZ -� c� W rUl ^ Cr) . :nn l ,E00 Qc b09_Il TTw .�w In Uh ZQ L LABZ .,*.00t MzL__ —_-- _9 rn j 00 o V. luivao oa'cs . sresz i , WS2 3„ LZ,t-V.00S cs O n M1 : � W ,gc-zz _ (rO y 1�1 J T CL 2 N N N U O O X o ¢ m com U � � � a Illlllllllr i.1111111111 � Id1111�11111 �z qo_1110111111- TO: Rochester Common Council ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285.8232 MAPPING HOUSINGMRA 5071285-8224 FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285.8213 wEUJSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: March 1, 2000 REVISED: March 11TA2000 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 23' 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 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 ` I 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 23'0 Avenue SW. The Planning Department Addressing Staff have indicated there may be a problem with the designation of 23r° 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 231 Avenue SW exists nearby. These two roadways (both 2V 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 23r° 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 50 Street SW and 23" Avenue SW. Since 23"' 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 Final 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 Zonina 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 2V 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. Preliminary 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 Page 5 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 ROCHESTER Minnesota 2129/ 00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4t° Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507.287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #00-08 on the Yate's First Addition property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. 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 5th St SW and 23rd Ave SW. Since 23rd 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. 3. The owner shall provide a 20 foot wide temporary construction easement for the planned reconstruction of 23rd Ave SW, along the westerly right-of-way of 23rd Ave SW, through a separate easement document. 4. 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 & 51h St SW. C:%TEMP%FP#00-08.doc 0 ROCHESTER Minnesota 2/29/00 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 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. v 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. CATEMP1FPM00-08.00c 49 ROCHESTER PARK AND t._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 Acreageof plat.. ........................................................ 1.0 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 3 Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... .05 a Fair market value of land ............................................. $17,000/a The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $850 (.05a x $17,000/a). Dedication is required for only the increase in the number of possible dwelling units. Payment due prior to recordation of the plat. Applicant: BeMu Yates 50123 Avenue SW N;\PARK\OSTOTZ\2000\OEOZCAT_ON\SW 2697\YATES 1ST.DOC REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: -i-_-00? AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HE -\RUNGS PL.aNN"NG E'er 3 t CEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #00-3 by Freedom Development and PREPARED BY: Consulting to amend the zoning district for 40 acres of land located along the east side of Brent Svenby, 40th Avenue SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to Planner change the zoning designation from the H (Holding) District to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) District. March 29, 2000 i City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2000, to consider a zone change request to rezone 40 acres from the H (Holding) district to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. 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. Petersson made a motion to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-03 by Freedom Development & Consulting based on staff -suggested findings. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated March 3, 2000. "ouncil Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council'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 change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated March 3, 2000 2. Minutes of March 8, 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, April 3, 2000 in the Council I Board Chamber at the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building 6. Freedom Development & Consulting _OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Seconded by: to: i �J r L d L O a x W v L NQ �i. U) LLI hqA PAM / iq�- t — TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: March 3, 2000 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GISJADDRESSINCd 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGMRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 wELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Zoning District Amendment #00.03 by Freedom Development and Consulting to amend the zoning district for 40 acres of land located along the east side of 401h Avenue SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning designation from the H (Holding) District to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) District. Planning Department Review: Petitioner/Owner: Freedom Development & Consulting LLC PO Box 1643 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Location of Property: The area includes approximately 40 acres of land located along the east side of 401h Avenue SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision, Requested Action: The petitioner is requesting that approximately 40 acres be zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. The property was placed in the Holding Zone when it was annexed. Existing Land Use: This property is currently used as cropland. Proposed Land Use: The applicant has submitted a concurrent General Development Plan for this site. The applicant would like to use this site for a mixed single family and townhome development. The accompanying General Development Plan for this site indicates the proposed roadway patterns throughout to the property, lot layouts, drainage patterns, and parkland location. A neighborhood meeting was held on February 3, 2000 to discuss this project with area residents and landowners. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 — � 2 Zone Change 00-39 March 3, 2000 Adjacent Land Use and North: The property to the north is zoned A-4 Zoning: (Agricultural -Urban Expansion) and HC (Highway Commercial) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. South: The property to the south is zoned A-4 (Agricultural — Urban Expansion) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. East: The property to the east is zoned A-3 (Agricultural) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. West: Across 40'" Avenue is the Eastwood Hills Subdivisions which is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). Transportation Access: The plan proposes an access to 40M Avenue SE and one to Eastwood Road. 40`" Avenue SE (County Road 144) is designated as a collector roadway on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan and will be reconstructed in the future. The right-of-way dedication requirements for 40M Avenue SE will be 60 feet at the time of platting and the substandard street fee also applies to the property. The City may create a Transportation Improvement District in the area, which may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. An access permit will be required from the Olmsted County Public Works Department for any accesses onto 400 Avenue SE. According to the County Engineer adequate sight distance for operating speed on 40t" Ave. SE and right turn lanes will be required at the time of development. The roadway along the south property line will also be required to be reconstructed to City standards at the time of development. Wetlands: According to the Olmsted County Soil Survey, no hydric soils exist on the site. The Wetland LGU Representative has stated that the property should be investigated for wetlands because of the underlying glacial till and the concentrated flow. Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department —Transportation 2. Planning Department— Wetlands 3. RPU Water Division 4. RPU Operations Division 5. Rochester Public Works Department 6. MnDOT Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed General Development Plan Map Page 3Aq - Zone Change O0-3 March 3. 2000 3. Referral Comments Analysis and Staff Suaaested Findinas The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan indicates this property as being designated for "Low Density Residential" types of uses. According to the accompanying GDP, the applicant is proposing to use the site for single family detached housing and townhomes 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: 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 zoning of the property to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district is consistent with the land use plan and would serve to better further the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Plan. Rezoning the property promotes the development of mixed densities and styles and also promotes the development of affordable housing. In addition, it is in the public interest to rezone the property to encourage development of housing that will help meet the needs of the community. 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 The permitted uses allowed within the R-2 zoning district would be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties. 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 Page 4 Zone Change 00-3 !�f March 3, 2000 purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning since it is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation: The ability to consider the Zone Change and General Development Plan concurrently allows the City to consider this development proposal as a package. Based upon the accompanying General Development Plan for this site, Staff would recommend approval. Planning Commission Action Required: The Planning Commission must make a motion to recommend approval or denial of this request. The Planning Commission must also make findings to support this recommendation. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council and heard at a later public hearing. we 1.ftledy we deliver February 23, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Zoning District Amendment #00-03 by Freedom Development and Consulting to amend the zoning district on 40 acres of land from H to R-2 district to be known as Valley View Estates. The property is located along the east side of 401h Ave. SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision in the SW '/4, SW'/4 Section 4, Marion Township. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced amendment is complete and our comments follow: 1. Preliminary water system computer modeling has indicated adequate flows will be available to this area for this use. The pressures will be in the low 90's PSI to 100 PSI (depending on final site elevations) and we anticipate the installation of pressure reducing devices for a portion of this property. 2. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout and pressure zones to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly you((rss,�� ����� � "04 SLR Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Brown Herkenhoof, Inc. Freedom Development & Consulting LLC Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes / Hearing Date: March 3, 2000 Mr. Suk suggested they vote on the issue and include the first two conditions and the signage issue; then vote on the third condition separately. Ms. Petersso%moveep tion to include conditi one, two, and the signage issue. Mr. Bmended motion. otion carried 7-0. Ms. McGowandition n r three as originally suggested by staff. Mr.Quinn se, whic d 3-4, with Ms. Schultze, Mr, Suk, Mr. Burke, and Ms. Pete Conditions: 1. The appliZbyhester the Department to determine if a larger water service anired. 2. If requireFire Departmkan a entire building must be provided with autos throughout,a itional fire hydrants. 3. Modified efons showing signage within B-4 `Bu3tttress Center" standards be prepared before City Council presentation. \\\\\\ Zoning District Amendment #00.3 by Freedom Development and Consulting to amend \_ the zoning district for 40 acres of land located along the east side of 40 Avenue SE eas of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision. The applicant is Proposing to change the zoning designation from the H (Holding) District to the R 2 (Low Density Residential) District Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated March 3, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained the applicant is requesting to rezone from the H (Holding) zone to R-2, on property that has recently been annexed. He pointed out that a GDP for the property will be heard next on the agenda. Mr. Svenby reviewed the zoning districts of the adjacent properties, along with access. He referred to the criteria and staff -suggested findings, noting that staff recommends approval based on those findings. Dave Bell, Freedom Development and & Consulting, St. Cloud, Minnesota, addressed the Commission. He stated he agrees with the staff -recommended conditions and is available for questions. Paul Doerre, 951 Golfers Court BE, addressed the Commission. He asked about the 400' Avenue and Highway 14 intersection. Mr. Suk explained that that will be addressed during the GDP hearing. Mr. Doerre stated that when turning west onto Highway 14, there is very low visibility and he appreciates that being addressed. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. t�Page 13 — 1u( City Planning and Zoning Comtntssion Minutes Hearing Date: :March 8, 2000 Ms. Petersson moved to approve Zoning District Amendment #00.03 by Freedom Development & Consulting, based on staff -suggested findings. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Findings: ?. The proposed zoning of the property to the R-2 (Low -Density Residential) district is consistent with the Land Use Plan and would serve to better further the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Plan. Rezoning the property promotes the development of mixed densities and styles and also promotes the development of affordable housing. In addition, it is in the public interest to rezone the property to encourage development of housing that will help meet the needs of the community. 2. The permitted uses within the R-2 zoning district would be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties. 3. The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning since it is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Svenby presented the report is on file at the Roc Mr. Svenby explained the location likely be extended to the south an. Works indicated that dedication the road and the property Rio the measures that may be Charlie Reiter to Mn/DOT memo with some respc south onto 40'" Avenue onto Highway 14 from that eventually, High years), and the site !s leaving this devel west to Marion a 3, 2000, to the Commission. The staff Department. arty and stated that 40'h Avenue SE will most :led in the next 10-15 years. He noted that Public for 40'" Avenue will be 60' from the centerline of sect to t substandard street fee. Mr. Svenby explained ensure ade ate site distance and referred to a memo from for their input. noted that today, Mr. Reiter gave him a i of the issues: T need for a left turn bay for traffic turning r4will ighway 14, and to im\rdway conditions for motorists turning west nue, including improlity. Mn/DOT has indicated be upgraded to a 4-to Eyota (within the next 10 ice will be improved. Mr. d out that not all the traffic will travel north to Highwae will take Eastwood Road Mr. Svenby re eyed drainage and stormwater management, ublitie and parkland. He referred to crit for the GDP and stated staff has listed suggested fi ings to those criteria and based on those findings, staff recommends approval with 9 conditiotN, with an additional condition requested by Mr. Reiter, which states, "There must be a mutual Nreement, between REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4-3-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING E-, T ifEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #150 by Freedom Development and PREPARED BY: Consulting to be known as Valley View Estates, The Plan proposes to develop Brent Svenby, approximately 40 acres with single family detached housing and townhomes. The Planner development would be served with new public roadways and would include public parkland. The property is located east of 40t° Ave. SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision. March 29, 2000 City Planning and Zonina Commission Recommendation: On March 8, 2000 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this General Development Plan. Dave Bell, Freedom Development & Consulting, addressed the Commission. He stated he is in agreement with the conditions. The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Ms. Schultze made a motion to approve General Development Plan #150, to be known as Valley View Estates, based on staff -suggested findings, with 10 conditions, and the modification of condition number 7 to include "especially mature growth pines and burr oaks," after the word "trees." Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 7.0. onditions: 1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. The GDP indicates stormwater detention for the proposed development via a detention pond along the south property line. A regional stormwater pond is identified on this property. The owner should participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan by sizing and constructing the detention pond to serve as a regional facility. 1. When platted, controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 40"' Avenue SE, with exception of the street access that is approved through the GDP. Additional controlled access for private driveways will be required within 150 feet from the right-of-way intersection of Valley View Lane and 40'h Ave. SE and along the entire west lot line of Lot 20, located east of the detention pond. in addition, 60 feet of right of way shall be dedicated for 40l8 Avenue SE and the grade of the west side of the property must match the right-of- way grade prepared by the City for 40'h Ave. SE. 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; storm water management; park dedication; traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, SAC and WAC fees and contributions for public infrastructure. The Development Agreement must also outline the developer's responsibility for construction and maintenance of the proposed private lift station, as well as, the owners financial responsibility for abandonment and removal of the lift station when connection to a public gravity trunk main sewer is available. 4. A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 40`" Ave. SE. Current City policy for substandard street requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage. The City may create a Transportation improvement District in the area, which may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. Reconstruction of the public road along the south property line, to City standards, will be required at the owner's expense, concurrent with this development. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: Page RCA March 9, 2000 5. The property be investigated for wetlands and the necessary information be submitted to the LGU showing if there are or are not wetlands on the property. 6. At the time of platting, easements shall be provided for all needed off site public utilities. Sanitary sewer and water service will be required to be extended to the adjacent property lines. 7. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met through the dedication of land. The 4.71 acres park site shown on the GDP meets the dedication requirements for the proposed development. Any grading, removal of topsoil or trees, especially mature growth pines and burr oaks, from the proposed park site must be approved by the Park Department prior to the work being done. 8. An access permit to 401" Ave. SE will be required from the Olmsted County Public Works Department at the time of platting. Sight distance needs to be adequate for operating speed on 40'h Ave. SE along with a right turn lane. 9. A revised GDP shall be riled with the Planning Department reflecting all required modifications, including moving the pedestrian facility along the easterly right-of-way of 40fb Ave. SE, the right-of-way for the northern most road be 56 feet and the westerly leg of this roadway must line up directly across from the north/south roadway or be separated by 200 feet. 10. There must be a mutual agreement, between the developers, the City, and the County, regarding a left turn lane on Trunk Highway f4 prior to approval of any final plats for this development. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated March 3, 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 March 3, 2000 2. Minutes of March 8, 2000 CPZC Meeting Distribution: P� 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department GIS Division 6. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2000 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. 7. Freedom Development & Consulting. �re February 7, 2000 ed %r m e e1o�Ment Brent Svenby Rochester — Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive Southeast Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Re: General Development Plan Submittal Checklist Dear Brent, Planning Department, and Commissioners: First of all, I would like to begin by wishing you all the very best of the day! This letter is a follow-up to our application of the General Development Plan (GDP) of Valley View Estates subdivision in Southeast Rochester, just south of Highway 14 and east of 40"' Avenue Southeast. Enclosed with this written summary are nine (9) copies of 26" x 24" sized land use maps, and two (2) copies of 11 x 17 reduced copies of the same. The maps include many of the items listed on your Submittal Checklist. They are as follows: All proposed public decided right-of-ways such as the 60-foot center line of 41P Avenue to the east along the west property line of this parcel. The proposed street pattern and ROW widths of all streets are also included. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan currently states the land use is guided for Low Density R-1, R-Ix, or R-2 zoning, which would comply with our Rezoning Request of R-2. Our GDP site density even for our townhome projects, is no more than 5 units per acre for the owner -occupied units, 51units total; and under 7 units per acre for the rental townhomes, 32 units total P.O. Box 1643 • St. Cloud, MN56302 • Phone: 320-251-2045 • Fax: 320-65C9144 elopment • All topography has been located by a local survey crew and tied to Sec. 4, Township 106N, Range 13W, Marion Township Aerial Photography received from Ed Kuisle, County Surveyor of Olmsted • County. The Topography information is shown on our land use maps prepared by Brown Herkinhoff Land Surveyors & Engineering. • After reviewing FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map of Olmsted County Panel 169 of 530, No #27109C0169D, Effective Date of 4117195, it shows this parcel of land is not within any flood plains or flood fringes, and all elevations are above the 100-year flood elevations. • The types of soils throughout the parcel are mostly of a sandy or sandy loam makeup, with very good percolation qualities and excellent for building compaction and sub base for roadways. The only area of concern is in the NE corner, where a small area of limestone — sandstone deposit shows up within the soil borings. See enclosed Soil Borings study prepared for us by Chosen Valley Testing of Rochester. • The Land Use Map by Arrows, shows the direction of the drainage corridors throughout the subdivision in route to the detention area on the south side. • In reviewing local wetland maps, to our best knowledge, no wetland areas or shrubbery species are located within the 40-acre parcel of land. • A) In answer to the soil conditions, we feel there will be very little concern or problems as to utility pipe excavation, in sub base for roadways or building pads, or drainage because of the good quality of the soils as per the enclosed soil report and findings. • B) In answer to Storm Drainage problems, the gradual sloping of the entire site from North to South makes controlling of the storm water very manageable within the design of our streets through catch basins and some overland areas directed to the detention basin on the south side of the property. • C) Because there is no available Storm Sewer piping to access in this area, it is necessary to direct all of our impervious surface drainage to a detention area to control the off -site runoff at a rate no greater than prior to any development. The natural direction of the off -site runoff by reviewing the Aerial Photography maps in the neighboring sections of lands is to the South and Southeast. 2 P.O. Bar 1643 • St. Cloud, MN56302 • Phone: 320-251-2048 • Fax: 320-656-9144 M= Bill elopment ink • D) Public Utilities, such as sewer, water and electric, are located adjacent to our site within 4dh Avenue, and are to the West and electric to the West and Co-op to the South. The sewer connection is • at a higher elevation in 40`h Avenue. Therefore, we will be installing a lift station near the detention area with a force main to the Manhole at the intersection of 40th Avenue and County Road 144 going past the golf course. When the extension of the proposed sewer line directly south of our site occurs, gravity feed from our site to that new location could happen, allowing the lift station to be eliminated. • E) Erosion problems should be held to a minimum and maintained by erosion control fences during construction, because of the gradual sloping of the site and very little rock formations shown in the soil borings. • F) The Development and Phasing of the development is explained within the enclosed sections. • All density, land uses, public thoroughfares, roads, trails and park areas are shown on the enclosed land use maps. • The required public neighborhood meeting minutes and attendance sheet is also enclosed for your review. • The Traffic Impact Report and 40th Avenue Profile performed by McGhie & Betts, Inc. of Rochester are also included for your review. I hope the enclosed information will help your understanding of our Development, and will provide Staff with the needed information to successfully complete our General Development Plan application and submittal. Freedom Development & Consulting ME 3 PO Box 1643 • St. Cloud, MN56302 • Phone: 320-251-2048 • Fax.'320-65&9144 February 4, 2000 RECAP OF PUBLIC MEETING HELD FEB. 3, 2000 PROPOSED VALLEY VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION The public meeting was held at Peoples Cooperative Power's conference room. There were 16 people in attendance from the public. Tom Halloran and David Bell attended as representatives of the developers. The meeting was opened at 7:00 PM with Halloran and Bell taking approximately 15 minutes to explain what was being proposed within the development and where the project was in the overall process. At that point the public was invited to make comments or ask questions. The majority of the questions were general in nature typically asking for clarification or about specific minor issues. The questions or issues raised that were more specific in nature were: 1. Traffic impact at the 40th Avenue and TH 14 intersection. 2. Would traffic from the new subdivision utilize the existing township (Eastwood Road) road? 3. Who would be in charge of maintaining site cleanliness during construction? 4. Will the storm water detention basin be large enough to assure proper drainage control? 5. Will the trees along the west side of the property remain? 6. Two members of the public were concerned about the size of the single family lots. 7. The two families at the end of Eastwood Road would like to see the traffic minimized if not eliminated on this road. The members of the public present were pleased with the variety of housing being provided, that the city park would be provided, and that the trees would be kept. The more dominant concerns were the potential traffic on Eastwood Road (Township Road), jobsite cleanliness during construction, maintaining the existing trees and to a slighter degree the single family lot with widths less than 60 feet. Submitted this 4th day of February, 2000. Tom Halloran ATTENDANCE PUBLIC MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 3, 2000 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL Name Address February 11, 2000 To: Charlie Reiter and other appropriate Rochester-Ohnsted Planning Department staff From: Lee and Linda Ganske, 4220 Eastwood Road SE 64.24. Subj: Proposed Valley View development east of 40`s Ave. SE in Section 4, Marion Township CC: Brian and Konnie Smith, neighbors David Bell and Tom Halloran, developers Last week we attended a neighborhood meeting hosted by David Bell and Tom Halloran. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a preliminary plat for the proposed Valley View housing development. While the preliminary design appears reasonable, and we are generally supportive of this project based on the need for lower cost housing in the Rochester area, we have some concerns we feel should be addressed. The preliminary plat shows a secondary access on the south side of the development to the gravel portion of Eastwood Road. We fell this is inappropriate. Eastwood Road at this point is narrow and somewhat minimally maintained, and the access onto 40ei Ave. is quite dangerous. The access is at the top of a steep hill and visibility is poor for drivers entering or exiting this section of Eastwood. At the neighborhood meeting, the developers indicated that the primary access is adequate and that they do not need the secondary access. We support leaving a stub for this access, when future development results in road changes. 2. The connection between 40'' Ave. SE and Highway 14 is inadequate and potentially dangerous. The median is quite narrow. When turning west onto Highway 14, visibility to the east is poor. There is no turn lane for turns onto 40`h Ave. from highway 14 east. This problem is complicated by the fact that the access to 40t' Ave. from the east is just over a rise. Traffic from the east comes up quite quickly on cars slowing down or stopping on Highway 14. Between this development, and the on -going Eastwood Hills development, traffic access to and from Highway 14 will greatly increase. I We understand that the preliminary plan will have a sewer force main following Eastwood Road. There is a grove of large burr oak trees along Eastwood Road adjacent to the proposed park in the development. We hope that the force main can be installed in such a manner that these trees are maintained, even if it must follow a different route. Burr oaks, which are excellent and hearty urban trees, will add immensely to the park and neighborhood. ,{ i Memo to Charlie Reiter and Planning Staff— page 2 4. There is a row of pine trees along the west side of the proposed development. From a number of standpoints, including enhancement of the proposed park and the maintenance of a buffer between this development and the Eastwood Hills neighborhood, these trees should be preserved. The developers have indicated an interest in doing this. Could be made a condition of the final plat? If you would like to discuss any of these concerns, please contact us at 280-6862. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E. ROCHESTER, MN 55904-7996 PHONE 507.285-8232 FAX 507-287-2275 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 23, 2000 TO: Debbie Persoon, Peter Buchen District 6- MnDOT FROM: Charlie Reiter Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department RE: Questions regarding intersection of 40'h Ave SE and TH 14 East in Rochester CC: Debbie & Peter: The City of Rochester has received a development proposal for a 40 acre tract on 40' Ave SE on the east side of Rochester that is to be known as Valley View Estates. This is located Y, mile east of Eastwood Golf Course. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the development. There is a residential subdivision immediately west of the proposed project that is known as Eastwood Hills, which will have a total of 96 homes when completed. The Valley View development is proposed to contain 74 single family homes, 32 townhomes and 54 rental townhomes when completed, for a total of 160 units. The most recent count maps for the area is attached as Figure 2. This shows approximately 680 ADT on 40u' Ave currently and from 11,000 to 13,000 on TH 14. We have recently conducted peak hour turning movement counts at the intersection of TH 14 and East Circle Drive (see Figures 3a and 3b) which indicate peak hour volumes consistent with the 13,000 ADT level. The peak hour traffic flow for both the AM and PM is heavily skewed by direction, as is typical of what we see on most regional commuter corridors flowing into the City of Rochester. The proposed developments will add traffic to 40u' Ave and the intersection of 40"' Ave and TH 14. My estimate after build -out of both the two developments is that the ADT on 40u' Ave would rise from 680 ADT to approximately 3100 ADT. Figures 4a and 4b illustrate my estimates of the AM and PM peak hour traffic at the intersection of 40u' Ave and TH 14. In running these numbers through the Highway Capacity Manual software for unsignalized intersections, the results indicate a Level of Service above average (LOS A and B for all movements) which would probably remain at this level even with 5-10 years of background traffic growth on TH 14. However, the addition of this development will add more turning movements at this intersection, thus impacting gap availability, although there should be adequate number of gaps for traffic turning onto the highway. Some concerns have been identified by staff and residents of the area (See Attachment A), however, as to whether the intersection should be upgraded to handle the additional turning movements. Among the concerns noted are: ➢ Poor sight distance for southbound traffic on 40u' Ave turning west onto TH 14. The crest in the grade of TH 14 to the east of the intersection appears to result in an inadequate amount of intersection sight distance given the speed of traffic on TH 14. ➢ There is no right turn lane for eastbound traffic on TH 14 turning south onto 40' Ave ➢ There is no left turn lane an westbound TH 14 for traffic turning south onto 40u' Ave The lack of proper turn lanes causes concern since it means that people are slowing and making turns out of the through lanes on the highway. My question for you in regards to these concerns is whether improvements should be considered to mitigate the impact of increased local access traffic at the intersection of 4V, Ave and TH 14. Specifically: 1. Since the proposed developments will result in more turning traffic at the intersection, should the installation of a right turn lane for traffic turning onto 40`h Ave from eastbound 14 and a left turn lane for traffic turning onto 40'h Ave from westbound 14 be considered? 2. Should an inside acceleration lane for traffic turning onto westbound TH 14 from 40`h Ave be considered to improve ? I would assume fixing the sight distance problem, since it would require a much more significant project, would probably await reconstruction of the road or the planned project to widen the highway to four lanes east to Eyota. I would if nothing is done in the short term needed turn lanes would also be included as part of that project. Since the widening project to Eyota is probably a number of years off, does it make sense to put in turn lanes and acceleration lanes at this time to deal with the projected traffic? Since not all of these dwelling units will be constructed and occupied for probably a 2-3 year period, would these type of improvements be something that the DOT might consider programming for a future year if dollars are not available to do it at this time? Would the DOT consider a joint project with the city or developer to help fund construction of turn lanes at this location? This project will have its first public hearing review on the 8" of March. Any feedback you could provide prior to that date would be helpful. Thanks Charlie February 11, 2000 To: Charlie Reiter and other appropriate Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department staff From: Lee and Linda Ganske, 4220 Eastwood Road SE';�t 'ga Subj: Proposed Valley View development east of 40a' Ave. SE in Section 4, Marion Township CC: Brian and Konnie Smith, neighbors David Bell and Tom Halloran, developers Last week we attended a neighborhood meeting hosted by David Bell and Tom Halloran. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a preliminary plat for the proposed Valley View housing development. While the preliminary design appears reasonable, and we are generally supportive of this project based on the need for lower cost housing in the Rochester area, we have some concerns we feel should be addressed. The preliminary plat shows a secondary access on the south side of the development to the gravel portion of Eastwood Road. We fell this is inappropriate. Eastwood Road at this point is narrow and somewhat minhnally maintained, and the access onto 400' Ave. is quite dangerous. The access is at the top of a steep hill and visibility is poor for drivers entering or exiting this section of Eastwood. At the neighborhood meeting, the developers indicated that the primary access is adequate and that they do not need the secondary access. We support leaving a stub for this access, when future development results in road changes. 2. The connection between 40`h Ave. SE and Highway 14 is inadequate and potentially dangerous. The median is quite narrow. When turning west onto Highway 14, visibility to the east is poor. There is no turn lane for turns onto 40t° Ave. from highway 14 east. This problem is complicated by the fact that the access to 40'b Ave. from the east is just over a rise. Traffic from the east comes up quite quickly on cars slowing down or stopping on Highway 14. Between this development, and the on -going Eastwood Hills development, traffic access to and from Highway 14 will greatly increase. I We understand that the preliminary plan will have a sewer force main following Eastwood Road. There is a grove of large burr oak trees along Eastwood Road adjacent to the proposed park in the development We hope that the force main can be installed in such a manner that these trees are maintained, even if it must follow a different route. Burr oaks, which are excellent and hearty urban trees, will add immensely to the park and neighborhood. ./Oiv.b, �, t,iy; t_c ATTACHMENT A ui I } o i J put: '3'S '3na a+Ov '3Av 1h n N 4 n N '3nr VH Q I Y •rs A• = 0 4a S p t JI F r ✓ C r '3nr u+1£ N Py. 'VI dui` j o c NS tlOWFn£!p��i Jm V� r= "1ss� N N u •3.5""3Av o ua9£ � 3'$ m TV, ss `d aw3 •a0t 43dOISItIKO N Q H w '13 a34015186 ¢ N NOS13J \ \ 00901 u+0£ N u '3n4 dol 1M �A� " w 3'$ '3na y�lU tSy 0jqy� ' d W W Li 07jTly O — O aA U 3nT 1vAaPW � ~ av (r LO V cq Ln w Z I 0 3nv u+vB ti Ii = 3nv r r "r? — O�. _., „ U 433a7 a3nl[S m Q t I s$ ••p�•. _rill F I �'• I m V " I D O W u L ~ W 'a17 . 37a>� — _ �+ Q. '3AV ��_ tR [] 35 •3n 4a6S W\I .17 311[A3H a w t�t "r a'a0 tW o '3i 3hY 4a67 s� n s J i_�4491 1 '^ ( �s \ �25 NA t` V :JI_� - I.u� �b38 l5t" �oo ✓• • A • 1" N w In N pr V1£S •A9 !'£i�•• 1J! V L 4w £I _ 00211 N y Y W N N{ pC F m T N N N TS'3Aa O \ ZI L W Vi T•� \ '3nP N V+II \ SAY 1446 O a� �606 ~ N� A i O[ '3'S '3Aa u u+ ui m nv 6 '3nv w+ uaB �� jhP Y+6 V 6 m •3'$ '3AP W '3APual 7Av Va Nm �©f•a00g•n3 11 =n—N m mAP L R� .w 02/22/2000 09:58 5072816022 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SHOP PAGE 02 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 24 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NE HWY 14 E @ EAST CIRCLE DR (AM) File Name : hwy 14 e @ e.cir.dr (a. yw Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 02/14/2000 Page No : 1 Grptp4 Printed-AU.vmicus _ i From Nonh Prom East -� From South Surl Timc I �18� I - t8 '- App: 8 From Wm I u I Tout t u �R Toul,�, Led PP. eg Ltt1 ` c 1ncTu-j.. ..ln[. FaetoFl lar 1. 1.01 -�--- t "I TOW t u Tou! Tout Toul TnW -1IT.1 S AAf.._ . b. - L0CoL0 1.0 -T. _.'. - 1 { 179 d d..-o _.. 07:30 AM 30 0 !8 48 63 136 0 199 0 0 0 01 0 40 60 6 07:45 AM 34 0 14 48 76 137 0 213 0 0 0 01 0 W 7{ 40 60 287 347 �iT_._.__d �__-Q-.591 -"d 0 -_S .. 60 74 321 395 I51 I 193 -798- - U 17 '".'---i_ "-321 3i5 08:00 AM 47 0 27 74 91 120 0 211 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 .4.N 62 0 29 91 60 65 197 651 197 350 547 08:30 AM 20 D 8 34 52 0 128 0 0 0 01 0 41 82 41+ 82 260 342 08�45 AM 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 42 55 42 55 216 271 -5 0 8 33 70 70 0 140 0 0 _ 0 01 0 32 126 32 L 126 205 331 ions 1167 —b-0-"�i4 0-`0 0- "�1 n'i8ii-7b0-_'WI -,I(A _..103I.._.t491 09:00 AM 70 0 22 92 1 62 68 0 130 ! 0 Grand I 0 0 0I 0 29 2114 29 2p4 251 455 Toul 328 0 147 475I 528 312 0 1140I 0 0 0 0II 0 111 834 333 834 I 1 2150 29114 AMp h S 69.1 0.0 30.9 139.4 60.6 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 f 0.0 100. Tivai % 15.3 0.0 6.8 22.1 124.6 37.8 0.0 62.3 I 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 I 0.0 15.6 13.6 27.9 71..1 M ail -4 FIGURE 3A psi �u enne by: 58 5072816022 TRAFFIC SI0gAL SHOP PALE 08 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 24 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NE File Na HYVV 4 HWY 14 E EAST CIRCLE DR me • 4 E CCV EAST CIRCLE DR (PM) (PM) Site Code : 00000001 ww Start Date : 02/14/2000 Page No : 1 Groups Rwt_d. AI,L-VEMCLM . Start Time +8 r' vm NonE 8L-ft From E4st i From South From wMi i ht Ficior I kR u s I Tou1 I M u App. Ll s Toul hl u Leff s pp. Total f8 hl r u� 17ou� o3:as Phf Toul I -�SO o ' 7- 1.0 1. .0 D o I� 1. s Tow L0 7 •t--_.� 16 0 ?3� 116 --`�T--S �- 0 73 r 6 0 350 i) D d9-D-- TSB 3So 04:00 PM (M.: 15 PM 91 80 0 51 0 67 0 0 142 30 81 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 302 T. 0 174 427 04:30 PM 80 0 78 0 147 159 23 22 63 67 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I39 54 0 I93 426 04;45 PM 73 0 56 0 129 34 87 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 0 149 68 0 217 464 Toi,1 224'."-� 1 0 0 0 - 0 ---0- 0 1>4 48 _ 0 182 432 0 -768. 1 4 05:00 PM 49 0 79 0 128 29 90 0 0 l l9 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 79 0 63 0 142 30 90 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 141 76 0 207 469 05:30 PM 73 0 102 0 175 30 74 0 101 0 0 0 0 D I4l 66 0 207 469 Grand0 Tait] Total 583 0 552 0 1137 216 609 0 0 825 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 75 0 228 507 107 Apprch % 51.5 0.0 48.5 0.0 26.2 73.8 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 9 508 0 1597 3549 Toul % 16.5 0.0 15.6 0.0 32.0 6.1 17.2 0.0 0.0 23.7. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 00 69.0 32.3 0.0 44.7 a Tait, 7�Nde_U 7� 1137 u91 545� "p _�, A9M Thry fall pay .� 1 I, j f 4g05'45ca PM 14901000 PIA -1 �LLVEHIClp9 J W ZS"( `a A ERS-T FIGURE 3B Yr Manqu tad M ILT 1N3Wd0l3A30 H31id Nv3A 3N0 S1NNOAOW ONINNRI9rZWWY-3di'iv 03103rONd PROJECTED PM PEA �� TURNING MOVEMENTS ONPYEAR AFTER DEVELOPMENT ME N Y Papa FIGURE 46 W Qi O_ O C O U 41 74 iiilil � 51 iE Freedom Dev. & Consulting ' "! 1,000' Notification Distance Ward 4 (Stobaugh) 01 /11 /00 a v CO RD 144 SE HTg CP Se w y f -I. Page 3 General Development Plan March 3, 2000 established for the applicant or (2) the City can purchase that portion of the park that is in excess of what is required to be dedicated. Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works 2. John Hanford, Planning Dept. & Wetlands LGU 3, Olmsted County SWCD 4, RPU Water Division 5. Park and Recreation Department 6. Fire Department 7. RPU Operations Division 6. US West 9. 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. Letter from Lee and Linda Ganske Summary: This GDP includes approximately 40 acres of land and proposes to develop a low density residential development consisting of single family detached housing and townhomes. The property is in the process of being annexed and the applicant has filed a zoning district amendment for this property. The applicant is proposing to zone this property R-2 (Low Density residential) district. The R-2 zoning will allow the applicant to development townhomes. The townhome development will need to be reviewed as a Performance Residential Development when that portion of the development is proposed. The plan proposes a public access to 40" Avenue SE and one to Eastwood Road. 400 Avenue SE (County Road 144) is designated as a collector roadway on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan and will be reconstructed in the future. The right-of-way dedication requirements for 40`" Avenue SE will be 60 feet at the time of platting and the substandard street fee also applies to the property. An access permit will be required from the Olmsted County Public Works Department for any accesses onto 401° Avenue SE. According to the County Engineer adequate sight distance for operating speeds on 40t"Ave. SE and right turn lanes will be required at the time of development. The roadway along the south property line will also be required to be reconstructed to City standards that the time the development occurs. The proposed detention pond is located where the City has identified a regional stormwater pond. The pond will need to be sized to serve as a regional pond. The applicant is also proposing a private lift station to be located in the same area. 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 l05 '1 V Page 4 V�' General Development Plan March 3, 2000 been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. This GDP proposes a low density residential development, which is consistent with the land use designation on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. The applicant is also proposing to zone this property R-2 (Low Density Residential), which would be consistent the low density residential land use designation. 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. The proposed vehicular systems provide for the connection to adjacent properties. A 10' trail will be required along the east side of 41f Avenue SE. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans The development density is consistent with the 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. Access to the site will be provided from 4d" Ave. SE and Eastwood Road. The adopted Thoroughfare Plan designates 400 Ave. SE as a collector roadway. A contribution will be required for the future reconstruction of 4d" Ave. SE to a collector standard. Current City policy for substandard street requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage. The City may create a Transportation Improvement District in the area, which may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. 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. improvement to 400 Ave. SE and Eastwood Road will be needed as a result of the proposed development. The applicant will need to enter into a Develop Page 5 General Development Plan March 3. 2000 Agreement with the City that will outline the developer's responsibility for improvements. An access permit will be required from the Olmsted County Public Works Department for any accesses onto 4d" Avenue SE. According to the County Engineer adequate sight distance for operating speeds on 40e Ave. SE and right turn lanes will be required at the time of development. 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. The Southeast High Level water System is available approximately 200 feet north of the northwest corner of this property. Pressure reducing valves or a pressure reducing station will need to be installed for areas below a finished site elevation of 1080. The applicant is proposing to install a private lift station to serve the property. The applicant will be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the private lift station, as well as, the abandonment and removal of the lift station when connection to a public gravity trunk main sewer is available. 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 pond on the property. The City has identified a regional pond at the location so the pond will need to be sized and constructed to serve as a regional pond. The proposed 4.74 acre park area will meet the dedication requirements. In the event that land in excess of the required dedication is deeded to the City, either (1) credits for future dedication requirements can be established for the applicant or (2) the City can purchase that portion of the park that is in excess of what is required to be dedicated. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways and along the east side of 4d" Ave. SE. A 10' bituminous bike path may be required along the east side of 4(f Avenue SE instead of a sidewalk. 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. Public Works will need to review grading and drainage plans for this property in more detail at the platting stage. The detention pond will need to be sized to serve as a regional facility. 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 'Y) !09 Page 6 General Development Plan March 3, 2000 contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. The lot, block and street layout and density appear to be generally consistent with the land use and the proposed zoning for this property. The proposed roadways provide connections to adjacent properties and allow for the continued growth and development of those properties. The westerly north/south leg of `Valley View Lane' and the westerly leg of the loop street to serve the patio homes will need to be revised to line up directly across each other or be separated by 200 feet. 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 addressed for this development. The GDP indicates stormwater detention for the proposed development via a detention pond along the south property line. A regional stormwater pond is identified on this pond. The owner should participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan by sizing and constructing the detention pond to serve as a regional facility. 2. When platted, controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 40' Avenue SE, with exception of the street access that is approved through the GDP. Additional controlled access for private driveways will be required within 150 feet from the right-of-way intersection of Valley View Lane and 40'" Ave. SE and along the entire west lot line of Lot 20, located east of the detention pond. In addition, 60 feet of right of way shall be dedicated for 4e Avenue SE and the grade of the west side of the property must match the right -of --way grade prepared by the City for 40`" Ave. SE. 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; storm water management; park dedication; traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of- way dedication, SAC and WAC fees and contributions for public infrastructure. The Development Agreement must also outline the developers responsibility for construction and maintenance of the proposed private lift station, as well as, the owners financial responsibility for abandonment and removal of the lift station when connection to a public gravity trunk main sewer is available. 4. A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 40'" Ave. SE. Current City policy for substandard street requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage. The City may create a Transportation Improvement District in the area, which may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. Reconstruction of the public road along the south property line, to City standards, will be required at the owner's expense, concurrent with this development. 5. The property be investigated for wetlands and the necessary information be submitted to the LGU showing if there are or are not wetlands on the property. i Page 7 f DG General Development Plan r March 3, 2000 6. At the time of platting, easements shall be provided for all needed off site public utilities. Sanitary sewer and water service will be required to be extended to the adjacent property lines. 7. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met through the dedication of land. The 4.71 acres park site shown on the GDP meets the dedication requirements for the proposed development. Any grading, removal of topsoil or trees from the proposed park site must be approved by the Park Department prior to the work being done. 8. An access permit to 40t° Ave. SE will be required from the Olmsted County Public Works Department at the time of platting, Sight distance needs to be adequate for operating speed on 4e Ave. SE along with a right turn lane. 9. A revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department reflecting all required modifications, including moving the pedestrian facility along the easterly right-of- way of 400 Ave. SE, the right-of-way for the northern most road be 56 feet and the westerly leg of this roadway must line up directly across from the north/south roadway or be separated by 200 feet. J D ROCHESTER-OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS l 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E. ROCHESTER, MN 55904-7996 PHONE 507.285.8232 FAX 507-287-2275 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 8, 2000 TO: Brent Svenby Planner FROM: Charles Reiter Transportation Planner RE: Freedom Development / Information on intersection of 40"' Ave and TH 14 In response to questions that have been raised regarding the impact of further development along 40`" Ave SE on the intersection of 40'" Ave and TH 14, 1 provided MnDOT staff with information regarding future peak hour traffic flows at this intersection and asked for an assessment from their perspective on the need for upgrading the intersection. Among the specific questions I requested comments on were: • The need for a left turn bay to handle traffic turning south onto 40"' Ave off of westbound TH 14 to address the issue of motorists making left turns from the inside through lane on TH 14 • Should measures be taken to improve conditions for motorists turning onto westbound TH 14 from northbound 40'" Ave to address the restricted visibility created by the grade of the highway. MnDOT indicated that they have also been contacted by the developer of Eastwood Hills regarding the need for a left turn bay in response to the first issue. MnDOT indicated that they have programmed the construction of a left turn for this location in the Year 2003. This would likely correspond to the full build -out of the two developments in the area. If a turn lane is required or desired to be built prior to that time, MnDOT would cooperate with the local units of government to have the project completed, but it would need to be funded locally, either by the developers or the city/county or through some combination of these sources. - In response to the second issue, there are two general types of improvements that could address this matter: The first would be a project to alter the grade of the highway to the east to lower the vertical curve that exists on TH 14. There is a project identified in MNDOT's 5-10 year programming guide calling for the expansion of TH 14 to a full four lane section east to Chester and eventually to MN 42 west of Eyota. Since the starting point for this project would be just to the east of 40'" Ave, it could incorporate changes in the vertical profile to increase the sight distance. It should be understood that this programming guide is an indicator of priority but not a commitment to funding; priorities can and do shift and at this time we cannot be assured that this project will occur by the Year 2010. A second response would be to consider the installation of an inside acceleration lane for motorists turning onto the highway. This would allow motorists to accelerate to a speed more comparable to traffic in the through lanes prior to merging into the traffic flow. Based on a field review of the roadway conditions MNDOT has identified that it would be physically impossible to install an acceleration lane due to the proximity of another left turn lane a short distance to the west, and the limited amount of median area that exists which would preclude having enough width to construct an acceleration lane. Based on the comments we received from MNDOT and staff review of the conditions it would be my recommendation that funding for completion of the left turn lane should be explored further through discussions with the developer of both this project and the developer of Eastwood Hills and with the City and County Public Works Department to determine if construction of this can be advanced prior to the Year 2003. It is my recommendation that accommodating left turns out of the through lane is highly undesirable, and while this number is very low currently (approximately 5 in the PM peak hour), it will grow due to the build -out of both this development and Eastwood Hills. In addressing the 2d issue, regarding turns onto westbound TH 14, the traffic numbers suggest that this will be an issue primarily in the morning peak hour when the traffic turning onto the highway from 40'" Ave and the through traffic on TH 14 westbound are both at their highest level. There does not appear to be any feasible short term, low cost solutions to improve this situation. Residents who are not destined to get on East Circle Drive but instead are heading west on TH 14 have the alternative of using Eastwood Road in conjunction with Marion Road to access TH 14. Analysis of the projected traffic volumes does not indicate that overall congestion or delay will be a problem; what will likely be tested by the conditions that develop is the patience of motorists who will find they may need to wait 20-30 seconds for an opening in the traffic flow. It is my recommendation that the existing conditions, while not representing the preferred design situation, are adequate, and that a priority needs to be established related to the programming of future improvements to TH 14. This includes not only maintaining priority for the upgrading of TH 14, but also completing advance planning looking at the possible consolidation of access along TH 14 which would focus on targeting the 40"' Ave location as a future location for traffic signalization between the existing signal at East Circle Drive and a likely future signal at CSAH 11. With additional development along Eastwood Road expected in the future, the potential to extend 40'" Ave to serve areas north of TH 14 in the future, and its location exactly halfway between East Circle Drive and CSAH 11, this would be a desirable location on which to base planning for the future installation of a signal when signal warrants are met. ROCHESTER Minnesota 2;2sr00 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 General Development Plan #150,an the Freedom Development & Consulting (Valley View Estates) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Storm Water Management must be addressed for this development. The GDP plan indicates stormwater detention for the proposed development via a detention pond along the south property line. A regional stormwater pond is identified on this property. The owner should participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan by sizing & constructing the detention pond to serve as a regional facility. 2. Controlled access must be provided along the entire length of W, Ave SE, with the exception of the street access that is approved through the GDP. Additional controlled access for private driveways will be required within 150 feet from the right-of-way intersection of Valley View Lane and 40' Ave SE, and along the entire west lot line of Lot 20, located east of the detention pond as shown on the GDP plan. 3. Dedication of 60 feet of right-of-way for 40" Ave SE, will be required, as shown on the GDP plan. The developer shall be required to grade the west side of the property to match the ROW grade prepared by the City for 401" Ave SE. 4. Pedestrian facilities, constructed concurrent with the development, will be required along both sides of all new public roads, and along all the east side of 401" Ave SE. A 10 foot bituminous bike path may be required along the east side of 40'" Ave SE instead of a concrete sidewalk. The location of the pedestrian walkway indicated on the GDP plan should be located toward the proposed easterly right of way line of 402' Ave SE. C:%TEMPIGDP150.doc Minnesota 2/25/00 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 5. A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 40`" Ave SE. Current City policy for substandard streets requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage. The City may create a Transportation Improvement District in the area which may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. Reconstruction of the public road along the south property line, to City standards, will be required at the owner's expense, concurrent with this development. 6. Sanitary sewer & water service lines will be required to be extended to the adjacent property lines. 7. Easements will be required for off -site utilities, if applicable. 8. Specific routing of sanitary sewer lines will be reviewed further during the platting stages:• 9. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure. 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. The Development Agreement shall also outline the developer's responsibility for construction and maintenance of the proposed private lift station, as well as, the owners financial responsibility for abandonment and removal of the lift station when connection to public gravity trunk main sewer is available. 11. In addition to SAC, WAC & Substandard Street Fees, the owner will be required to provide payment to the City for the future removal of the private lift station, and costs associated with the physical connection to gravity trunk m.:ar. T:,e;wu;arty may also be rasponsible for additianat aontsTZution for Water Tower and Sewer Trunk Main Sewer projects to serve this property, if the project area charges exceed the current SAC & WAC rates. CXrEMRGDP150.doc ROCHESTER Minnesota 2., 25; 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 12. The westerly North I South leg of Valley View Lane, and the westerly leg of the loop street to serve the "patio homes" should line up directly across from each other, or be separated by 200 feet. 13, There must be an unobstructed overland emergency overflow from the low point to the pond. 14. A 56 foot ROW will be required for the loop street serving the "patio homes". The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre. Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre. Substandard Street Contribution for future reconstruction of 40' Ave SE @ $30.00 per foot of frontage. Contribution for future removal of the proposed private lift station and physical connection to gravity trunk main. Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. C:\TEMP\GDP150.doc TV - - 1 we please, we ael rer February 23, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: General Development Plan #150 by Freedom Development and Consulting to be known as Valley View Estates. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. Southeast High Level Water System service is available approximately 200' north of the northwest comer of this property. Pressures in areas below an approximate finished site elevation of 1080 will be too great without the installation of pressure reducing devices. This typically is done by either installing pressure reducing valves in the individual homes or in a pressure reducing station in the street serving many homes (whichever fits the best for the layout and extensions to adjoining properties). 2. The water system in this area will need to be looped through the Townhome area and the cul-de-sac to create a network capable of providing adequate fire flows and water quality. 3. Water main extensions are necessary to serve the adjoining properties on the north, cast and south sides. 4. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout and pressure zones to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, C" 1 �40c, Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Brown Herkenhoof, Inc. Freedom Development & Consulting LLC Rochester Public Utilities. 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsunile 507-280-1542 February 22, 2000 Suzanne LaPalm Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Suzanne: The Public Works Department has reviewed Freedom Development & Consulting to be k following comments: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507'285-8231 Plan #1 and has the 1. Access permit will be required from Olmsted County Public Works Department $175 will be required for street sign and $50 for stop sign. Sight distance needs to be adequate for operating speed on Co. Rd 144. Right -turn lane will be required. Sincerely, Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS:bw cwymx�piarizww.ax AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITWAFFIRMATIVE ACTION E61PLOYER Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste .dministration Building Maintenance ROCHESTER PARK AND. ._CREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 10 DATE: February 16, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning FROM: Denny Stotz SUBJECT: Valley View Estates GDP Plan #150 The t 162 unit development will have a parkland dedication of requirement of t 4.0 acres. The Park Department recommends that the dedication be in the form of land. The 4.74 acre park site shown on the GDP meets dedication standards and will meet the dedication requirements for the development. Any grading, removal of topsoil or removal of trees from the proposed park should be required to be approved by the Park Department prior to the work being done. In the event that land in excess of the required dedication is deeded to the City, either (1) credits for future dedication requirements can be established for the applicant or (2) the City can purchase that portion of the park that is in excess of what is required to be dedicated. Applicant: Feea«n Devek pment 6 Carwu&V P O Box 1643 St C", Mn 556ii02 32a251-2048 (xu/ RO�..t ER•OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAR, c 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER, MN 55904 FAX (507)287.2275 Date: February 14, 2000 To: Agencies Indicated Below From: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department Subject: General Development Plan #150 by Freedom Development and Consulting to be known as Valley View Estates. The Plan proposes to develop approximately 40 acres with single family detached housing and townhomes. The development would be served with new public roadways and would include public parkland. The property is located east of 40* Ave. SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision. This application is scheduled for consideration by the City Planning and Zoning Commission on March 8, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers ofthe Government Center, 1510 Street SE. In order for the Planning Department to prepare a thorough review of this application, we would appreciate receiving your comments by February 23, 2000. You may also appear at the meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly, appreciated. If you have comments, In addli to forwarding them to the Planning Departni please send a copy to: Freedom Development A Consulting L.LC Brown Herkenhoof Inc. PO Box 1643 118 120 Avenue North St. Cloud MN 56302 St. Cloud MN 56303 320-251.2048 320-259.1234 City Agencies 1. Public Works Richard Freese 2. Fire Department Lyle Feisch 3. Crime Prevention Robert Miller, Gov.Center 4. RPU Operations Division Mike Engle 5. RPU Water Division Dann Richardson 6. Park 8 Recreation Denny Stutz 7. Building Safety Don Wees 8. City Attorney Dave Goslee 9. Downtown Dev. Dist Doug Knott 10. City Administration Terry Spaeth 11. Jerry Dooley Neighborhood Organizer 12. Transportation Planner 13. John Harford, Planning Dept County Agencies 14. Health Department Rich Peter 15. Public Works 16. GIS Division Other Aoendes 17. School Board Earlene Wickre 18. Peoples Natural Gas Paul Curry „ — 19. C� US West Dean Erdmann q 20. Bresnan Communications ,QI t 21, MN DOT I Dale Maul 22. Post OfficeLfjr _l Supervisor 23. MN DNR Jim Cooper 24. SWCD 25. Peoples Coop Rick Well& NOTE: CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY ENGINEER: PLEASE INDICATE IF THE STREET IDENTIFICATION IS CORRECT IF THE ATTACHED IS A PLAT. Application Number: '. , I\, - 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 ]ji. �. a Yp CNE�TF P. ll11\C �/ .L"KEP,C,Cmr ROCHESTER •fir °prrt o.,rcust•••. DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief Rochester Fire Department 201 4th Street SE, Room 10 Rochester, MN 55904-3726 (507)285-8072 FAX #(507) 285-8256 DATE: February 23, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief SUBJECT: General Development Plan #150, Valley View Estates, located east of 40th Avenue SE., east of Eastwood Hills 2nd Subd. and south of Hwy 14 East. This project is more than 2 minutes beyond 4 minute fire response standard of the Rochester Fire Department and is adding 73 residential lots on 40 acres, to the fire department fire protection area. 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. 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 buiioing construction. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any residential buildings. 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 Brown Herkenhoof Inc., 118 12'IAvenue N. St. Cloud, Mn. 56303 Freedom Development & Consulting, Box 1643, St. Cloud, Mn. 56302 Ill GDP REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: 3-7-2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: RE: VALLEY VIEW ESTATES A review of the GDP has turned up the following address related issues: 1) The GDP has been named the same as an existing plat within Olmsted County. This information was passed on to Brown Herkenhoof Inc. via a phone conversation on 2-14- 2000. At that time, no commitment was made to change the name; the issue was taken under advisement. 2) Valley View Lane is not the correct designation for the roadway configuration shown. This information was reviewed with Brown Herkenhoof Inc. and also taken under advisement. The expectation from our staff is the roadway designations will be correctly indicated at time of preliminary platting. Page 13 Il City Planning and Zoning Conumsston Minutes Hearing Date: March 3, 2000 Ms. Petersson moved to approve Zoning District Ame Development & Cons RiTing, based on staff -suggested the motion, which cant 7-0. -1 Findings: t. The proposed zoning of th consistent with the Land Use goals of the Comprehensive f promotes the development of development of affordable hot the property to the community. 2. The permitted property and i 3. The proposed4em4 the policies of the #00-03 by Freedom gs. Ms. McGowan seconded o e R-2 (Low -Density Residential) district is would serve to better further the policies and Housing Plan. Rezoning the property ensities and styles and also promotes the ddition, it is in the public interest to rezone at o ousing that will help meet the needs of Nithin the R-2 zoning district i tible with adjacent properties. does not involve spot zoning Tensive Plan. be appropriate on the subject it is consistent with as Valley View Estates. The Plan proposes to develop approximately 40 acres with single Ave. SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated March 3, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department, Mr. Svenby explained the location of the property and stated that 40'" Avenue SE will most likely be extended to the south and reconstructed in the next 10-15 years. He noted that Public Works indicated that dedication requirements for 40'" Avenue will be 60' from the centerline of the road and the property will be subject to the substandard street fee. Mr. Svenby explained the measures that may be taken to ensure adequate site distance and referred to a memo from Charlie Reiter to Mn/DOT asking for their input. He noted that today, Mr. Reiter gave him a memo with some response to two of the issues: The need for a left turn bay for traffic turning south onto 40" Avenue from Highway 14, and to improve conditions for motorists turning west onto Highway 14 from 40"' Avenue, including improving the visibility. Mn/DOT has indicated that eventually, Highway 14 will be upgraded to a 4-lane roadway to Eyota (within the next 10 years), and the site distance will be improved. Mr. Svenby pointed out that not all the traffic leaving this development will travel north to Highway 14, but some will take Eastwood Road west to Marion Road. Mr. Svenby reviewed drainage and stormwater management, utilities, and parkland. He referred to criteria for the GDP and stated staff has listed suggested findings to those criteria and based on those findings, staff recommends approval with 9 conditions, with an additional condition requested by Mr. Reiter, which states, "There must be a mutual agreement, between 1�3Page 14 — City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2000 the developers, the City, and the County, regarding a left turn lane on Trunk Highway 14 prior to approval of any final plats for this development." Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant shows some single family lots and there will be some patio townhomes in the northern portion of the property, which will need to go through the Performance Residential Development process. He noted that the area designated for rental townhomes will also need to go through the Performance Residential process. Mr. Svenby pointed out that Mn/DOT has indicated they will construct the Highway 14 left turn lane in 2003, but if the developer wants to construct it now, the cost would be the developer's. Mr. Brede referred to the February 23 memo from Mr. Reiter, and asked if the first arrow on the bottom of the page should say "northbound" instead of "southbound," in relationship to the sight distance. Mr. Svenby answered that it should say "northbound." Ms. Schultze referred to the memo from Lee and Linda Ganske that expressed concerns about a stub access and removal of trees. Mr. Svenby explained that one of the conditions addresses the removal of trees, and stipulates that any removal of trees must be addressed by the Park Department in advance. Regarding 40'" Avenue and the sight distance concern, the County Engineer indicated that an access permit would be required to take access to 40" Avenue. When that access permit is received, some removal of the hill may be required to ensure adequate sight distance. Ms. Schultze suggested staff add the wording "especially mature growth pines and burr oaks," after the word trees in the second sentence of condition number seven. Mr. Svenby stated that staff would be agreeable to that addition. Dave Bell, Freedom Development and Consulting, St. Cloud, Minnesota, readdressed the Commission. He stated he is in agreement with the conditions. He noted that the trees Ms. Schultze referred to are the only trees on the site, so it would behoove them to retain the trees. He pointed out that they designed the connection to 40'" Avenue to avoid the main area of trees. Mr. Suk asked if he was in agreement with the tenth condition Mr. Bell answered yes, and stated they will work that out with the City, County, the subdivision to the west, and the Planning staff. He commented that they made an application to the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund for some of the funding through the Mayo venture, and announced that their funding has been approved. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Schultze made a motion to approve GDP #150, to be known as Valley View Estates, based on staff -suggested findings, with 10 conditions, and the modification of condition Page 15 — P City Planning and Zoairtg Comnubsion Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2000 number 7 to include "especially mature growth pines and burr oaks," after the word "trees." Ms. McGowan seconded the motion, which carried 7.0. Conditions: 1. Storm water management must be addressed for this development. The GDP indicates stormwater detention for the proposed development via a detention pond along the south property line. A regional stormwater pond is identified on this property. The owner should participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan by sizing and constructing the detention pond to serve as a regional facility. 2. When platted, controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 4&h Avenue SE, with exception of the street access that is approved through the GDP. Additional controlled access for private driveways will be required within 150 feet from the right-of-way intersection of Valley View Lane and 40`" Ave. SE and along the entire west lot line of Lot 20, located east of the detention pond. in addition, 60 feet of right of way shall be dedicated for 40`" Avenue SE and the grade of the west side of the property must match the right-of-way grade prepared by the City for 400'Ave. SE. 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; storm water management; park dedication; traffic improvements; pedestrian facilities; right-of- way dedication; SAC and WAC fees; and contributions for public infrastructure. The Development Agreement must also outline the developer's responsibility for construction and maintenance of the proposed private lift station, as well as the owner's financial responsibility for abandonment and removal of the lift station when connection to a public gravity trunk main sewer is available. 4. A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 40'" Ave. SE. Current City policy for substandard street requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage. The City may create a Transportation improvement District in the area, which may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. Reconstruction of the public road along the south property line, to City standards, will be required at the owner's expense, concurrent with this development. 5. The property be investigated for wetlands and the necessary information be submitted to the LGU showing if there are or are not wetlands on the property. 6. At the time of platting, easements shall be provided for all needed off -site public utilities. Sanitary sewer and water service will be required to be extended to the adjacent property lines. 7. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met through the dedication of land. The 4.71 acre park site shown on the GDP meets the dedication requirements for the proposed development. Any grading, removal of topsoil or trees, especially mature growth pines and burr oaks, from the proposed park site must be approved by the Park Department prior to the work being done. Page 16 City Planning and Zoning Cotnnlission Minutes Hearing Date: March g, 2000 las' 8. An access permit to 4e Ave. SE will be required from the Olmsted County Public Works Department at the time of platting. Sight distance needs to be adequate for operating speed on 4eAve. SE along with a right turn lane. 9. A revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department reflecting all required modifications, including moving the pedestrian facility along the easterly right-of-way of 402b Ave. SE, the right-of-way for the northern most road be 56 feet and the westerly leg of this roadway must line up directly across from the north/south roadway or be separated by 200 feet. 10. There must be a mutual agreement, between the developers, the City, and the County, regarding a left turn lane on Trunk Highway 14 prior to approval of any final Plats for this develooment Ms. Baker preser report is on file at Ms. Baker stated she has don't have concerns over on flood capacities. She i report, dated Februaryo, 2000, to the Commission. The staff have no negative impacts on Flock recommending approval subject tt after speaking with the applicant's with condition number 3. Ms. Bak the length is unsure. She is not Avenue. Mr. Burke commented that Representing Willow their grading permit I Rendal explained tha Mr. Suk asked the Mr. Rendal ns with Department of Natural Resources, and they and t rading activity because it will have no impacts ;ter received, certified by an engineer, that it would c and risks. Ms. Baker stated that staff is ditions, which she reviewed. She pointed out that t, she feels they are somewhat in disagreement i d that there is a plan for the path at this time, but i e a pathway proposed for the east side of 11 " IyCourse, Scott Re proved, and they also working with I pathway. be 1100 feet, and they are in a bikeway adjacent to a golf course, sed the Commission. He stated on condition number 2. Mr. regarding the pathway, with the length. Mr. Quinn askedif it #s unusual to have such a short segment�fNke path. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION i MEETING DATE 4-=— AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PLBLIC HEARINGS PLAN!, 67_ 5 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase 11, Preliminary Plat #00-06 to be known as PREPARED BY: Hypointe Subdivision ( this name will be changed to Summit Pointe). :Mitzi A. Baker, March 29, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat for property located east of 50t° Ave. NW and north of North Park Ninth Subdivision. The applicants' representative, Andrew Masterpole addressed the Commission and discussed the requirement for a development agreement. 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 #00-06, subject to the following modifications and conditions. t. Storm water management must be addressed for this development. The GDP indicated on -site detention would be provided. Stormwater facilities to serve this development must be constructed by the owner, concurrent with this subdivision. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance and ownership agreement will be required prior to final plat approval. 2. Easements for off -site utilities and a temporary turn -a -round must be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. 3. Outlot "A" shall be dedicated to the City for access to the future park. The Outlot shall be revised to be a minimum of 30' in width for the entire depth of the lot. No parkland dedication credits will be extended for the dedication of the Outlot. The applicant is responsible to grade the island within the cul-de-sac and establish turf within the island. No parkland dedication credits will be extended for the island. 4. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via deferred land dedication, which is to occur when the parklopen space/wetland identified on the General Development Plan is deeded to the City. Dedication for park purposes shall occur when the park area is accessed via a roadway or the Park Department wishes to begin development of the park. 5. 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 charges for the reconstruction of 501° Ave. NW and 6e St. NW Traffic from the units lying to the eastlsouth of the wetland and drainage way will primarily travel to the east and south through North Park to access 5e St. NW This portion of the development shall contribute $40 per dwelling unit toward fund that will be dedicated to implementing the North Park neighborhood traffic management plan. 6. The storm sewer shown to outlet west of the cul-de-sac must extend further to the west to allow for grading and installation of the trail shown on the General Development Plan. Motion by Burke, second by Brede to approve Preliminary Plat #00-06 subject to the above modifications and conditions. The motion carried 7-0. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: U 8 .L .L V 9 d N Cl i. Q:�,L1tl'idN MiF ii +i1,i �n aniaa ;�' �];( cifr$ � F x s(s(4i�4i� — 9 — I�{' - z ?S1620 h h, �tRlr rs 0 f- uki GAM clbp 7 Qy7C HES TER. yrrV OR4 TEO:A CGlSS•5•P ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285.8232 PLANNING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPIINGESSING/ 507/285-8232 HOUSINGlHRA 507/285.8224 FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WEwsEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: March 2, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Type III, Phase 'll Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-06 by Arcon Development, Inc., to be known as Hypointe. The applicant proposes to subdivide 7.98 acres of land into 24 single family lots and 1 Outlot. The property is located, east of 50th Ave. NW, north of 6151 St. NW and North Park Ninth Subdivision and includes the extension of Shetland Drive NW. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: SurveyorslEngineers: Referral Comments: Arcon Development, Inc. 7625 Metro Blvd. , Suite 350 Edina, MN 55439 McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 1. Rochester Department of Public Works 2. Rochester Park & Rec. Dept. 3. Wetlands LGU 4. RPU Water Division Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (4 Letters) 3. Copy of Orchard Hills General Development Plan 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat Development Review: Location of Property: This plat is located east of 50'" Ave. NW, north of North Park Ninth Subdivision. Zoning: The property is in the process of being annexed. 47� +� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Hypointe Subdivision March 3, 2000 Proposed Development: Upon annexation to the City, it will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. This development consists of 7.98 acres to be subdivided into 24 lots for single family residential development and one Outlot. Streets: The plat dedicates proposes to dedicate the right-of- way for two public roadways. One roadway is a northerly extension of Shetland Drive NW; the other is a cul-de-sac extending west from Shetland Drive NW. The cul-de-sac is designed with a large island that will be finished with landscape material. Utilities: Utilities are available within the North Park and White Oaks developments to serve this Plat. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along the both sides of the roadways within the Plat. Drainage: Elevations on the property range from approximately 1130' in the east to 1080' in the west portion of the Plat. The property generally drains to the west. 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. This plat appears to be located outside of a Wetland area. Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this development would be 29 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 via deferred land dedication with dedication to occur when the park/open space/wetland area shown on the GDP is deeded to the City. General Development Plan: The City Council will consider the General Development Plan for this property on March 6, 2000. Page 3 2 Q Hypointe Subdivision ✓J March 3, 2000 General Development Plan: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Graves GDP on February 9, 2000 subject to the following conditions. The City Council will consider this GDP on March 6, 2000. 1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Any ponds serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of long term maintenance and ownership agreements will be required. All required private storm water facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 2. The property shall be platted. When platted, the controlled access shall be provided along the entire length of 501" Avenue NW and 65" Street NW, except for the one private road access, two public road accesses, and one future public road access, as shown on the GDP. When platted, controlled access will also be required within 50 feet from the intersections of any roads with 5d" Avenue NW or 65" Street NW. In addition, 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for both 50'" Ave. NW and 650 St. NW. 3. Right and/or left turn lanes will be required along 500 Ave. NW and 65" St. NW. 4. Traffic from the units lying to the east/south of the wetland and drainage way will primarily travel to the east and south through North Park to access 55" St. NW. This portion of the development shall contribute $40 per dwelling unit toward a fund that will be dedicated to implementing the North Park neighborhood traffic management plan. 5. The development shall be phased so that traffic volumes on 5e Ave. NW, north of 55" St. NW, do not exceed approximately 3h000 average daily trips until it is reconstructed. A contribution will be required for reconstruction of 5d Ave. NW, and 650 St, NW. Current City policy for substandard streets would require a contribution of $30 per foot of frontage along both roadways. The City is currently considering a Traffic Improvement District (TiD) for this area. If a TO is adopted, development of this property may be subject to additional charges. 6. A Wetland Replacement Plan will be required for any wetland filling. Any necessary permits for said activity shall be secured prior to plat approval. In addition, the applicant or consultant shall consult the MPCA and Army Corps of Engineers regarding the use of the existing farm pond for storm water management as part of this development. if use of this facility is not approved by said agencies, the GDP will need to be revised to identify altemate area for storm water detention. 7. Park dedication requirement shall be met through a combination of land and cash. The grading plan for this property will need to include grading two moderately sloped areas for locating neighborhood play equipment and turf play fields, per the specifications of the Park & Recreation Department. 8. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; storm water management; park dedication; traffic improvements; pedestrian facilities; contributions for public infrastructure, including contribution obligations toward traffic improvements in the area attributable to this project; and long term maintenance and ownership of landscape islands shown on the GDP within the cul-de-sacs. 9. The 30' access easement shown in Phase I shall be part of the outlot for the parklopen space area and not an easement. 10. A revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department reflecting all required modifications, including identifying pedestrian traits along the east side of 500 Ave. NW and the south side of 65" St. NW and widening the trail through the wetlandlopen space corridor to 10 feet �n r� Page 4 /✓'7Y, Hypointe Subdivision March 3, 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). 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 addressed for this development The GDP indicated on -site detention would be provided. Stormwater facilities to serve this development must be constructed by the owner, concurrent with this subdivision. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance and ownership agreement will be required prior to final plat approval. 2. Easements for off -site utilities and a temporary turn -a -round must be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. 3. Outiot "A" shall be dedicated to the City for access to the future park. The Outlot shall be revised to be a minimum of 30' In width for the entire depth of the lot No parkland dedication credits will be extended for the dedication of the Outiot The applicant Is responsible to grade the island within the cul-de-sac and establish turf within the island. No parkland dedication credits will be extended for the island. 4. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be me vla deferred land dedication, which is to occur when the park(open spacelwetland identified on the General Development Plan is deeded to the City. Dedication for park purposes shall occur when the park area is accessed via a roadway or the Park Department wished to begin development of the park. 5. The City is currently considering a Traffic improvement District for this Area. if a TID is adopted, deve/o ment of this property maybe subject to charges for the reconstruction of 5e Ave. NW and 65�" S[ NW Traffic from the units lying to the eastlsouth of the wetland and drainage way will primarily travel to the east and south through North Park to access 55" St NW. This portion of the development shall contribute "0 per dwelling unit toward a fund that will be dedicated to implementing the North Park neighborhood traffic management plan. 6. The storm sewer shown to outlet west of the cul-de-sac must extend further to the west to allow for grading and installation of the trail shown on the General Development Plan. NOTE Reaardina the General Development Plan: At this time, the City Council has not taken action on the General Development Plan for this property. The GDP is scheduled to be heard by the Council on March 6, 2000, this Preliminary Plat is scheduled to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 8, 2000. Prior to approval of this preliminary plat, GDP conditions related to the requirement for a development agreement and submittal of a revised GDP must be met. 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 15, 1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the ttnal plat application if the applicant Intends to record the fnal plat documents prior to completion of infrastructure Improvements. J CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Findings for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. 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. I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands; Effective May 15, 1999 1,p - 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. 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 2/28/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur 13? 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 application for Preliminary Plat #00- 06 on the Hvooint Subdivision (Graves) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Storm Water Management must be addressed for this development. The GDP indicated on -site detention would be provided. Stormwater facilities to serve this development must be constructed by the owner, concurrent with this subdivision. 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 prior to final plat approval. 2. A temporary turn around will be required at the northerly end of Shetland Drive NW, as shown on the preliminary plat. 3. Easements are required for off -site utility extensions, and for the temporary turn around. 4. Pedestrian facilities will be required concurrent with development of this subdivision along both sides of Shetland Drive NW, and Arcon Lane NW, and along the frontages of 50" Ave NW & 65`" St NW. 5. 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 charges for the reconstruction of 501" Ave NW and 65`" ST NW. 6. 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. CATEMP%PP#00.06.doc ROCHESTEK Minnesota 2/28/00 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 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. Outlot 'A' shall be dedicated to the City for access to the City Park. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): -e Sewer Availability Charge @ $1,605.50 per acre X 7.98 acres. J9265 "Watertower to Serve High Level District in NW Area" @ $1,154.67 per acre X 7.98 acres = $9,214.27 plus 7.5% interest from April 15, 1996. Storm Water Management Fee (if on -site detention is not provided). Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. 2 Street Name Signs 1 Dead End Sign C:\TEMP\PP800-06.doc i ROCHESTER PARK AND .,ECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 15, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Hypointe First Preliminary Plat #00-06 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 7.98 acres Number of dwelling units ............................................. 24 units Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... .59 acres 1. The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via deferred land dedication with dedication to occur when the ± 35 acres of park / open space / wetland area shown in the GDP is deeded to the City. Dedication of land for park purposes to occur when the park area is accessed via street or the Park Department wishes to begin development of the park. 2. Outlot A which will serve as an access to the park 1 open space area should be a minimum of 30' in width and deeded to the City once the grading and turf establishment is completed. No parkland dedication credits should be extended for the dedication of the outlot. 3. The storm sewer shown in the outlot should be extended westerly to allow for grading and installation of trail as indicated on the GDP. 3. The Park Department has agreed to accept responsibility for basic turf maintenance of the island shown in the middle of the cul de sac provided that there is an access outlot leading from the park area to be located to the west of the cul de sac. The access (Outlot A) is shown on the plan. The applicant should be required to grade and establish turf in the island. No parkland dedication credits should be extended for the island. Applicant: Arcon Development 7625 Metro Blvd Suite 350 Edina, MN 55439 \\C:TY OF RaCHESTER\C:TYHALL\PARK\DST=\2000\DED:CAT:ON\NW 2998\HYPOINTE ST.DoC IdP Application Number. f�Ul . F No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey _ Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Scif 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 - foss, 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 rp we pledge, we deliver February 22, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat 400-06 by Arcon Development, Inc. to be known as Hypointe. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. Minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We will provide these comments to the applicant's engineering fum. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly SA 1`t�'r+^"'L, nyours, D...�I N Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau McGhie & Betts, Inc. Arcon Development, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 A< Page 2 — City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearine Date March S, 2000 Ms. Schultze entered the meeting at this time. Representing the applicant, Wade Dumond of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. Mr. Dumond stated they are generally in agreement with the conditions, and are in the process of rking with Public Works on two issues. One is not part of the conditions, but is in reference tII rking on the roadway. The other issue is 10' bituminous path along Circle Drive, which the re currently working on with Public W '� sand Denny Stotz regarding the existing trees and po r pole cons where the path is supposed to be located. He explained that they will agree to the ditI s at this time, knowing that 0tey will probably change somewhat before the hearing with the Cit (Council. He noted that.if% third item on condition number 1 should be reworded to state "Provide controlled access mono East Circle Drive." With no others wishing to address Ms. Petersson moved to approve Preli Heights North 4'h Subdivision, with the in condition number 1 reworded. Ms. Conditions: 1. The plat shall be revised to: 1 Viola Heights Drive NE; 2) rel & 9, Block 2 to Lots 9 & 10, i1 Circle Drive (CS)H 2Z). Mr. Suk closed the public hearing, ininary Plat #00-05, to be known as Northern Mato staff -suggested conditions, with the last item ri h-Ultze seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. �\\ Inge the iioadway labeled Raechel Place NE to the 20-foot public utility easement between Lots 8 2; and 3) provide controlled access along East 2. The applicant shall entf into a development agreeailrnt with the City that outlines the obligations of the app cant relating to, but not limite o, stormwater management, park dedication, trafit improvements, pedestrian faclli s, right-of-way dedication, and contributions W public infrastructure. The Development Agreement shall also outline the developer's responsibility for design, engineering, and construction of the temporary turn -around indicated on the City parkland at the southerly end of Glady Lane NE, and a 10' bituminous path along East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). Type III, Phase 11 Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-06 by Arcon extension of Shetland Drive NW. Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated March 2, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker presented the plat drawing and explained the location, pointing out that it is part of the recently approved Graves GDP. She noted there is an outlot that would provide access to the future open space corridor, and it needs to be widened to be 30' all the way to the road. The plat will take access through North Park 9'h to the south and can then either access 55"' Street or go over to 50'h Avenue to travel south. She pointed out that traffic is able to access Page : — City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March S, 2000 this plat without needing to use 50"Avenue NW. Ms. Baker explained that the City has been working with the North Park neighborhood on traffic calming measures and this plat will be subject to paying a per -lot fee for traffic calming. She stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions contained in the staff report. Mr. Quinn asked if this plat will affect the 3000 trips -per -day limit for 50'" Avenue NW. Ms. Baker explained that this development will be using an access further south and traffic may not have to use 50'" Avenue at all. She indicated the need to confirm with Mr. Reiter that this will not count against the 3000 trip limit, but felt that if it appears the traffic patterns will not predominately use 50a' Avenue, it would not be necessary to count it toward the 3000 trips -per - day limit. Ms. Baker stated she will confirm this with Charlie Reiter before the Council meeting. Mr. Burke commented that outlot A is dedicated to the City, but there is no credit for parkland dedication. He stated he thought any trail systems that were required by the City were given parkland credits. Ms. Baker explained that in this case, it is simply a link. She noted there is an island on the cul- de-sac that the City has agreed to maintain and maintenance crews will access it through the 30' outlot. She stated that the Park Department is looking at landscaping and turf for this island. Ms. Schultze commented that at the hearing for the GDP, it was presented as being gravel surfaced. Ms. Baker explained that since it was presented, Mr. Stolz has clarified that the Park Department's intention is not to have a hard -surfaced play area, but to have turf and landscaping. Mr. Burke asked if this is something new that the Park Department is willing to accept, because in years past, they discouraged small parks. Ms. Baker commented that it might be a new attitude toward this type of park. She pointed out that in this case, they are looking at a unique style development and the City is working toward success for the development. She noted that the City is willing to take responsibility for the island, as long as they have access. Ms. Schultze stated that she voted against the GDP for this property partly because of the access and partially because of the connection to the west. She commented that she still feels that the cul-de-sac could have been connected to the north and there could have been a linear parkway that would have been beneficial to the neighborhood, and would have eased snow- plowing, public access, utilities, etc. She noted it's terrain that could have been connected and lots developed equitably. She stated that in terms of approval or disapproval of the plat, it is mentioned in the staff report that the GDP has not yet been approved by the City Council. Ms. Baker pointed out that the GDP was approved at Monday's City Council meeting. She noted there is still an issue where a couple of the conditions on the GDP still need to be addressed. I Page 4 - City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2000 Representing the applicant, Andy Masterpole of McGhie & Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. He noted that the applicant, Larry Frank of Arcon Development, is also present. Mr. Masterpole pointed out that part of the reason the City was willing to accept the maintenance of the turf area is because of its proximity to some existing public land. He referred to condition number 1 and stated that eventually the stormwater facilities will serve more than 50 developable acres and will be dedicated to the City. He stated that the GDP for this property was approved by the City Council on Monday. Mr. Masterpole questioned when the development agreement was to be executed and if staff was asking for two separate agreements. He read from a letter written by the City Attorney regarding development agreements. Mr. Masterpole commented that he feels the GDP is a guideline and not a detailed analysis that would require a development agreement. Ms. Baker stated there was a misunderstanding about what the condition on the GDP meant. She has been attempting to contact Public Works, and hopes to be successful tomorrow. She commented that the letter Mr. Masterpole read from was responding to development agreements as they relate to the platting process. She stated that he is correct that in relationship to a final plat, a development agreement is an option. If the developer chose to construct all the infrastructure improvements, on and off -site, prior to recording the plat, they wouldn't need a development agreement, but that means they end up not being able to sell land for up to two years. For that reason, the expectation is that most developers will want to enter into a development agreement to allow them to move forward with recording a plat. In relation to GDPs, a condition placed on a GDP requiring a development agreement means there are issues related to the overall development of the property that need to be identified in a development agreement. Ms. Baker noted that this may become more obvious with a commercial development where there are numerous off -site facilities that need improvements related to the overall development of the property. She stressed that she will be coordinating with Public Works on this issue, but she feels there was a difference in opinion on what the condition meant, but it was a condition of approval on the GDP, and did not stipulate "prior to platting." Mr. Masterpole commented that maybe it wasn't clear enough that they were talking about two different development agreements. He stated that the new Ordinance is open to interpretation and unclear, and he is worried about the precedent being set for other projects. Ms. Schultze stated that her understanding of the Subdivision Ordinance was that it was for general planning purposes to plan how something will work, so to have a general development agreement in place before the first platting occurs, makes sense. Ms. Baker stated that is consistent with staffs opinion. She explained that with general development plans, there will be cases where there are improvements that need to be taken care of for the overall development. The development agreement for each final plat typically only addresses the final plat, and doesn't address the overall needs of the general development plan. Mr. Masterpole stated that Public Works, the City Administrator, the City Attorney, and the Planning Department need to be in agreement as to when the development agreement should occur. Discussion ensued regarding the timing of development agreements. i Pace 5 — f City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2000 Mr. Suk asked Mr. Masterpole if he is in agreement with the staff recommendations. Mr. Masterpole answered yes, as long as their concerns regarding the development agreement are noted. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Sulk closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke made a motion to approve Preliminary Plat #00-06, to be known as Hypointe, with staff suggested conditions. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 7- 0. Conditions: 1. Storm water management must be addressed for this development. The GDP indicated on -site detention would be provided. Stormwater facilities to serve this development must be constructed by the owner, concurrent with this subdivision. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance and ownership agreement wilt be required prior to renal plat approval. Z. Easements for off -site utilities and a temporary turn -a -round must be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. 3. Outlot "A" shall be dedicated to the City for access to the future park. The outlot shall be revised to be a minimum of 30' in width for the entire depth of the lot. No parkland dedication credits will be extended for the dedication of the outlot. The applicant is responsible to grade the island within the cul-de-sac and establish turf within the island. No parkland dedication credits will be extended for the island. 4. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via deferred land dedication, which is to occur when the park(open spacelwetland identified on the General Development Plan is deeded to the City. Dedication for park purposes shall occur when the park area is accessed via a roadway or the Park Department wishes to begin development of the park. 5. 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 charges for the reconstruction of 500 Ave. NW and 6e St. NW. Traffic from the units lying to the east/south of the wetland and drainage way will primarily travel to the east and south through North Park to access 55d'St. NW This portion of the development shall contribute $40 per dwelling unit toward a fund that will be dedicated to implementing the North Park neighborhood traffic management plan. 6. The storm sewer shown to the outlet west of the cul-de-sac must extend further to the west to allow for grading and installation of the trail shown on the General Development Plan. A"rNUA art, I IUN: UBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION PLAWNG DEPT: MEETING 1 ' DATE: 04-03-0 ITEM NO. E- (o In EM DESCRIPTION: Type 111. Phase 11, Preliminary Plat 900-05 by Arnold Bomgaars to be known as PREPARED BY: Northern Heights North Fourth Subdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 552 acres of land into-neresa Fogarty, 16 lots for single family detached development and 2 lots for single family attached housing. The plat also proposed Planner to dedicate right-of-way for two new public roads. The property is located west of East Circle Drive, southeast of Rockv Creek Drive NE. March 28, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat. Mr. Wade Dumond of Yaggy Colby Associates, representing the applicant, stated they are generally in agreement with the conditions and are in the process of working with Public Works on the two issues. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual and recommends approval of this preliminary plat with the following modifications or conditions: 1. The plat shall be revised to: 1) Change the roadway labeled Raechel Place NE to Viola Heights Drive NE; 2) relocate the 20 foot utility easement between Lots 8 & 9, Block 2, to Lots 9 & 10, Block 2; and 3) provide controlled access along East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). 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, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. The Development Agreement shall also outline the developers responsibility for design, engineering, and construction of the temporary turn -around indicated on the City parkland at the southerly end of Giady Lane NE, and a 10' bituminous path along East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). Motion by Petersson to approve Preliminary Plat #00-05, to be known as Northern Heights North 4a' Subdivision, with the two staff -suggested conditions, with the last item in condition number 1 reworded. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated March 1, 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 Daracraoh 61,225 can be made. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated March 1, 2000. 2. Minutes of the March 8, 2000 CPZC Meeting. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4, Planning Department Fite 5. Planning Department, GIS Division 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center. 7. Yaggy Colby Associates p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the COUNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: second M y U N � O m m m i i a X W X z X X U—'u' `'iHJ?JON S1HJ13H NM3H1 N 1 O o e s i ?, '— :*>-U<Q;*' NNId 1N3WdOl3n3a IV113N30 {{� I1I ��� ¢ it 11/7y��� I f r / t 1 � t � � t 1 n t tt �' tt t v N La- V YN 'NO SIM013H MA i_ L ' Z G Zr'7 �rNi^ O a. � W tt� h W I„ W 1� '� ~ NO/SIA169aS V MOHSV67 8 .l VIONOO 2 Cz ZO 1Vld ASYNIN11nd E 1� 1 E v10S3NMlw L3153FOOi ! '— I1 !� HidnO3 H121ON S1H'JI3H Nb3HAON M i \ 7 CZ ZO V) R V) Z7- ne -14 Hi-dnOJ HIWN 'SiH NN3HIWN A CN `t KVCHESTE R•N/yyF s RA rED•ACGL��� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904.4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission HOUSING,HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287.2275 DATE: March 1, 2000 RE: Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit #00-05 (Preliminary Plat) to be known as Northern Heights North 4"Subdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 5.52 acres of land into 16 lots for single family detached development and 2 lots for single family attached housing. The plat also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for two new public roads. The property is located west of East Circle Drive, southeast of Rocky Creek Drive NE. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Referral Comments: Arnold Bomgaars 1530 Greenview Drive SW Rochester, MN 55902 Yaggy Colby Associates 717 3" Avenue SE Rochester. MN 55904 RPU Water Division Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Planning Addressing Staff MN Soil & Water Conservation District Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (5 letters) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Northern Heights North General Development Plan Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located west of East Circle Drive, southeast of Rocky Creek Drive NE. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITWAFPIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 — Preliminary Plat 00-05 Northern Heights North Fourth March 3. 2000 Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) District and R-2 (Low Density Residential) District on the City of Rochester zoning map. Proposed Development: This development consists of 5.52 acres of land to be subdivided into 16 lots for single family detached housing and 2 lots for single family attached housing, totaling 48 housing units. Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for two roadways. The first would be a northwesterly extension of Viola Heights Drive NE (currently shown as Raechel Place NE) to the eastern line of Raechel Place NE. This roadway is designed with a 66' right-of-way. The roadway Raechel Place NE needs to be changed to Viola Heights Drive NE. The currently named Raechel Place NE is an extension of Viola Heights Drive NE. Frequent driveway cuts for townhomes along this roadway will result in limitations for on -street parking. The second is a continuation of Glady Lane NE, currently named Glady Lane NE, continuing on to the southeast, ending at the city park. This roadway is designed with a 56' right-of-way. Note: An addressing issue also exists in Northern Heights North First Subdivision where a roadway designation of Raechel Place NE is used and needs to be changed to Viola Heights Drive NE. A Request for Council Action will need to be completed changing Raechel Drive NE to Viola Heights Drive NE in Northern Heights North First Subdivision. The Plat need to be revised to include controlled access is required along the entire frontage of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). 153 The temporary turn -around shown at the end of Glady Lane NE is located on city parkland. During the January, 1996 revision of the Northern Heights North General Development Plan, it was agreed that the applicant would be allowed to construct the required street turnaround on the park property. The Park Department along with Pubic Works will need to approve the size and design of the turn -around. The applicant is to install and pay for the turn around as part of the subdivision street construction. 10 Page 3 Preliminary Plat 00-05 Northern Heights North Fourth March 3, 2000 Pedestrian Facilities: In accordance with current City policy, pedestrian facilities shall be constructed along both sides of Gladys Lane NE and Raechel Place NE and a 10 foci wide bituminous path is required along East Circle Drive. Drainage: The topography is relatively flat with 1220' in the NW direction and 1230' in the SE direction. Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City Public Works Department prior to the submittal of the final plat. Erosion and runoff measures must be incorporated into the grading plans, installed and maintained during all phases of the development. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this property. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. The 20 foot public utility easement shown between Lots 8 & 9, Block 2 will need to be moved between Lots 9 & 10, Block 2 for the required water main loop to the east. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors. This development requires 57.6 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well, for the single family homes. Spillover parking for the townhome portion of the development will be reviewed in more detail when the applicant submits the required Performance Residential Development Plans for that part of the development. Parkland Dedication: The Park & Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land payable prior to recording of the plat. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Northern Heights North General Development Plan (GDP), completing Phases IV and V. The Plat is generally consistent with the approved GDP. Page a - Preliminary Plat 00-05 Northern Heights North Fourth March 3, 2000 Staff Review and Recommendation: Section 61125 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of Section 61.225 of the LDM, effective May 15, 1999. The staff recommends approval with the fallowing conditions / modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised to: 1) Change the roadway labeled Raechel Place NE to Viola Heights Drive NE; 2) Relocate the 20 foot public utility easement between Lots 8 & 9, Block 2 to Lots 9 & 10, Block 2; and 3) Provide controlled access along the entire frontage road of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). 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, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. The Development Agreement shall also outline the developer's responsibility for design, engineering, and construction of the temporary turn -around indicated on the City Park land at the southerly and of Gladly Lane NE, and a 10' bituminous path long East Circle Drive (CSAH). 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 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. Prior to development, the property owner will need to obtain approval of a Performance Residential Development for the lots, zoned R-2 which are planned for attached housing units. i5S 0 / Page 5 — Preliminary Plat 00-05 Northern Heights North Fourth March 1, 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. Effective May 15, 1999 Page 6 Preliminary Plat 00-05 Northern Heights North Fourth March 1. 2000 M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. O. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion potential or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. 61.226 Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225. Effective May 15, 1999 1 5? ROCHESTER Minnesota 2; 24,,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 requested application for Preliminary Plat #00-05 on the Northern Heights North Fourth Subdivision (Arnold Bomgaarsl property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Storm Water Management must be provided 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. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed concurrent with this development, along both sides of Glady Ln NE, and Raechel Place NE, and a 10 foot wide bituminous path is required along East Circle Drive. 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. The Development Agreement shall also outline the developer's responsibility for design, engineering, and construction of the temporary turn around indicated on City Park Land at the southerly end of Glady Lane NE. 6. Controlled access is required along the entire frontage of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). C:ITEMPP P#00-05.doc ROCHESTER Minnesota 2/24/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur iG'� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4° Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281.6216 7. No parking will be permitted along the North / East side of Rachael Place. 8. The street identified on the preliminary plat as Rachael Place should be renamed as Viola Heights Dr NE. Charges & fees for the following are applicable for the development of this property: •:• J9288 "High Level Water Tower in NE Area" @ $1,021.46 per acre X 11.67 acres = $11.920.44 plus interest from May 5, 1998. Sewer Availability Charge @ $1605.50 X 11.67 acres = $18,736.19 :• The portion of the property that drains to Rocky Creek is subject to J8680 "Channel Improvement in Rocky Creek" @ $394.6768 per acre plus 7.5% interest from 2/17/81 (ten year maximum). •:• Stormwater Management Fee @ $1983.50 per acre, if on -site detention is not provided. ❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 2 Street Name Signs 4 No Parking Signs 1 Dead End Sign C:ITEMP\P13*00-05. doc rocheeter ROCHESTER PARK AND h_ ,REATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Northern Heights North 0 Preliminary Plat # 00-05 Acreage of plat Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density .................................................. Density factor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land.. ........................................... 5.52 acres 48 units 8.70 units/acre .0178 .85 acres $13,500/acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land payable prior to recording of the plat The temp turn around shown at the end of Glady Lane NE is located on city parkland. During the January 1996 revision of the Northern Heights North GDP Park staff met with the applicant where it was agreed that the applicant would be allowed to construct the required street turn around on park property. The Park Department along with Public Works was to approve the size and design of the turn around. The applicant was to install and pay for the turn around as part of the subdivision street construction. Applicant Amdd BoirVBM 1 S30 Grewmew OrNe SW rp-91- _.; - we pledge, we deliver February 22, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-05 by Arnold Bomgaars to be known as Northern Heights North Fourth Subdivision. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. The 20' Public Utility Easement shown between Lots 8 & 9, Block 2 should be moved to between Lots 9 & 10, Block 2 for the required water main loop to the east. 3. Minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We will provide these comments to the applicant's engineering firm. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, �t M 1�Sf�, 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 Arnold Bomgaars Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of City Planning and Zoning Commission held on Wednesdaarch 8, 2000, at 7:00 p.m 4 the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4 Street SE, Rochester, M . Members Present Mr. Jim Suk, Ch ' , Ms. Mary Petersson, Vice Chair; Ms. Diane McGowan; Mr. Michael Quinn;,Mr. James Bu ; Mr. Ardell Brede; Ms. Christine Schultze Members Absent Mr: Randy %ver; Mr. Gerry Werven Staff Present: Ms. SuzannefaPaim; Mr. Brent Svenby; Ms. Mitzi A. Baker Ms. McGowan Made a motion to approve the minutes of February 23, 2000. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The minutes from February 23, 2000 were approved unanimously. Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve the agenda with no changes. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Quinn entere4e meeting at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated March 1, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker presented a drawing of the plat, and explained that it consists of 5.5 acres to be subdivided into 16 lots for single family detached development and a portion will be divided into two lots for townhomes, which will probably be subdivided into envelope lots in the future. She pointed out that a portion of the property is zoned R-1 and a portion zoned R-2, and that the proposed plat is consistent with the approved GDP. Ms. Baker referred to staff -suggested findings to the criteria, and stated that based on those findings, approval is recommended with two conditions. i Page ? _ _� !/ City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes r (� Heanng Date: March 3, 2000 Ms. Schultze entered the meeting at this time. Representing the applicant, Wade Dumond of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. Mr. Dumond stated they are generally in agreement with the conditions, and are in the process of working with Public Works on two issues. One is not part of the conditions, but is in reference to parking on the roadway. The other issue is the 10' bituminous path along Circle Drive, which they are currently working on with Public Works and Denny Stotz regarding the existing trees and power poles where the path is supposed to be located. He explained that they will agree to the conditions at this time, knowing that they will probably change somewhat before the hearing with the City Council. He noted that the third item on condition number 1 should be reworded to state "Provide controlled access along East Circle Drive." With no others wishing to address the Commission, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Petersson moved to approve Preliminary Plat #00-05, to be known as Northern Heights North 4" Subdivision, with the two staff -suggested conditions, with the last item in condition number 1 reworded. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Conditions: I. The plat shall be revised to: f) Change the roadway labeled Raechel Place NE to Viola Heights Drive NE; 2) relocate the 20-foot public utility easement between Lots 8 & 9, Block 2 to Lots 9 & 10, Block 1; and 3) provide controlled access along East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). 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, stormwater management, Park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. The Development Agreement shall also outline the developer's responsibility for design, engineering, and construction of the temporary turn -around indicated on the City parkland at the southerly end of Glady Lane NE, and a 10' bituminous path along East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated. March 2, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planningbepartment. Ms. Baker presented the plat drawing and explained the location, pointing out that it is part of the recently approved Graves GDP. She noted there -is an outlot that would provide access to the future open space corridor, and it needs to be wideried to be 30' all the way to the road. The plat will take access through North Park 9"' to the south and can then either access 55" Street or go over to 50"Avenue to travel south. She pointed out that traffic is able to access i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ak3r-NuN JCI. 1 IU14: PUBLIC HE.aRLNGS 'ING DEPT: PL. INNNG MEETING ti65 DATE: 4-3-00 ITEM NO. G- / ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned Unit Development B46, PREPARED BY: Northgate Shopping Center, to allow a second floor addition and exterior alterations. The Brent Svenbv, property is located south of 7th Street NW, west of 111h Avenue NW. Planner March 29, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2000, to consider this amendment to PUD B-46- The amendment would permit a second Floor addition and exterior alterations to the middle building on the property. Lloyd Johnson, Kane & Johnson Architects, addressed the Commission. He stated that they were in agreement with staff's first two conditions but not the one regarding storm water management. He also stated that they would revise their plans to show signage that is consistent with what is allowed for a business center. The Planning Commission reviewed this request according to the applicable criteria and standards in the LDM. The Commission found that this request is consistent with those criteria, subject to the following modifications or conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the Water Department to determine if a larger water service and/or meter is required. 2. If required by the Rochester Fire Department, the entire building must be provided with automatic fire sprinklers throughout and additional fire hydrants. Modified elevation showing signage within B-4 "Business Center" standards be prepared before City Council presentation. Ms. Petersson moved to approve the Amendment to PUD #B-46, Northgate Shopping Center, with staff -suggested findings and condition numbers one and two and a third condition about signage. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 7.0. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny this request. If the Council wishes to proceed with the proposed amendment, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution authorizing the changes to the approved plan. The resolution should also specify any conditions of approval that the Council places on this amendment. Attachments: j,: PJL (Jrjpy,,AaQ" . 1. Staff Report dated March 3 2000 y4c NID A*t�� /Xv 2. Minutes of March 8, 2000 CPZC eeting a p2� ( �lE r ,d Y4-ct, Distribution:�e'LGI 1. City Clerk `4n!Mot 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 3 2000 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. Kane & Johnson Architects COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: " mrm 831MO 'JNddOHs 31VDHIIdON �j rao�airroa �rwr. — a rrrww� a ra ..,,. •� �? 0 :I 4 4p 40 a#iEi � n • � � � 3 i w W J' t Y Z N U ML U `a IR! 3fN3A7 HIN �rii/7 o e 1 ..' 0 u IE I I DS •0.pCHESTER•Sr�y4 DRY rED•AUGLST•S•�• ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285.8232 PLANNING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MPPNGEsswc� so7r2e5-az3z HOUSINGMRA 5071285.8224 FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 wELusEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: March 3, 2000 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Amendment to Planned Unit Development B-46, Northgate Shopping Center, to allow a second floor addition and exterior alterations. The property is located south of 7th Street NW, west of 11`h Avenue NW. Planning Department Review: Petitioners: Prow Com�any, Inc. 1202'/a 7 Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 Surveyor/Engineer: Kane 8 Johnson Architects 2460 Hwy 63 North Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Agency Comments: Rochester Public Works, RPU Water Division, RPU Operations Division, Rochester Building Safety Dept., Fire Department, MnDOT, Planning Dept. John Harford, Planning Dept. Transportation Division Report Attachments: 1 Referral Comments (4 letters) 2. Approved Plans - 3. Reduced Copy of Proposed Amendment Plan Summary: The underlying zoning of the property is B-4 (General Commercial). PUD B-46 is a commercial PUD that was originally approved in 1980 and amended in 1982. Prior to 1980 the property was developed with commercial uses. The reason the property became a PUD was because they didn't meet the parking regulations of the zoning ordinance with the planned additions, In 1982, the plan was amended to delete 2 buildings totaling 11,798 square feet and to add a -•� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNCTWAFRRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 03i03100 - 1 PUD Amencment ` Page 2 of 7 new building (8,800 square feet) along the .ves: property line. Amendment Summa Proposed Use: At this time, the applicant is proposing an amendment to the PUD which would allow the construction of a full second story on the middle building. There currently is a second floor on the building, but it covers only half of the main floor (see pictures below). The proposed addition is approximately 8,220 square feet. The building that was approved in 1982, along the west property line, is being removed because it is in the future alignment of 161" Avenue NW. The buildings that are being removed are 8,995 square feet of retail space and 2,135 square feet of storage space. Front of building Side of building (J ON--e 03/03/00 PUD Amendment Page 3 of 7 Analysis: The Northgate Shopping Center PUD was approved in 1980 under the planned unit development provisions of the 1972 Zoning Code. When the current Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual was adopted in 1992, it eliminated these provisions. The manual, however, does provide for amendments to an existing PUD. Paragraph 60.326 states that amendments to a PUD shall be processed through the Type III, Phase II, hearing process, and according to the regulations applicable to the criteria for restricted developments. The underlying zoning for Northgate Shopping Center is the B-t district. Under the manual, the closest type of development to the existing PUD is a business center. A comparison of the original PUD standards, the 1982 amendment, the existing development, the proposed amendment and a business center is shown in the table below: Original PUD Requirements 1982 Amendment Existing Proposed Amendment Business Center Re uiremen Total Building Area 105,637 sf 104,404 sf 102,006 sf 99,096 sf NA Required Parking 403 stalls 388 stalls NA NA 465 Parking Provided 330 stalls 358 stalls 343 stalls 337 stalls NA The applicant is removing approximately 11,130 square feet of building area from the site and is proposing to replace it with an 8,220 square foot second floor addition to the middle building. The site currently has 343 parking stalls and the proposed amendment would provide 337 stalls plus some additional landscaping along Vh Street. Of the 11,130 sq. ft., 8,995 were used as retail space, which requires more parking than the proposed office uses. With the proposed office space the demand for parking should be reduced. The building located on the east of the site is Northgate Health Club, which requires 240 parking stalls under the current ordinance. It's typically that a health club would have a peak need for parking in the A.M. before normal business hours and in the P.M. after normal business hours. With only providing 337 parking stalls it would appear to be adequate with the different types of business located within this development who seem to have parking needs at different times during the day. The proposed amendment also includes exterior alterations and proposed signage location on the building. These changes would appear to be consistent with would is already approved for the site and the ordinance standards for a business center. Review Criteria and Suggested Findings: Amendments to an existing PUD are processed according to the regulations applicable to a conditional use permit and restricted developments. Paragraph 61.146 lists the standards for conditional use permits 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: 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. 03/03/00 PUD Amendment Page 4 of 7 The proposed amendment results in a net decrease in floor area and reduces parking by 6 stalls. This should not affect the current parking situation on the property and may actually help relieve the parking situation because retail space is being replaced by office space, which usually generates less traffic. 113 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. The addition to the existing building should not be detrimental to other private development. The building currently has a partial second floor or t and all that the proposed amendment does is extends the second floor to cover the entire first floor. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. The proposed amendment should provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features. The proposed amendment does include some additional landscaping along a Street NW. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. The proposed amendment should not create any drainage problems. The Public Works Department will need to be contacted regarding it the proposed amendment requires a storm water management plan. 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. The proposed amendment does not include any additional exterior lighting. 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. The building is accessible from two roadways and the parking lot. According to the Fire Department, the proposed addition will require that the building be provided with automatic fire sprinklers and possible larger water services to the building. 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. Not applicable 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. i I n 03/03/00 PUD Amendment Page 5 of 7 Parking requirements for the shopping center does not necessarily comply with the conventional zoning standards. This property became a PUD because with the original additions in 1980 the parking requirements were not met. The proposed amendment does not make the property anymore nonconforming than what was originally approved. The applicant is removing a total of 11,130 sq. feet of building area that was used for retail businesses and storage and is proposing to add 8,220 sq. feet of office space. According the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, a retail use requires parking at 1 per 150 sq. ft., while an office requires 1 per 400 sq. tt. According to the Alta survey there is a total of 343 parking spaces, the proposed amendment indicates that there will be a total of 337 parking spaces. 61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing 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 paragraph 61.146. 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: 1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. According to the Fire Department, the proposed addition will require that the building be provided with automatic fire sprinklers and possible larger water services to the building b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans. Not applicable c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. Not applicable d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: 1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; 3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; Not applicable 03/03/00 PUD Amendment Page 6 of 7 e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. The proposed office space should generate less traffic than what the retail space did. f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include: 1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; 2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation. The proposed addition does not increase the existing building height. g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. Not applicable h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. Not applicable i) Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. The proposed amendment does provide additional landscaping along 7" Street NW Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. The property was zoned PUD in 1980 because the proposed additions did not provide the adequate parking. The proposed amendment is actual reducing the amount of building area and eliminating 6 parking stalls. The proposed amendment involves office use while the buildings being removed consisted of retail space which generates more parking than an office use. k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land 1 �� 03/03100 PUD Amendment Page 7 of 7 forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. The proposed addition is compatible with the existing uses on the property and the surrounding properties. Staff Review and Recommendation: The Planning staff has reviewed this request based on the above criteria. The staff finds that this proposal is generally consistent with the above criteria, with the exception of the parking requirement, as was also the case in 1980 when PUD was originally approved. The staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the Water Department to determine if a larger water service and/or meter is required. 2. If required by the Rochester Fire Department, the entire building must be provided with automatic fire sprinklers throughout and additional fire hydrants. 3. If required by the City Public Works Department, storm water management must be provided for this property. Plannina Commission Action Required: The Planning Commission must make a motion to recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of this request. This recommendation will then be forwarded to the Council. The Council will hold a public hearing on this item at a later date. we pledge, we delaver February 22, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester. MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II Amendment to PUD #B-46, Northgate Shopping Center to allow a second floor addition and exterior alterations. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced amendment is complete and our comments follow: Any additional water use for this building will need to be calculated during the building design process to determine if a larger water service and or meter is required. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, "44A Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Kane & Johnson Architects Prow Company Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507.280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 kOCHESTER Minnesota 2; 29i00 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 application for an amendment to PUD 8-46.on the Northgate Shopping Center property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Shortage of parking has been a concern regarding this property in the past. Expansion of additional development on this property should not be permitted until the adequacy of parking is addressed. C;ITEMP1PUD B-46 Amendment2.00AOC 1 1 :iOq flu,i€ � ' AI a IR 4 j aD (V D Pace 9 — �J Ctr: Planning ana Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: %lar,-h 3, 2000 Ms. Petersson comm %edthat he feels a variance w d be the best way to handle the issue. Ms. Baker stated thas an applica no didn't fit into the "Office Use" category, they would need to come back to the nin ommission and Council with another PUD amendment because in the State of sota, a variance for a use cannot be considered. Ms. Schultze removed the ntion of a varia from her motion. Ms. McGowan seconded the amende tion. The motion carr 7-0. Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated March 3, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant is requesting to add a second floor addition and to make exterior alterations. He stated the original PUD was approved in 1980 with the underlying zoning of B-4, and was amended in 1982. He explained that the reason the property became a PUD was they didn't meet parking regulations. Mr. Svenby reviewed the changes made in the 1982 PUD amendment, and noted that with the currently proposed amendment, the applicant would like to build a second floor fully over the middle building, which would be an addition of approximately 8220 square feet. He pointed out that the building along the west property line is being removed because it is in the future alignment of 16'" Avenue NW, and it consists of 8,995 square feet of retail space and 2,135 square feet of storage. Mr. Svenby stated that currently the site has 343 parking stalls, and the proposed amendment will reduce that amount to 337, and would add landscaping along Vh Street NW. He explained that of the area the applicant is losing, almost 9,000 square feet was used for retail space, which generally requires more parking than an office use, so staff feels the proposed addition would generate less traffic volume. He referred to the staff -suggested findings to the criteria, and stated that staff recommends approval of the amendment with the three conditions contained in the staff report. Ms. McGowan asked for staffs comments to Mr. Nigbur's remarks on page 73 regarding parking. Mr. Svenby pointed out that the Planning Department has never received a complaint about parking in the Northgate Shopping Center. He noted he checked the site during several different times of the day, including during peak times for the health club on the east side, when the eastern portion of the parking lot was quite full, but the western portion was fairly empty. Ms. McGowan asked if there is a formula to determine how many parking spaces are needed. Mr. Svenby referred to the table on page 63, and stated that based on square footage and types of uses, they would be required to have 465 spaces. He pointed out that this originally became a PUD because they did not have the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Svenby noted these numbers apply to the entire shopping center. Page 10 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 1 Hearing Date: March 3, 2000 Several Commission members commented that they have never seen the whole lot full. Ms. McGowan asked if the City owns the building that will be demolished. Mr. Svenby answered yes, and explained it is the location of City right-of-way. Mr, Quinn referred to condition number 2, and stated he thought the comments on page 65 indicate that the building will be required to have a sprinkler system. Mr. Svenby agreed that, according to Lyle Felsch, the entire building will have to be sprinkled. Mr. Burke asked about any changes in signage. Mr. Svenby explained the signage will be what is shown on the elevations, which he presented on the monitors. He noted they will be wall -mounted signs. Lloyd Johnson, Kane & Johnson Architects, addressed the Commission. He stated they are in agreement with the first two conditions, but they have a concern with number 3. He pointed out that no additional surface will be covered, so they see no justification for any storm -water management fee. Mr. Sven by clarified that there would only be a storm water management fee if the Public Works Department required one. Ms. Schultze questioned whether it is possible to impose that condition on existing facilities. Discussion ensued regarding whether the storm water management fee is appropriate. Mr. Svenby pointed out there could be modifications made to the drainage of the property as a result of the addition, and the water may drain to a different direction. Ms. Schultze commented that she has a problem applying that condition to an existing property without some presentation that gives a basis for doing so. Mr. Svenby noted this condition was required on the PUD amendment that allowed Roscoe's Ribs to be constructed. Ms. Schultze pointed out that amendment removed a portion of the parking lot, but this does not. Mr. Johnson stated it is not their intent to limit their signage to what is shown on this plan, and they do not intend to reduce the signage. He commented that he was not aware that what was shown on the plan would be taken literally. Mr. Svenby explained that when a permit comes in for the addition, staff will add up the square footage of the signs shown on the plans, and they will be allowed that much signage. Nee II — City Planning and Zoning Comttussion Minutes Hearin-, Date. Ntarch 3. 2000 Mr. Johnson stated that if he had known that the square footage of their drawing would be calculated, thev would have drawn a square footage that is currently allowed because they are not intending to reduce their allowable signage. Ms. Schultze noted the conditions don't address signage, but there are regulations on the books that do, and signage would be subject to the standard criteria, which will be on a store -by store -basis. Mr. Svenby explained that since this is a PUD, building elevations show the sign locations, so that when a permit comes in for a sign, it is checked against the elevations to make sure it is consistent with what was approved for the PUD. Discussion of signage ensued. Ms. Baker pointed out that PUD amendments are very specific reviews and the elevations that show signage and lighting are reviewed as literal. She stated that perhaps the best thing would be to revise the plan to show the approximate square footage they expect to have on the side of the building. She explained that when staff looks at applications for sign permits, they have to have a plan that shows the finished product as it was approved. Mr. Johnson asked if this could be tabled to the next meeting. Mr. Svenby pointed out that the Commission could recommend that the signage be limit to the B-4 signage requirements for a "Business Center." Mr. Johnson said they would be happy with that requirement. Mr. Svenby noted the underlying zoning district is B-4, so that would be sufficient. If the Commission is agreeable to allow them to have signage standards for a B-4 "Business Center," and if the applicant is willing to revise their plan, it could be handled before it goes to the City Council. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Sul closed the public hearing. Ms. Petersson moved to approve Amendment to PUD #B-46, Northgate Shopping Center, with the three staff -suggested conditions, and the additional condition that states, "Modified elevations showing signage within B-4 'Business Center" standards be prepared before City Council presentation." The motion was seconded by Mr. Burke Ms. Schultze commented that she feels condition number three should be deleted because there is no change in physical area, and there have been no discussions with Public Works as to how to approach something like this. Ms. McGowan pointed out that condition number three states, "if required." Discussion of condition number three ensued. Nee 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: Ntarch 8, 2000 Mr. Suk suggested they vote on the issue and include the first two conditions and the signage issue; then vote on the third condition separately. Ms. Petersson amended her motion to include conditions, one, two, and the signage issue. Mr. Burke seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 7.0. Ms. McGowan moved to keep condition number three as originally suggested by staff. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion, which failed 3-4, with Ms. Schultze, Mr. Suk, Mr. Burke, and Ms. Petersson voting nay. Conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the Water Department to determine if a larger water service and/or meter is required. 2. If required by the Rochester Fire Department, the entire building must be provided with automatic fire sprinklers throughout, and additional fire hydrants. 3. Modified elevations showing signage within B-4 "Business Center" standards be prepared before City Council presentation. Mr. Svenby presented the sk report, dated ch 3, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochest -Olmsted PI ning Department. Mr. Svenby explained the applican ' re esting to rezone from the H (Holding) zone to R-2, on property that has recently been an, . He pointed out that a GDP for the property will be heard next on the agenda. Mr. SveAcrit ed the zoning districts of the adjacent properties, along with access. He referred to tand staff -suggested findings, noting that staff recommends approval based on ths. Dave Bell, Freedom Developme t and & Consul g, St. Cloud, Minnesota, addressed the Commission. He stated he ag es with the staff-rdl,ommended conditions and is available for questions. Paul Doerre, 951 Golfers curt SE, addressed the Com ssion. He asked about the 40' Avenue and Highway 14 tersection. Mr. Suk explained tharjthat will be addressed during the Mr. Doerre stated tyht when turning west onto Highway 14, therevery low visibility and he appreciates that b ng addressed. \\ With no other;/; ishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (�S DATE: 4-3-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: EM PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING �—ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to PUD R-40 to allow for a dentist office to be used forother jPREPEAREDBY: business and office uses. MitzSen March 29, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation,• On March 8, 2000 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request. At the meeting, a last minute request to also allow for additional signage on the property was discussed. The Commission concluded that this request must be filed separately since it was not included in the original submittal and the public hearing notices did not address modifications to signage on the property. The applicant agreed that a separate application would be submitted at a later date and considered separately. Schultze made a motion to approve the request to allow for "Office Use" within the building currently approved for use as a dentist office and also to deny the request to allow for "Business Services" within that building. Seconded by McGowan. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated March 2, 2000. :ouncil Action Needed: If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either approving, approving with conditions, or denying this request based upon the criteria included in the staff report. Attachments: .I 1. Staff Report dated March 2, 2000 2. Minutes of March 8, 2000 CPZC Meeting Distribution: I� j,�� ^� 1. City Clerk �j 2. City Administrator tfu I° 3, City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on April 3, 2000 in the Council ! Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. ,OUNCIL ACTION: Modon by: second by: to: V. _ TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: March 2, 2000 140C HES TF. R•jff I Y n, eb R� TED.�iI G�St" ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GISYADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGlHRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285.8213 wELVSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Amendment to PUD R-40 to allow an existing dentist office to be used for office se and business services. The property is located at 1617 Skyline Dr. SW. Applicant/Owner: Donald Robert Weinrich 535 4'h St. SW Plainview, MN 55964 Location: The property is located west of T.H. 52 and north of Skyline Drive. Summary: The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Plan for this property was approved in 1978, which included five condominiums and a dentist office. When the PUD was approved by the City Council in 1978, one of the conditions specified that. "The dental clinic building shall be used only for its intended use. Changes to the use of the building shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council as an amendment to the PUD." The applicant is now requesting flexibility in the use of the dentist office to allow for other office uses and business services. On March 1, 2000 staff received a letter from the applicant also requesting that the signage restrictions for the property be reviewed. The applicant is now requesting that a new sign be permitted that would be 8' x 15' on a 25' pedestal. The adjacent land uses include churches, condominiums and single family dwellings. Aside from this PUD, the surrounding area is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. -� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Use Categories: Sections 62.142 and 62.143 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) define "Office Uses" and "Business Service" as follows: Office Use: A building or portion of a building used for office purposes by a business, service. professional or institutional establishment, including medical offices or clinics, studios for those involved in art, sculpture, music and the like, and all other establishments similar in character. Business Services: Establishments primarily engaged in rendering services to business establishments on a free or contract basis, such as advertising and mailing, building maintenance, office equipment rental and leasing, photo finishing, business supply services and computer programming/data processing services. Criteria, Analysis and Recommendation: According to Section 60.326 of the LDM, changes to a PUD, other than minor changed, shall be evaluated utilizing the applicable criteria for incentive or restricted developments. Section 62.708 includes the Preliminary Plan and Final Plan criteria for a Restricted Development, a copy of which is attached. Use Change: Since the request to change the use of the building does not include new construction, some of the criteria in Section 62.708 do not apply. In measuring the general compatibility of the proposed uses to the surrounding neighborhood, staff researched the uses allowed within residential zoning districts. "Office" is a use category that is permitted in all residential zoning districts in locations where the applicable site location criteria and performance standards can be met. In general office uses within residential areas offer opportunities for individuals to work near their place of residence. They also provide opportunities for neighborhoods to enjoy the convenience of certain types of businesses that may cater to households. The use category 'Business Services' is not permitted within the residential zoning district. Since "Business Services" are less likely to provide neighborhood oriented services than "Office" uses, it would not be consistent with the LDM to allow that use category within this PUD. Staff suggests that the "Office" uses can be compatible with the neighborhood and would be consistent with uses allowed in residential districts. Staff recommends approval to allow for additional flexibility for use of the building that has been occupied by a dentist office by allowing other uses that are defined as "Office Use" consistent with Section 62.142 of the LDM. Staff also recommends that the use category "Business Services" is inappropriate for this location since uses within this category are not allowed within residential zoning districts and they typically provide little opportunity to neighborhoods to utilize their services. Change to Slgnage: The request to allow for amendments to the signage on the property was submitted after publishing hearing notices for this PUD amendment. Such a request should have been noted in the hearing notices. Additionally, this portion of the T.H. 52 corridor is primarily residential in nature, with the exception of a few churches. Additional signage at this location, as requested by the applicant, may not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and could adversely impact the aesthetics of this portion of the highway. Furthermore, the sign size and height requested far exceed what would be permitted for an "Office Use" within any Residential Zoning District, including the B-5 (Residential Commercial) zoning district. A free standing sign for an "Office Use' within these zoning districts can't exceed 24 s.f. in size or 10' in height. Staff recommends that the amended request to allow for an 8' x 15' (120 s.f.) sign upcn a 2 c cn pedestal be denied. 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: 1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase 11 plans. c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: 1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; pro - 3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include: t ) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; 2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation. g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrianibicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. 2) Final Development Plan Criteria: a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted. b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard have been incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set aside from development. c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so as to: 1) Provide adequate separation from existing street intersections and adjacent private driveways so that traffic circulation problems in public right-of-ways are minimized; 2) Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with factors such as noise from accelerating or idling vehicles or the glare of headlights from vehicles entering or leaving the site. In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified potential problems in the operation of access points, plans for private improvements or evidence of planned public improvements which will alleviate the problems have been provided. d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians can move safely both within the site and across the site between properties and activities within the neighborhood area, and, where appropriate, accommodations for transit access are provided. e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been prepared which indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape character of the surrounding area. f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the completion of any platting activities, and the provision of adequate assurance to guarantee the installation of required public improvements, screening and landscaping. g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design contains earth forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy the needs identified in Phase I for the project. h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height Impact, Setbacks, and Internal Site Design. i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of design. Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to signage and other appearance controls, and with general standards such as traffic visibility and emergency access. 19� FAA WEINRICH PROPERTIES, LLC Telephone $07-285-1115.800358-8117 1617 SKYLINE DRIVE S.W. ROCHESTER, MN 55902 February 29, 20 M Rochester/Olmsted Planning and Zoning Department Attn: Brent Svenby 2122 Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Mr. Svenby, On February 11, 20001 sent you a letter requesting the property located at 1617 Skyline Drive S.W. planned use be changed to "Office Uses" and "Business Services". I currently have a party interested in leasing out this space and would hike to amend the request to also look at sipage restrictions. The new sign on the property would be the dimensions of 8' x 15' on a 25' pedestaL Sincerely, Donald R. Weinrich lat•'1 1t11 71 It tl1 tI 1 Page 7 City Planning a d Zoniami g Comssion Minutes Hearing Date:. 8; 2000 in the 1999 PUD amendme main in motion carried 7-0. Condition: 1. The sale of 3.2 be nd wine applies only Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The 's Ribs, current occupants of the Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-40 to allow the buiidl be used for office use and business services Currentiv the use of the building is restricted to a Dentist Office only. The building address is 1617 Skyline Drive SW Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated March 2, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that when this PUD was approved in 1978, the use of this non-residential building was very specific to be a dentist's office. The applicant has asked there be more flexibility on the use of the building because requiring it to be a dentist's office may be too restrictive in terms of finding new tenants. Ms. Baker stated the initial application requested the use "Office Use" and "Business Services." She referred to the definitions of the these contained in the staff report, and noted that "Business Services" are not designed to cater to residential neighborhoods. She stated that staff is suggesting in favor of the change in use to allow "Office Uses," but are also suggesting that the change to "Business Services" not be allowed. Ms. Baker noted that last week the applicant submitted a letter requesting they be allowed to have additional signage. She stated this should have been submitted with the original request and it could have been included in the public notice. She noted that this property is along Highway 52, and part of the area that is being looked at by a committee to address the aesthetics of Highway 52. Ms. Baker explained that, overall, this segment of the highway is void of the clutter of signage, so staff feels this would be an inappropriate request for the site. She summarized that staff suggests approval of an amendment to the PUD to allow "Office Uses," and denial of "Business Service" and additional signage. Ms. Petersson noted that copy services are often used by people in the neighborhood and she pointed out it would be nice for people working out of their homes to have this type of service in the neighborhood, so she isn't sure denial of the "Business Service" is appropriate. Mr. Brede asked if a law office or insurance agency would fit in the "Office Use" category. Ms. Baker answered yes. Mr. Quinn asked if there are hours of operation connected with the different definitions. Ms. Baker explained that the two definitions presented fall into different zoning districts in the Ordinance. She suggested that the hours of operation allowed for an office use in the R-1 zoning district would be appropriate. Mr. Quinn asked if the Commission should even be discussing the signage issue since it wasn't notified. Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date. March 8, 2000 Ms. Baker stated if the applicant wants to pursue that further, they could request a delay and staff could republish and re -notify, they could request the additional signage separately, or they could withdraw the signage request. Ms. Schultze feels that since it wasn't publicly notified, the Commission can't address that portion of the request. Mr. Svenby clarified that office hours are limited to between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. in the R-1 zoning district. Mac Hamilton, real estate agent representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that when the applicant's father requested the authorization to build his dental office in 1978, he looked at dentistry as something he would be in for the rest of his career. Mr. Weinrich's subsequent purchase of the building included only a few months of dental occupancy before moving on. There is a dentist looking at it and it may stay a dentist office, but they want to open up the possibilities a bit. Mr. Hamilton stated the hours of 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. are fine with them. He commented they realize that the "Business Services" category is broad, but they are looking at the type of use that Ms. Petersson suggested. He pointed out the traffic on Highway 52 has doubled in the last 20 years and with the proposed Highway 52 improvements, it will increase even more. He stated that the signage currently in place is two 5' x 8' signs, which amounts to 80 square feet of signage. Mr. Suk pointed out that property owners weren't notified of the signage issue, so the applicant will have to decide if he wants to bring that issue to a later meeting or withdraw that portion of the request. Mr. Hamilton conferred with the applicant. He stated that they will revisit the signage issue at another time. Ms. Baker requested a formal application and the appropriate fee be submitted for the signage issue. Mr. Hamilton stated they will withdraw the request to expand the signage and will come back to the Commission at a later time. He referred to the building issues and stated they request the "Business Services" category, but they are not looking at uses that would be heavy traffic generators, they are simply looking for more latitude beyond what the "Office Uses" would allow. Mr. Hamilton made himself available for questions. Mr. Suk pointed out that if the Commission approves both "Office Use" and "Business Services," any of the uses under "Business Services" would be allowed. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Schultze moved to approve Amendment to PUD #R-40 to allow "Office Use" and to deny the request to allow "Business Services," and noted that a variance could be requested for a "Business Service" use. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. r 195_ Page 9 — City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2000 Ms. Petersson commented that she feels a variance would be the best way to handle the issue. Ms. Baker stated that if there was an applicant who didn't fit into the "Office Use" category, they would need to come back to the Planning Commission and Council with another PUD amendment because in the State of Minnesota, a variance for a use cannot be considered. Ms. Schultze removed the mention of a variance from her motion. Ms. McGowan seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 7-0. Mr. Svenby presentee report is on file at the Mr. Svenby explained that t lie make exterior alterations. He d zoning of B-4, and was amend PUD was they didn't meet parkin 1982 PUD amendment, and noted would like to build a second floor fulli approximately 8220 square feet. He being removed because it is in the fu square feet of retail space and 2,135 the site has 343 parking stalls, and and would add landscaping along losing, almost 9,000 square feet a parking than an office use, so s ff volume. He referred to the sta - recommends approval of the m Ms. McGowan asked for parking. Mr. Svenby pointed out parking in the Northga different times of the the eastern portion o tt Ms. McGowan asked if dated March0, to the Commission. The staff ad Planning Wrtment. is reque o add a second Floor addition and to origin was approved in 1980 with the underlying H ined that the reason the property became a 3 Svenby reviewed the changes made in the urrantty proposed amendment, the applicant fiddle building, which would be an addition of t that the building along the west property line is nt of 1Wh Avenue NW, and it consists of 8,995 f storage. Mr. Svenby stated that currently endment will reduce that amount to 337, .at explained that of the area the applicant is -d for s ce, which generally requires more the pro dition would generate less traffic ad finding t criteria, and stated that staff t with the th ditions contained in the staff report. to Mr. anning Department has nc I Center. He noted he chee g during peak times for the lot was quite full, but the w a formula to determine how many on page 73 regarding ved a complaint about site during several lub on the east side, when 2rtion was fairly empty. spaces are needed. Mr. Svenby referred rpm ble on page 63, and stated that based o re footage and types of uses, they we required to have 465 spaces. He pointed this originally became a PUD beey did not have the required number of parki es. Mr. Svenby noted these number to the entire shopping center. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL. ACTION MEETING DATE: 04-03-00� ]f "JBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PL.-N'NItiG i i EM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase III Conditional Use Permit #00-02 by Willow Creek Golf Course to allow for fill within the Floodway and Flood Fringe districts to facilitate expansion of the golf course. The property is located west of 11" Avenue SW, south of 48'" Street SW. E- 9 PREPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty. Planner March 28, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On March 8, 2000, the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request to allow for filling within the Floodway and Flood Fringe. Mr. Scott Rendal, representing Willow Creek Golf Course, stated their grading permit has been approved and they are working on condition number 2. Mr. Rendal also explained that they are working with Public Works regarding the pathway. Mr. Brede moved to approve Conditional Use Permit #00-02 by Willow Creek Golf Course, with the three staff - suggested conditions. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Conditions: 1. A grading permit must be approved before any work commences an the site. Erosion and sedimentation control must be provided on the plan. A construction phasing plan shall also be provided to minimize the sediment leaving the site. 2. If wetlands exists on this portion of the property, a Wetland Delineation is required. The applicant must obtain any required approvals through the LGU and Corps of Engineers prior to construction. 3. The applicant shall provide a 10-foot-wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of 11'" Avenue SW, concurrent with this development. ,'tanning Department Recommendation: 1. See attached staff report dated February 28, 2000. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either approving, approving with conditions, or denying this request based upon the criteria of Paragraphs 61.146, 62.824 and 62.860. Attachments: L 1. Staff Report dated February 28,C 2. Minutes of the March 8, 2000 PZCZC Meeting. Distribution: � xov 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 6. WHKS 8 Company after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: e C AD , a i f � � h IL Nz 0 ^� I e m 11 AM Gtt 3N Q Oa •:AnM �jai w; f i CIO �J it M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 3, 2000 TO: Mayor and Common Council FROM: Michael Nigbur RE: Item E — 9, CUP filling in the Floodway — Willow Creek Golf Course CC: Condition #3 — Staff have discussed the path issue with the Owner as it relates to other public improvements needed in the area of 48 h Street and I Ith Avenue SW. Based on those discussions the condition should be modified to the following: The Owner shall execute a Pedestrian Facility Agreement to address the timing and cost of construction of the pedestrian facility. ROCHESTER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RIGHT OF WAY SECTION T Ot µpC NES.T.E.R...,yfq�Y qq / F' # b Z', n n ay RT TED.AL'GLSS ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission GIS/ADDRESSINC/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING FROM: Theresa Fo art Planner' HOUSINGlHRA 507/285-8224 g y, BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 DATE: February 28, 2000 FAX 507/287.2275 RE: Type III, Phase III Conditional Use Permit 00-02 by Willow Creek Golf Course to allow for fill within the Floodway and Flood Fringe districts to facilitate expansion of the golf course. The property is located west of 11' Avenue SW, south of 48'" Street SW. Plannina Department Review: ApplicantlOwner: Wendell Pittenger Wendell Pittenger Golf Operations 409 Golf Links Drive Red Wing, MN 55066 Engineer I Consultant: WHKS & Company 2905 South Broadway Rochester, MN 55904 Requested Action: The applicant is requesting a Type III, Phase III Conditional Use Permit to allow for fill to be placed within the Floodway and Floodfringe as part of the proposed expansion of the existing golf course. The intended construction consists of excavating ponds and traps and building slightly elevated tees and greens. The areas between the greens and tees are to remain generally undisturbed since most of these areas are already turf maintained as part of the existing golf course. A small temporary bridge structure will be required to access the T" green on the south side of Willow Creek. Location of Property: The property is located west of 11" Avenue SW, south of 4V Street SW. '�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Conditional Use Permit 00-02 Willow Creek Golf Course March 2, 2000 Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Residential) district on the City of Rochester zoning map. Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Utilities (see attached) 2. Rochester Public Works (see attached) 3. John Hanford, Planning Dept./Wetlands LGU Standards for Approval: Conditional use permits in the Flood Prone district are subject to the same standards as every conditional use (see Section 61.146), and some specific conditions related to the Flood Prone areas (Section 62.824 and 62,860). Report Attachments: 1. Sections 61.146, 62.824 and 62,860 from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. 2. Referral Comments (3) 3. Location Map 4. Engineers Certification Analysis and Recommendation: The applicant is proposing to place fill within the floodway, and floodfringe as part of the proposed expansion of the existing golf course. The Planning Staff has reviewed this request in accordance with the provisions of Section 61.146, 62.824 and 62.860 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The staff finds that this proposal fills no more than necessary and that this activity will not result in an increase in erosion potential or flood hazard. Planning staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A grading permit must be approved before any work commences on the site. Erosion and sedimentation control must be provided on the Plan. A construction phasing plan shall also be provided to minimize the sediment leaving the site. 2. If Wetlands exist on this portion of the property, a Wetland Delineation is required. The applicant must obtain any required approvals through the LGU and CORPS of Engineers, prior to construction. 3. The applicant shall provide a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of I ll " Avenue SW, concurrent with this development. Planning Commission Action Needed: Conditional use permits of this sort require Council approval. The Planning Commission should make a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny this request to be forwarded to the Council. The Council will hold a public hearing at a later date. Note: Any relocation of the RPU 13,800 volt underground electrical line will need to be done at the expense of Willow Creek Golf Course. Page 3 Conditional Use Permit 00-02 Willow Creek Golf Course March 2, 2000 61.145 Matters Under Consideration: The review of a conditional use is necessary to insure that it will not be of detriment to and is designed to be compatible with land uses and the area surrounding its location; and that is it consistent with the objectives and purposes of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator. Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on he site and onto adjacent public street 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 the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) in cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is 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. ao1 PIN Page 4 - / Conditional Use Permit 00-02 Willow Creek Golf Course March 2, 2000 62.824 Conditional Use Permits - Standards for Approval: When deciding on Conditional Use Permits in any of the flood district, the following factors, in addition to the standards of Paragraph 61.146 shall also be considered: 1) The danger of 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. 62.860 CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN THE FLOOD PRONE DISTRICT The requirements applicable in the Flood Fringe District, as defined in Section 62.840 shall apply in the Flood Prone District and, in addition, the deposition of any fill or spoil from dredging of sand and gravel operations, the construction of any structure, or the grading or paving of any areas shall require certification by a registered professional engineer or hydrologist that the following conditions have been met: 1) Fill deposited in the flood prone area shall be no more than the minimum amount necessary to conduct the use. Page 5 Conditional Use Permit OU-02 Willow Creek Golf Course March 2, 2000 2) No net loss of capacity for surface storage of flood waters shall result from the activity. 3) The effect of such activities in the Flood prone area shall not result in an increase in erosion potential on the site. W FM Application Number. �I *W- -0 tit_. 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 Iohn Harford Wetlands LGU Representative rpu e /�r4�e, ve aFt'irer 507/280-1579 February 15, 2000 TO: ''l5mumne I aPalrn, planning Department 4 Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Type III, Phase III Conditional Use Permit #00-02 by Willow Creek Golf Course to allow for fill within the Floodway and Flood Fringe districts to facilitate expansion of thejolf course. The property is located west of 1 Ith Ave. SW, south of 48 St. SW. RPU has a 13,800 volt underground electric line within the expansion area. National Electrical Safety Code minimum burial depth must be maintained for this line. Any relocation of this line to accommodate the expansion will need to be done at the expense of Willow Creek Golf Course. Sincerely, Michael J. Engle Jg Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2613 telephone 507 280.1540 facsimile 507.280,1542 � ROCHESTER Minnesota 3/2/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 0 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 CUP #00-02 on the Willow Creek Golf Course property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path is required along the entire frontage of 11th Ave SW, concurrent with this development. CATEMP1CUP#00-02Coo An WHKE &co. ENGINEERS � PLANNERS �LAND SURVEYORS February 16, 2000 Mitzi A. Baker, Planner Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive S.E. Rochester, MN 55901 RE: Willow Creek Golf Course Executive Nine Hole Expansion Rochester, Minnesota Dear Ms. Baker. GERALD M, WEILAND. P.E.-PRESIOENT PENNY L. SCHMITZ. VICE-PRES. A TREAS, CAROL G. KASTLER, L.S. RICK G. ENGSTROM, C.E.'. LAWRENCE A. BOYER. L.S. MICHAEL A. ZEUNSKAS, P.E- POUAO K. OAOUO, P E. A S.E. 2905 SO. BROADWAY ROCHESTER, MN 55904-5515 phone 507-288-3923 fax 507-288-2675 e-mail rochester@whILS com In regards to section 82.860 of the City of Rochester Land Development Manual, I hereby certify the following conditions have been met regarding the application for the Conditional Use Permit: 1. Fill deposited in the flood prone area as shown on the plan contains the minimum amount of material in order to construct the tee and greens. 2. There is no net loss of capacity for surface storage of floodwaters because the volume of material excavated from areas within the floodway balances the volume of material filled within the floodway. The areas in which material is being placed are located in Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by FEMA. This is defined as: Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood With an average depth of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square -mile; and areas protected by levees from the 100-year flood. Since we are filling an average depth of one foot in these few selected areas, no net loss of capacity should result. 3. The areas to be constructed are presently turf maintained as part of the existing golf course, therefore, the proposed use will not change erosion potential on or adjacent to the site. Area Hydrologist Bob Bezek of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, has stated that he is in agreement that the above conditions have been met. Pleasecontact me if you have any questions, or need additional information. Sincerely, r. nKS & C0. /y/J�l Allan J. lM P- 9, License No. 12733 Enclosure S U 0138T Me ng a n58I OTHER OFFICES. P.O. BOX 1467 MASON CITY, IA 50402-1467 PHONE SIS-423-8271 450 CENTRAL AVENUE DUBUQUE, IA 52001.7024 PHONE 319-582-5481 217 N. DUFF AVENUE AAAES, U150010-6637 PHONE 515.663.9997 218 SINSINAWA AVENUE EAST DUBUQUE, IL 61025-1236 PHONE 315.747 81 Page 16 ��-- /�I/ City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2000 / f 8. An access permit 0`" Ave. SE will be uired from the Olmsted County Public Works Department a time of pla ' g. Sight distance needs to be adequate for I operating speed on 4 " e. SE a g with a right turn lane. 9. A revised GDP shall be fit the Planning Department reflecting all required modifications, including mo g e pedestrian facility along the easterly right-of-way of 400 Ave. SE, the right- -wa or northern most road be 56 feet and the westerly leg of this roa ay mus 'ne directly across from the north/south roadway or be separa d by 200 fee . 10. There must be a tual agreement, betwe th velopers, the City, and the County, regardi a left turn lane on Trunk Highw 4 prior to approval of any final plats for this development. TYPE III PHASE III CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Type 111, Phase III Conditional Use Permit #00-02 by Willow Creek Golf Course to allow for fill within the Fioodway and Flood Fringe districts to facilitate expansion of the golf course. The property is located west of If Ave SW south of 480 St SW Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated February 28, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker stated she has had discussions with the Department of Natural Resources, and they don't have concerns over the fill activity and the grading activity because it will have no impacts on flood capacities. She noted that a letter was received, certified by an engineer, that it would have no negative impacts on flood capacities and risks. Ms. Baker stated that staff is recommending approval subject to three conditions, which she reviewed. She pointed out that after speaking with the applicant's consultant, she feels they are somewhat in disagreement with condition number 3. Ms. Baker explained that there is a plan for the path at this time, but the length is unsure. She is not sure if there is a pathway proposed for the east side of 11 " Avenue. Mr. Burke commented that it may be dangerous having a bikeway adjacent to a golf course. Representing Willow Creek Golf Course, Scott Randal, addressed the Commission. He stated their grading permit has been approved, and they are working on condition number 2. Mr. Rendal explained that they are also working with Public Works regarding the pathway. Mr. Suk asked the length of the pathway. Mr. Rendal stated it would be 1100 feet, and they are in agreement with the length. Mr. Quinn asked if it was unusual to have such a short segment of bike path. Page 17 — City Planning and Zoning Comn ssion Minutes Hearing Date: March 3, 2000 Ms. Baker explained that typically, subdivisions do not develop simultaneously, so things such as bike paths are required as the property is developed, sort of like a piece to a puzzle. She noted they may not connect at first, but will eventually. Ms. Baker pointed out that 11" Avenue will be upgraded in the future, and perhaps with the reconstruction, the pedestrian facility will also be constructed. She noted that our Ordinance requires that sidewalk be constructed adjacent to all roadways. Mr. Brede moved to approve Conditional Use Permit #00-02 by Willow Creek Golf Course, with the three staff -suggested conditions. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Conditions: 1. A grading permit must be approved before any work commences on the site. Erosion and sedimentation control must be provided on the plan. A construction phasing plan shall also be provided to minimize the sediment leaving the site. 2. if wetlands exist on this portion of the property, a Wetland Delineation is required. The applicant must obtain any required approvals through the LGU and Corps of Engineers prior to construction. 3. The applicant shall provide a 10-foot-wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of 11 m Avenue SW, concurrent with this development. Ms. Schultze presen article from the Post- lletin concerning the subject of schools in Rochester. it was note h the issue c/eup t the last meeting. Discussion ensued. Discussion also occurred rega g the of 50'" Avenue NW. ADJOURN: Motion made by Ms. McG adjourn, seconded by Mr. Quinn. Mr. Suk, Chair, adjourned the me in at - 5 PM. Respectfully Submitted: Philip H. Wheeler, AICP sml Cicpzc%CPZC3.8.doc Mr. Chjgrles James Suk, Chair e REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NurnvN act. i wtv: ORIGINATING PUBLIC HEARINGS PL.-NNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-11 to allow Roscoe's Ribs to serve 3.2 beer and wine. The property is located north of 41" Street NW, east of W Avenue NW and west of the Cedarwood Mall. March 28, 2000 i MEETING DATE: 04-03-oo ITEM NO. E-to REPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty Planner City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 8, 2000, to consider this amendment to PUD R-11. The amendment would allow Roscoe's Ribs to serve 3.2 beer and wine. The applicant was either not present or did not wish to speak. The Planning Commission reviewed this request according to the applicable criteria and standards in the LDM. The Commission found that this request is consistent with those critiera, subject to the following modifications or conditions: Ms. Schultze moved to approve Amendment to Planned Unit Development #R•11, by Roscoe's Ribs, with one condition and the stipulation that the hours of operation stated in the 1999 PUD amendment remain in place. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Condition: 1. The sale of 3.2 beer and wine applies onto Roscoe's Ribs, current occupants of the building. Planning Department Review and Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated March 2, 2000. Council Action Needed: The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny this request. If the Council wishes to proceed with the proposed amendment, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution authorizing the changes to the approved plan. The resolution should also specify any conditions of approval that the Council places on this amendment Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated March 2, 2000. 2. Minutes from the City Planning & Zoning Commissionfrineeting of March 8, 2000. Distribution: �� l 1. City Clerk Cl 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 3, 2000 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4" Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Mceon by: Second TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner.jl- DATE: March 2, 2000 QJ�NESTE R-tf„ .Jt'..... t (tt Rq TED•ALGl S�•' ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GISIADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Type III, Phase 11 Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-11 (Candlewood I Cedarwood Mall) to allow Roscoe's Ribs to serve 3.2 beer and wine. The property is located north of 41" Street NW, east of 18" Avenue NW and west of Cedarwood Mall. Planning Department Review: Petitioners: Richard Hawkins Cedarwood Mall Limited Partnership 2207 NW 7'" Street Rochester, MN 55901 Location: The property is located north of 41" Street NW, east of 18" Avenue and west of Cedarwood Mall. Referral Comments: No objections received from referral agencies. Attachments: Location Map Copy of Section 62.708 Original Resolution, dated July, 1978 PUD Summary: PUD R-11 (Candlewood) is an R-1 PUD which is located at the northeast corner of 18" Avenue NW and 41" Street. It was originally approved in 1974, and amended in 1978, 1995 and 1999. The PUD presently consists of both residential and commercial uses. The total site is 585,200 (13.4 acres) square feet in size. In March of 1999, the applicant received approval on an amendment to the PUD, allowing a fast food restaurant (Roscoe's Ribs) to be constructed in the northwest corner of the site. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 PUD R-11 Amendment Cedarwood Mall March 2, 2000 Amendment Summary: In July, 1978, resolution was adopted by the City council amending the final plan for PUD R-11 with one of the following conditions: ' The property shall not be used for 3.2 beer tavern purposes". The applicant has petitioned to amend PUD R-11 allowing the property (a free standing building) to be occupied by Roscoe's Rib only, to serve 3.2 beer and wine. It is anticipated that the sale of 3.2 beer and wine will be about 5% of the sales from Roscoe's Ribs. Staff Recommendation: Changes to a PUD, other than minor changes, need to be processed through the Type III review procedure with the Phase II hearing process. The applicable criteria for incentive or restricted development are used to evaluate the proposed change. Section 62.708 includes the criteria which apply to a preliminary plan and final plan review for a restricted development (see attached). Most of these criteria are not applicable to this request, however, Section 62.708 Criteria 1) K. General Compatibility was considered as it relates to this request. Staff suggests that approval to allow 3.2 beer and wine sales at Roscoe's Ribs should not adversely impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood. It is anticipated that 3.2 beer and wine sales will only be about 5% of the sales from Roscoe's Ribs. Staff therefore recommends approval of this request subject to the following condition: 1. The sale of 3.2 beer and wine applies only to Roscoe's Ribs, current occupants of the building. - ass 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether tc approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: A. Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. B. Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans. C. Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. D. Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2. Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; 3. Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; E. Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. F. Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include: 1. Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; 2. Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation. G. Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. H. Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. K. General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the owner of the premises known as "Candlewood" which has been designated as PUD—R-11 Planned Unit Development District - Residential by Ordinance No. 1757, has made application for approval of an amendment to the final plan of said planned unit development pursuant to Ordinance No. 1659, as amended; and WHEREAS, public hearings on said amendment to the final plan were duly noticed and held by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 28, 1978 and by the Common Council on July 17, 1978, at which time all interested.parties were given an opportunity to present evidence; and WHEREAS, all of the preliminary procedures for final approval of the proposed amendment to the final plan of said planned unit development as required by Ordinance No. 1659, as amended, have been complied with. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the amendment to the final plan for PUD-R-11 Planned Unit Development District - Residential which amendment is on file in the office of the City Clerk and is dated "Received July 10, 1978, Consolidated Planning Department, Olmsted County, Minnesota" consisting of one sheet or page, is hereby approved as an amendment and incorporated into the final plan of said planned unit development, and said final plan shall govern the use and development of said land in accordance with Ordinance No. 1659, as amended, subject to the following conditions: (1) Pedestrian access between the Candlewood Apartments and the commercial development is provided, with at least two gates installed if the proposed fence is erected, and (2) The property shall not be used for 3.2 beer tavern purposes. Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 17th day of July, 1978. PressAo ai Con CounA AUG 1978 Con%oli2cted P!crming pool, OLMST!D coum Y Attest: ,D6PuT)C City Clerk Approved this 18th day of July, 1978. Mmv � "'m - VIOPOI (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: March 8, 2000 Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned Unit Development R-11 to allow Roscoe's Ribs to serve 3.2 beer and wine. The property is located north of 415' Street NW east of 18 Avenue NW and west of the Cedarwood Mall. Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated March 2, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on rile at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained that the original PUD was approved in 1974, with amendments in 1978, 1995, and 1999. The most recent amendment allowed Roscoe's Ribs to be constructed in the northwest corner of the site. He pointed out that there was a condition on the July, 1978 amendment stating the property shall not be used for 3.2 beer tavern purposes. Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant has petitioned to allow the free-standing Roscoe's Ribs to serve 3.2 beer and wine. The applicant has indicated that the beer and wine sales will account for approximately 5% of sales. Mr. Svenby referred to the criteria in Section 62.708, and stated that most of the criteria are not applicable to this request, however, the criteria for general compatibility do, and staff felt this request should not adversely impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and approval is recommended with one condition. He noted that he checked with the City Clerk's office to see if there is a limit in the City on the number of 3.2 beer licenses issued, and he found out that there is no limit. Mr. Burke pointed out that there is a drive -through. He asked if any stipulations apply that limit the 3.2 beer sales to on -sale only. Mr. Svenby stated he believes there are statutes that prohibit beer sales through the drive - through. Ms. McGowan asked if a special license has to be obtained. Mr. Svenby explained that this is different from a liquor license. The only reason this is before the Planning Commission is because the 1978 PUD amendment specifically stated there be no sales of 3.2 beer. This application will go on to the Council for a hearing, and the applicants will then apply for a 3.2 beer license, which will go to the City Council separately. The applicant was either not present or did not wish to speak. Larry Schmidt, representing the Board of the Rochester Assembly of God Church, addressed the Commission. He stated the Church is immediately adjacent to Roscoe's. The Church Board does not object to the sale of beer inside the restaurant, but they would object if sales ; were allowed through the drive -through window. Mr. Svenby noted that when the PUD was amended in 1999, there were restrictions placed on the hours of operations, which will stay in place. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Schultze moved to approve Amendment to Planned Unit Development #R-11, by Roscoe's Ribs, with one condition and the stipulation that the hours of operation stated Page i v\al City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: 'Match 8, 2000 in the 1999 PUD amendment remain in place. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Condition: 1. The sale of 3.2 beer and wine applies only to Roscoe's Ribs, current occupants of the Ms. Baker presented the staff repkt, dated March 2, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmsted`Rianning Department. Ms. Baker explained that when this P0 was approved in 1178, the use of this non-residential building was very specific to be a dentis' office. The applicant has asked there be more flexibility on the use of the building becau a requiring it to be a dentist's office may be too restrictive in terms of finding new tenants. s. Baker stated the initial application requested the use "Office Use" and "Business Services." a referred to the definitions of the these contained in the staff report, and noted that " sines Services" are not designed to cater to residential neighborhoods. She stated that sEa is suggesting in favor of the change in use to allow "Office Uses," but are also suggesting tha he change to "Business Services" not be allowed. Ms. Baker noted that last week the appl nt submitted a letter requesting they be allowed to have additional signage. She stated thi should have been submitted with the original request and it could have been included in t e public notice. She noted that this property is along Highway 52, and part of the area th t is being looked at by a committee to address the aesthetics of Highway 52. Ms. Baker exp fined that, overall, this segment of the highway is void of the clutter of signage; so staff feels t is would be an inappropriate request for the site. She summarized that staff suggests approval dK an amendment to the PUD to allow "Office Uses," and denial of "Business Service" and addit nal signage. Ms. Petersson noted that copy pointed out it would be nice for the neighborhood, so she isn't Mr. Brede asked if a law office or Ms. Baker answered yes. Mr. Quinn asked if there are Ms. Baker explained that the Ordinance. She suggested t zoning district would be appr s are often used by working out of their nial of the "Business agency would fit of operation connected with in the neighborhood and she to have this type of service in e" is appropriate. > definitions presented fall into diffi the hours of operation allowed for "Office Use" category. ; definitions. it zoning districts in the office use in the R-1 Mr. Quinn asked if the Comis-sion should even be discussing the sig�age issue since it wasn't notified. j REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: A 4/3/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works 6 —t ( ITEM DESCRIPTION: Hearings: Sanitary Sewer to Serve Marvale Addition and PREPARED BY:, Whynaught's Subdivision, J9600 J. Loehr 7� This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project No. M0003. J9600 "Sanitary Sewer to Serve Marvale Addition and Whynaught's Subdivision". The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows: Sanitary Sewer $ 783,654 Service Connections 86,538 Engineering/Interest/Contingencies 261,058 Total Estimated Project Cost $1,131,250 The Marvale Addition and Whynaught's Subdivision sewer project is included in and listed on page 357 of the 2000 Capital Budget. The project is proposed to be funded from Utility Connection Agreements and Sales Tax revenue. An Orderly Annexation Agreement between the City of Rochester and Marion Township is finalized. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since the project was petitioned by greater than 60% of the property owners affected by the project, a simple majority v e of the City Council is required for adoption. �P Attach: Map Feasibility Report . OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 1 i 5 A 3 - 9 t B 7 5 - s 3' c ` - i I y _ I I g 1 I j a < Ad 1 � _ a 5 7 ♦ , � a 1 r a \ 1 b ♦ w. i ♦ XHY`AUGHT "T 1 1 �HOHS I TRAILER COURT\ /\ ♦ ♦ g i 10 _ I t I i4 im EXHIBIT A i Em w CO. lB WHKS PR0SED WATER MAIN SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED SANITARY SEVER -------- 0- ry m.a °rt� °6a YaYr REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED W3 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO SERVE MARVALE .AND WHYNAUGHT COURT February 28,21"CC Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A petition for the extension of sanitary sewer to serve Marvale .Addition and Whynaught Subdivision were forwarded by the City Council at their meeting of April 5, 1999 and February 23, 2000 respectively to the Public Works Department for the preparation of Feasibility Reports. The petitions were checked and found to be in proper form and were signed by 76 of IN property owners of lots containing a single- family residential dwelling and one developed commercial property. This represents 61 percent of the developed lots within Marvale Addition and Whynaught Subdivision that are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1999. Feasibility Repott We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of this project is within an area of existing single family residential and commercial development that is currently served by public watermain, but lacks public sanitary sewer. A majority of the septic systems within Marvale Addition and Whynaught Subdivision were constructed prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having any requirements or standards for construction of septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under'/ acre in size and are unable to absorb the nitrates created from the septic systems. There is an increasing threat of contamination to the City of Rochester's ground water supply as the existing septic systems and wells begin to fail. This project would allow property owners of lots containing an existing single-family residential dwellings or a commercial building to connect to public sanitary sewer rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through sanitary sewer connection charges (utility Connection Agreements) and from sales tax revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program. The proposed project consists of the extension of an 8-inch sanitary sewer line from Marion Road S.E. in Marvale Addition and from Marion Road S.E. in Whynaught Subdivision. A public trunkline sanitary sewer to serve this are (project J9598) is scheduled for construction in 2000. The estimated construction costs and expenses for the proiect made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Sanitary Sewer 8,150 feet x $125.00 per centerline foot $1,018,750 Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs $150 per service x 137 services $ 102,750 Water Service Connection Stub -out $750 per service x 13 services $ 9,750 Estimated Cost of Marvale Addition Project $1,131,250 12 The estimated project costs for Ivlarvale Addition are proposed to be funded as follows: Utility Connection Agreements S 470.2 1i Sales Tax Revenue (see below) S 661,036 Estimated Project Costs $1,13 l,'_50 Amount of sales tax revenue required for construction of Proiect Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 563,536 Sales Tax (Sewer Service Connection Stub -Out Allowances) S 95,250 Sales Tax (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances) S 2,250 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of S 661,036 Marvale Addition Project Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on private property Of the 131 lots within the project area 124 lots contain a single-family residential dwelling. These lots are eligible for allowances through the Water Quality Protection Program as follows: Sewer Service Lateral 124 lots x $1,000 per lot S 124,000 Water Service Lateral 3 lots x $1,000 per lot S 3,000 Well Closure 3 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 3,000 Septic Closure 124 lots x S 500 per lot S 62.000 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 192.000 For Work on Private Property Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Project and Allowances Estimated Amount Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of Project S 661,036 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 192,000 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of Project and S 853,036 Allowances for Work on Private Property We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service connections in Marvale Addition and Whynaught Subdivision be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's existing sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection Program. Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the benefits contained therein, are required to: I. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the City initiates the project. 2. Connect the existing single family residential dwelling to the public sewer and water systems within five (5) years of the date of project initiation. 3. Consent to annexation of their property no sooner than five (5) years from the date sanitary sewer and watermain is available to serve their property. Submitted for your consideration: - d-xkC Jame . L ehr, Project Manager Water Qua ity Protection Program Doug Nelson, PE Manager of Engineering BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: M0003 J No: 9600 Date (frig.) 2/15/2000 Description: Sanitary Sewer to Serve Marvale Addition and Whvnaught's Subdivision Project Contract Final Budget Cost Cost Construction Sanitary Sewer Service Connections Engineering/Interest/Contingency Total Construction & Expense Cost Distribution Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements Sales Tax Funding TOTAL Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund $ 783,654 86,538 261 058 $1,131,250 $ 470.214 661,036 $1 131.250 2000 CAPITAL BUDGET - - - - PRC1cCT OETA:i f'� _____________________-__---__--_--___-----------__-__----_---_---------------- DEPARTMENTI: CAT -,'E PRC.; RC. ASSG NC. �a Sewer and 'Water 65 9600 9�= - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRCJECT TITLE: .� Construct Sewer and Water ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROJECT LCCATICN: Marvale Addition and Whynaught Subdivisicn PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION: Sewer to serve Marvale Addition and Whyraught Subdivision. - '-' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROJECT SUMMARY ______________________________________________________________________________ CCNSTRUCTION PERIOD: 1 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 2000 TOTAL COST:-_____1,146,844 ----ESTIMATED --------- _----- _----- PROTECT ---_____---______--------_______-'---- FINANCING IN FISCAL YEAR 2000 ______________________________________________________________________________ MEMO ONLY C U R R E N T ______________________________________________________________________________ PRIOR CAPITAL MATCHING TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS AUTH. BUDGET FUNDS CURRENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Special Assessment Bonds 451,182 451,182 Sales Tax 695,662 695,662 TOTAL 695,662 451,182 1,146,844 4 -357- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works E- (;)-- ITEM DESCRIPTION: Hearings: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Baihly PREPARED BY: t Woodland Subdivision, J9599 J. Loehr p.V This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project No. M002, J9599 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve Baihly Woodland Subdivision." The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $ 460,362 Service Connections 27,450 Sub -Total $ 487,812 Engineering/Interest/Contingencies 146,344 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 634,156 The Baihly Woodland sewer and water extension project is included in and listed on page 361 of the 2000 Capital Budget. The project is proposed to be funded from sewer and water connection charges (Utility Connection Agreements), Sales Tax revenue, Developer and/or City -Owner Contract Agreements, and the Sewer and Water Utility. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since the project was (petitioned by greater than 76% of the owners of property affected by the project a simple majority ote of the City Council is required for adoption. Attach: Map Feasibility Report c:OUINCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Watemiai j LU Watemiain Project No. M002, J9599 Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Baihly Woodland Subd. REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED l LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO SERVE BAIHLY WOODLAND SUBDIVISION February 28,_000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, '.Minnesota A petition for sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Baihly Woodland Subdivision was forwarded b_v the City Council at their meeting of April 19, 1999 to the Public Works Department for the preparation of a Feasibility Report. The petition was checked and found to be in proper form and was signed by 16 of 21 property owners of lots containing a single-family residential dwelling. This represents 76.2 percent of the lots within the Baihly Woodland Area that are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1999. The Baihly Woodland Area also includes one undeveloped residential lot and one undeveloped large parcel that the property owner intends to develop in 2000. Feasibility Report We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of this project is within an area of existing single family residential development that currently lacks public sanitary sewer and watermain. A majority of the septic systems and wells within the Area were constructed prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having any requirements or standards for construction of septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under % acre in size and are unable to absorb the nitrates created from the septic systems. There is an increasing threat of contamination to the City of Rochester's ground water supply as the existing septic systems and wells begin to fail. This project would allow property owners of lots containing existing single-family residential dwellings to connect to public sanitary sewer and water systems rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. This project also allows the undeveloped property to develop with public sewer and watermain The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges (Utility Connection Agreements), sales tax revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program, Developer and/or City -Owner Contract Agreements, and the Sewer and Water Utility. The proposed project consists of the installation of an 8-inch sanitary sewer line and an 8-inch watermain in Woodland Drive S.W. and in the Salem Road S.W. north frontage road from County Road No. 8 to the east end of Baihly Woodland Subdivision. Public sanitary sewer is available on the north side of the intersection of County Road No. 8 (Bamber Valley Road) and Salem Road S.W. Sanitary sewer will be extended from that location to the east to serve Baihly Woodland Subdivision. Watermain are currently available in Woodland Hills Drive S.W. at the east -end of Baihly Woodland Subdivision. Watermain will be extended from that location to serve the Subdivision. Therefore, an extension of trunkline sanitary sewer or trunk watermain is not required to serve Baihly Woodland Subdivision. i a30 The estimated construction costs and expenses of the project made without completed plans or survev are as follows: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $ 601,156 Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs 5750 per service x 22 services $ 16,500 Water Service Connection Stub -out $750 per service x 22 services S 16500 Estimated Cost of the Project S 634, L56 The estimated proiect costs are Proposed to be funded as follows: Utilitv Connection Agreements $ 180,166 Developer / City Owner Contract Agreement Sewer and Water in North Frontage Road (763 feet x $6630 per foot = $50,587) Sewer and Water in Woodland Drive (398 feet x $66.30 per foot = $26,387) S 76,974 Sewer Utility (50% of frontage road sewer costs, as there is only one frontage to charge) Sewer West of Woodland Drive (932 feet x $46 per foot = $42,872) Sewer East of Woodland Drive (866 feet x S46 per foot = $39,836) 82,708 Water Utiliri (50% of frontage road water costs, as there is one frontage to charge) Water East of Woodland Drive (866 feet x $41 per foot = $35,506) 35,506 Sales Tax Revenue (see below) $ 258,802 Estimated Project Costs $ 634,156 Amount of sales tax revenue required for the Proiect Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 227,302 Sales Tax (Sewer Service Connection Stub -Out Allowances) 21 services x $750/serv. $ 15,750 Sales Tax (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances)21 services x $750/serv. $ 15,750 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of Project $ 258,802 Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on Private property Of the 22 lots within the project area 21 lots contain a single-family residential dwelling. These lots are eligible for allowances through the Water Quality Protection Program as follows: Sewer Service Lateral 21 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 21,000 Water Service Lateral 21 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 21,000 Weil Closure 21 lots x $1.100 per lot $ 21,000 Seotic Closure 21 lots x $ 500 per lot $ 10,500 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 73,500 For Work on Private Property Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Proiect and Allowances Estimated Amount Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of the Project $ 258,802 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 73,500 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of the Project and $ 332,302 .Allowances for Work on Private Property We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service connections in the Baihly Woodland Area be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's existing sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection Program. 03z Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the benefits contained therein, are required to: 1. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the Ciry initiates the project. Z. Connect the existing single family residential dwelling to the public sewer and water systems within five (5) years of the date of project initiation. 3. Consent to annexation of their property no sooner than five (5) years from the date sanitary sewer and watermain is available to serve their property. Submitted for your consideration: James M. Loehr, Water Quality Protection Program Project Manager Doug Nelson, PE Manager of Engineering f3� BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: M0002 Date (frig.) 2/28/2000 J No: 9599 Description: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension to Serve Baihly Woodland Subdivision Construction Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Service Connections E not neerino/I nterest/Conti ncencv Total Construction & Expense Cost Distribution Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements Future Developer and/or City -Owner Contract Agreement Sewer Utility Water Utility Sales Tax Funding TOTAL Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund Project Contract Final Budget Cost Cost $ 460,362 27,450 146,344 $ 634,156 $ 180,166 76,974 82,708 35,506 258,802 $ 634,156 2000 CAPITAL BUDGET - - - - PRCJECT CE^AIL a3grl-� .-------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT: GAT CDE PRC,; NC. ASSG %TO, Sewer and Water 65 9599 959 PROJECT TITLE: Construct Sewer and 'Rater •--------------------------------------------- — --------------------------- PRCJECT LOCATION: Baihly Woodland -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION: Sewer and water to serve Baihly Woodland. ------------------------------— ----------------------------- PROJECT SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: 1 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 2000 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST: 652,614 --------------------- i_ _ PROJECT FINANCING IN FISCAL YEAR 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _ MEMO ONLY C U R R E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRIOR CAPITAL MATCHING TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS AUTH. BUDGET FUNDS CURRENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Special Assessment Bands 249,759 249,759 Sales Tax 402,855 402,855 TOTAL 402,655 249,759 652,614 -361- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING1 DATE: pt 4/3/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works E—1 EM DESCRIPTION: Hearings: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Woodland PREPARED By. Hills Subdivision, J9602 J. Loehr »'� This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project No. M005. J9602 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Woodland Hills Subdivision (Woodcrest Lane S.W.)." The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $ 111,688 Service Connections 6,923 Sub -Total $ 118,611 Engineering/Interest/Contingencies 35,583 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 154,194 The Woodland Hills sewer and water extension project is included in and listed on page 363 of the 2000 Capital Budget. The project is proposed to be funded from sewer and water connection charges (Utility Connection Agreements), Sales Tax revenue, and the Sewer and Water Utility. An Orderly Annexation Agreement has not been finalized with the Rochester Town Board for this Subdivision. The Orderly Annexation Agreement must be finalized or the property owners must petition for annexation prior to the construction of this project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since the project was petitioned by 100% of the owners of property affected by the project, a simple majority vote of the City Council is required for adoption. Attach: Map Feasibility Report _ OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: +r- 100 k `V _ ! Y te _- '::t a � e a3q ' REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED LOCAL IvIPROVEMENT PROJECT TO SERVE WOODLAND HILLS SUBDIVISION. February _28, 2CCC Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A petition for sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Baihly Woodland Subdivision was forwarded by the City Council at their meeting of June 21, 1999 to the Public Works Department for the preparation of a Feasibility Report. The petition was checked and found to be in proper form and was signed by 6 of 6 property owners of lots containing a single-family residential dwelling. This represents 100 percent of the lots within Woodland Hills Subdivision that are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21. 1999. Woodland Hills Subdivision Area also includes one undevelcpable parcel located along the east edge of Woodcrest Lane S. W. Feasibility Report We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of this project is within an area of existing single family residential development that currently lacks public sanitary sewer and watermain. A majority of the septic systems and wells within the Area were constructed prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having any requirements or standards for construction of septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under''/, acre in size and are unable to absorb the nitrates created from the septic systems. There is an increasing threat of contamination to the City of Rochester's ground water supply as the existing septic systems and wells begin to fail. This project would allow property owners of lots containing existing single-family residential dwellings to connect to public sanitary sewer and water systems rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. This project also allows the undeveloped property to develop with public sewer and watermain The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges (Utility Connection Agreements), Sales Tax revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program, and the Sewer and Water Utility. The proposed project consists of the installation of an 8-inch sanitary sewer line and an 8-inch watermain in the following roadways: 1. Sewer and water in Woodcrest Lane S.W. from the north line of Woodland Hills Subdivision to the south line of Woodland Hills Subdivision. Public sanitary sewer and watermain is available at the north line of Woodland Hills Subdivision. Therefore, the extension of trunkline sanitary sewer or trunk watermain is not required to serve the Subdivision. The estimated construction costs and expenses of the groiect made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $ 145,194 Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs S750 per service x 6 services $ 4,500 Water Service Connection Stub -out S750 per service x 6 services S 4,500 Estimated Cost of the Project $ 154,194 Ab The estimated proiect costs are proposed to be funded as follows: Utilitv Connection Agreements $ 51,086 Sewer Utility (50% of frontage road sewer costs, as there is only one frontage to charge) 750 feet x $46 per foot $ 34,500 Water Utility (50% of frontage road water costs, as there is one frontage to charge) 730 feet x $41 per foot $ 29,930 Sales Tax Revenue (see below) $ 38,678 Estimated Project Costs $ 154,194 Amount of sales tax revenue required for the Project Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 29,678 Sales Tax (Sewer Service Connection Stub -Out Allowances) 6 services x $750/serv. $ 4,500 Sales Tax (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances)6 services x $750/serv. $ 4,500 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of Project $ 38,678 Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on private property Of the 6 lots within the project area 6 lots contain a single-family residential dwelling. These lots are eligible for allowances through the Water Quality Protection Program as follows: Sewer Service Lateral 6 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 6,000 Water Service Lateral 6 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 6,000 Well Closure 6 lots x $1,100 per lot $ 6,000 Septic Closure 6 lots x $ 500 per lot $ 3,000 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 21,000 For Work on Private Property Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Proiect and Allowances Estimated Amount Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of the Project $ 38,678 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 21,000 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of the Project and $ 59,678 Allowances for Work on Private Property We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service connections in Woodland Hills Subdivision be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's existing sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection Program. Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the benefits contained therein, are required to: 1. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the City initiates the project. . 2. Connect the existing single family residential dwelling to the public sewer and water systems within five (5) years of the date of project initiation. 3. Consent to annexation of their property no sooner than five (5) years from the date sanitary sewer and watermain is available to serve their property. This area is located within Rochester Township and is now 100% surrounded by the by the City of Rochester. The specific timing of this annexation needs to be determined and Orderly Annexation Agreement worked out with Rochester Township. Submitted for your consideration: James M. Loehr, Water Quality Protection Program Project Manager Doug Nelson, PE Manager of Engineering A1;�- BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: M0005 J No: 9602 Date (Ong.) 2/28/2000 Description: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension to Serve Woodland Hills Subdivision Woodcrest Lane S.W. Construction Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Service Connections Engineerino/I nterest/Contingency Total Construction & Expense Cost Distribution Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements Sewer Utility Water Utility Sales Tax Funding TOTAL Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund Project Contract Final Budget Cost Cost $ 111,688 6,923 35,583 51.086 34,500 29,930 38,678 $ 154,194 2000 CAPITAL BUDGET . - - - - -------------------------------------------------- PRC��CT a�3 ' DEPARTMENT: CAT CDE PRCJ VC. ASSG VC. Sewer and Water ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 55 9502 961 PRC,7E= TITLE: Construct Sewer and Water a ______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT LOCATION: Woodland Hills Subdivision :'- ---------------------------------------------- PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION: Sewer and water to serve Woodland Hills Subdivision. r•• qY�Y c: � CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: 1 YEAR AUTHORIZED: 2000 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 185,729 PROJECT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FINANCING IN FISCAL YEAR 2000 ______________________________________________________________________________ MEMO ONLY C U R R E N T PRIOR CAPITAL MATCHING TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS _.- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AUTH. BUDGET FUNDS CURRENT Special Assessment Bonds 40,937 40,937 _ _Sales Tax 144,792 144,792 TOTAL 144,792 40,937 185,729 S91*13 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 3ENDA SECTION: ESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES G. 1. RESOLUTIONS ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). MEETING DATE: 4/3/2000 ITEM NO. G BY: a) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property From the R-1 District to the R-2 District and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located North of Salem Road Southwest - West of Woodland Drive Southwest. b) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property from the H District to the R-2 District, from the H District to the R-3 District and From the H District to the M-1 District, and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located West of West Circle Drive - South of Valleyhigh Road Northwest (Badger Property) c) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 6.40 Acres of Land Located in a Part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 107 North, Range 13 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the South Side of Viola Road Northeast — East of Century Hills Drive NE. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETAG 02 � DATE: 4/3/00 f AGENDA SECTION: TABLED ITEMS ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE r f I I ITEM DESCROTION. AMENDED FINDINUS OF FAC:I UUCUMLN I FUR HI I UMINOUS PLANT OPERATION IN THE RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #98-05, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF 40TH STREET S.W.. WEST OF TH 63 J 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 V 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 r the bituminous plant which would expire in July, 2000, but which may be renewed depending upon a view 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). ,,OUNCIL ACTION: Modon by: second ni � 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. M %1 RONALD L. SEEGER MILTON A. ROSENBLAD PAUL A. FINBETH DANIEL E. BERNDT JOHN B. ARNOLD PETER C. SANDBERG TINA L. MOHR JEFFREYA- HANSON KENNETH R. MOEN WILLIAM J. RYAN PAUL W. BUCHER DOUGLAS A. BOESE THOMAS W. JACOBSON March 30, 2000 HAND DELIVERY LAW OFFICES DUNLAP & SEEGER, P.A. NARY H. DUNLAP 206 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 506 Wn.LL4M P. VOLKMAR MARQUETTE BANE BUILDING MARK E. FOSSE PO BOX 549 KEN D. SCHUELER ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55903-050 GREGORY J. GRIFFITHS TELEPHONE: l507J 288-9111 'MICHAEL S. DI= ERIC D. LARSON FAX l507) 288-9342 SHARON C, ZEHE FAX (507) 288.0812 ROBERT R. DUNLAP of Coo l (1915.1992) FRANKLIN MICHAEL$ A.M.'SANDY' KEITH TERRY ADKINS CITY ATTORNEY 201 FOURTH ST SE, ROOM 247 ROCHESTER MN 55904-3780 RE: Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 Dear Mr, Adkins: I have had a chance to review your letter of March 13, 2000, the proposed amendment of the Findings of Fact and your copy Of the transcript. I have also reviewed our copy of our transcript done by Carney & Associates Court Reporters concerning the matter. I am enclosing Pages 49 through 53 of that transcript. Page 49 references the temporary permit for the 40th Street access and then goes into the discussion about the review of the bituminous operation. After reviewing the above documents, the original Findings as well as the proposed amendment, we are comfortable with the original Findings as they were drafted. We do not feel the records show that there is a necessity of amendment. It seems to me that my discussions with the Council members at that meeting based on our transcript, merely put forward the fact that there was a temporary access permit on 40th Street, but that the review process on the bituminous facility would simply consist of us coming back to the Council without further application and that the Council could set a public hearing if it so choose. As indicated in the record, you told the Council they could do that with or without the permit and set a public hearing. My comments originally expressed concern that the Council's position was that it would expire, but that we were willing to come back to the Council but did not want a new application process. Mr. Hanson's response on Page 52 of our transcript sums up what we thought would happen. "And all I want it for is somebody, if there's a huge problem down on the road, whether it be traffic, or noise, we can re -address 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 extent it for "x" amount of years." Councilman Hanson at Page 52 of transcript. To me this means that it was not going to expire and not an entire review of the conditions, but simply a review of the temporary road access and a chance for the public at large to come forward and voice their Eli Page 2 March 30, 2000 objections or concerns to the bituminous, not a review of each of the permit conditions. Obviously, if the applicant is not in compliance with the permit conditions, the Council at any time through enforcement procedures could pull his permit or request that he cease operations. As a consequence of the above, we do not believe that the bituminous part of the Conditional Use Permit was "temporary" in any respect. I realize the net effect may be that there is no actual difference, however, if a third party was reviewing this later, that subtle change may be lost on the third party reviewer, such as a Court, to the detriment of my client. As a result, we feel that the Findings are correct the way they were originally drafted and that we object to their amendment and feel that is no basis for the amendment. Very truly ohn B. Arnold JARINOLD@DUNLAPLA W.aom JBA/ck Enclosures cc Franklin Kottschade DuNLAP & SEEGEX PA- ast 49 i lower noise standard between 5 _.m. and 7 _.m. it goes down from 50 decibels down. to 50 decibels after 6 -- after 3 6 n.m. 4 MR. HUNZIRER: You're aware of that i assume? 5 MR. XOTTSCHADE: Yes. 6 MR. HUNZI%ER: Thank you. 7 MR, SENJEM: Mr. Chair. Could I just ask -- not to S get into this, but, you know, noise is a function of 9 distance from its source. is that -- is that at a 10 specific distance, or the nearest ear, or the nearest 11 house, or. . . . 12 STAFF: it's at the point of :Measurement. 13 MR. SENJEM: I beg your pardon? 14 MR. HUNZ:XER: What? _5 STAFF: Wherever you want to -- 10 MR. HUNZIXER: That would be the ear you'd want out 17 there if you wanted to make more noise. is MR. SENJEM: Wherever you want to measure i,.. Okay. 19 STAFF: No, I think it's at the receptor, so that 20 would be the property owner adjacent. 21 MR. SENJEM: Okay. 22 MR. HANSON: One more question. How long is this 23 permit for? 24 STAFF: I think the Council should probably specify 25 a date at which it expires along with your action. e asp 5a i MR. IiANSCN: The reason I ask it is, since this is 2 a new ^ro;ect on the south side of _own an.rway, if we 3 _ould put a year -- a year'_y -- not yearly, but a ,.time 4 limit on the number of years so that we can go back and 5 review it, and then just, if there's no problems, no harm, 6 no foul, we just approve it for another consecutive amount 7 of years. Just a thought. 8 MR. HUNZ.KER: Somebody brcught up that something 9 happens in July of 2,000. What is that? 10 STAFF: The temporary access at 40th Street, which 11 has been negotiated with the City Public Works Department, 12 or the City, does expire in 2,000. 13 MR. HUNZIKER: Could we look at this when that one 14 expires, just to see how things are going? _ MR. KOTTSCHADE: Yeah. i6 MR. HUNZIKER: Any problem with that? 17 MR. HANSON: That's fine by me. is MR. HUNZIKER: At least that way you'd have two 19 things come up at the same time. 20 MR. HANSON: Right. Then we'd have a year to see 21 how it operates and maybe give it a go for maybe two 22 years, whatever the case after that, two, three, four, 23 five. 24 MR. HUNZIKER: Ali right. So we'll revisit this 25 operation July of 2,000? Is that right? okay. Anybody aV3 S ' else. Everycody understands what we're doing? it's 2 final. Mr. Arnold? No? MR. ARNOLD: Can 1 just inquire about this 4 requirement? Would that be -- I understand it would 5 expire -- I guess what we'd like to see -- if we've got to 5 come back to the Council, that's fine. At that time, we 7 don't want to go through a whole new application process 8 again and pay all the fees. It would be just to say it 9 was a temporary permit that we could extend subject to its 10 meeting its conditions, rather than going through this 11 whole process all over again. 12 MR. HANSON: 1 guess that's what I would like to see. Instead of going through hearing after hearing. 14 MR. HUNZIKZR: Well, I c just -- i_ we could do i,., i5 - d just -- : think what we're looking for is a way to i5 revisit this if there are concerns. Mr. Adkins, or Ms. 17 Baker. People are conferring at this moment. 18 MR..ALKINS: Well, the concern being raised by the 19 planning staff is that if there is no additional 20 application then there's no opportunity for the neighbors K to speak on the issue if we just came back for a renewal. 22 My response is, this Council is always free to set a 23 matter on for public hearing, whenever it wants to. 24 you're not bound by the statutes or the land development manual. So with the understanding that the review will be Mf 52 1 in the form of a ?ubiic hearing, and if the applicant is 2 willing to agree to that, : don't see why it could not be noted than this matter will be ccnsidersd solely by the 4 City Council. 5 MR. HUNZIKER: Is it possible -- 6 MR. ADKINS: Could we get Mr. Arnold's response to 7 that first? 8 M.R. HUNZ:KER: Please come forward. 9 MR. ARNOLD: That's agreeable to us. The only 10 thing we are concerned about here is having to make the 11 application fees all over again. So.... 12 MR. HUNZIKER: No, I don't think that's the intent. 13 MR. ARNOLD: No. I mean -- that -- a public hearing 14 would be fine. 15 MR. HANSON: And all I want it for is if somebody, 15 if there's a huge problem down the road, whether it be 17 traffic, or noise, whatever, we can re -address it, and if 18 the neighbors want to come up and say something, fine, if 19 not, we just say it's a done deal, let's extend it for "V 20 amount of years. 21 MR. HUNZIKER: Is that reasonable, Mr. City 22 Attorney? 23 MR. ADKINS: Yes. 24 MR. HUNZIKER: Okay. Everybody understands what 25 we're doing. All right. Then all of those in favor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .6 17 18 IQ 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 3 ASS signify by saying aye. COUNCIL: Aye. MR. HUNZIX'cR: Opposed? (No indicaticn.) Mcticn carries unanimously. (The hearing concluded at 8:43 p.m.) a�� 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, 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 asp 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 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. 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 6th 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 or 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. 2 M 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 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 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 IM 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. 4 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 a � ( 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 (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; (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 that 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. 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." 8 �y 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 40'" 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 Attomey 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 Attomey Amold, is that the Applicant had not yet satisfied condition #7 as amended. LOISIOLSION-1• • 1. This matter is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.532 and Minn. Stat. §462.3595. 9 ass 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 Jescribed 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 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 Development Conditional Use Permit #98-05 so as to add a portable bituminous drum mixer facility 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. Fof.zone\aonduse2.amd995, fof John Hunziker, President of the Rochester City Council 11 a691002- EXHIBIT A BEFORE T;-iE CC1%Ij%lCN CCUNCIL CITY CF ROCHEST ER. MINNESOTA In Re. Restricted Cevelopment 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 Ilow 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. 0 Based upon the evidence presented at both hearings, the Common Counc,i of the City of Rochester coes 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 1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular arc circulation on the site and cntc adjacent pudic streets and .nays wiil create hazards to safety, or will impose a signifcant 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 11 site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. g) 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. 561.147 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. 91 ago 6. R.0 O. §62.824 states that when rev'ewing a c:cnditicnal use permit in any cf t7e lord districts, the fci!cwing factors, in addition to the standards of R.C.O §61.146, shall also 'ce 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. _J 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. g) 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. 4 7 Cther crcirances that apply to this request include Sections 62.1006 and 62.' 010 8.-oilcwing its January 27, 1999, public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Ccmmissicn ccnsidered 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 plantlbitumincus production; (4) All conditions, modifications or restrictions applied to conditional use permits previously approved remain in effect except for the extension of hcurs/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 altemative 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 previodsly field -reviewed by the local govemment unit and the Applicant shall obtain a No Loss Certificate, exemption or approved replacement plan prior to disturbing the area; 5 aq?� 014 (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 IF Common Council public hearing, Attorney Arnold and the City Attomey 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 15" Common Council public hearing, Attorney Arnold testified that the Applicant agreed to all seven 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 z=_ 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. 1. This matter is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.532 and Minn. Stat. §462.3595. 6 2. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Common Council determines that ,here Is a legal basis to approve the amendment to Restricted Development Concitional Use Permit #98--5 to allow the expansion of a granular material processing area on the scuth side cf 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 `3 %st day of March, 1999. �hn Hunziker, President of the Rochester City Council 9 �Iq EXHIBIT A 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 alternative 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 40t' 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? ass 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 that's fine at that time. We don't want to go through a whole new application process again and pay all the fees. JH: How would that ---? JA: 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. JA: That's agreeable to us. The only thing we were concerned about here would be the having to make application fees all over again, ax* )H: I don't think that's the intent. 7A: 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. ]H: OK. Everybody understands what we're doing. All right, then all those in favor signify by saying aye. Council: Aye. 7H: Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. -- EXHIBIT C i LAW ORICLB DUNLAP & SEEGER, P.A. RONALD L SE= W=N A. ROSC431AD Me SOME RROADMAY. SUM SOP PALL A. FINSEM YARQOR77E "VX A rJUM OANDAA L aERNCR FO BW W JOHN a. ARNOLD ROC7747At. 1@lNR90rA 'IN 4W P£rn C. SANDSM 77LXPtrON& (507) U&S111 I INA L YOBS .127RLY A. HANSON )FAX (607) R&"" XXNNM a Jim lAZ (S07) M"12 72J.1 ( J. RYAN PAM •. HUCIM R0li@r R. DUNLAP DOUGEMA SoM (19L&uft) F ooru�ary tt NU7ZI BAKER OLMSTED COLTN7Y CONSOLIDATED PLANL N2I 0 2122 CAIWUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 RE: Restrictive Development Conditional I se Permit :98-U5 as Amended Franklin P- Konschade YAA7 S OUMdP vrr r Iry p VOLIMAR YARE IL POM KW D. SCHUZLZR GtQOOBY J. GRUFFE770 19CHALI. S. 0am MUC D. LAMON SHARON C. um of Camwi Pt1N76JN 1nCHALt8 A.Y. 7A?Mr XUM Dear his. Baker: Our firm represents Nor. Kottschade concemug the above referenced Restrictive Development CLP. On'vSarch 31. 1999, the Common Council appru%ed the amended Restrictive Development Conditional Use PC:711it. Paragraph i l of the Findings of Fact specifically provided that the Council should review that portion of the pe.r= concerning the operation of the bituminous plant "no later" than July 2000. It was also specifically provided that the review should come directly to the Council without payment of any 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. inC bi=nineus plant was not put into operation Burin, he 1^99 conscueaDr. seascr.. .�s a consequence, we are not sure what the rev tew would consist of as there would be no operational history, but we believe that under ,lee terms of the amendment it is necessary to have a review by the Council. I herefore 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 [ !se Permir z,)8-05 is in existence rather than having continued reviews. s._. - — 7 u ," Jiia PaEe I Feoruari 9, 000 As we discussed in our phone ;ou%t2rsavon. Setng that t.'as is not an application nor suoiect to a filing fee and merely a review %ac'iave adopted this format of requesting the review througn your offices. Very tru1' �, John B. Amold / JAR` CLI)@DLNL , LAW , OM JBAIck cc Terry Adkins Franklin Kottschade DUNLAP ! SEEOEtt, P.A- Ll 0 5, ROCHESTER Minnesota 12i 18,98 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur a7q DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 0 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 an 401° Street must be permanently removed. A significant amount of material from the mining site is being tracked onto 40" Street. The 4r0ib 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 ivaming 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 40i° 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. 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. REQUEST )R COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3-15-99 AGENDA SECTION: / ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM CO "YIti�IF�$ - PUBLIC ARII�1G LAN-1NING ITEM DESCRIP7lt?N: Type III, asa II Amend ent to Restristt d Developme Conditional PREPARED Use Peyrthit #98, by Franklin Kottschada expand a grarfular material ocessing are Mitzi aker, on the southside of Willa reek by appr ximately 9.42� res and to a a portable anner bituminous drum mixer facility. The pr erty is lacated!>outh of 40e . SW, west of .H. 63 and is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -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 udors. 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, 6Z708, 62.824, 6Z1006, 6Z1010 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Ms. Petersson made a motion to deny the amendment to Restricted Devulopment Conditional Use Permit #98-5. Stever seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-3, with Wiesner, Peterson, and DeWitt voting nay. Zoning Administrator's Action and Report: The City Clerk scheduled this Type III, Phase 11, 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: The Council shall hold a public heating according to the procedures of Paragraphs 60.650 and 60.651 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution snd findings of fact either approving, approving with conditions, nr r.enying this request based upon the rxtteria of Sections 61.146, 62.708, 62.824, 52.1006, 62.1010 (diese sections are sitached to the staff` report). ptT�awld a is W a- �. i A - 1 rAZ;S +{.. Attachments: - ° pm .{4904 +"A* c..,d cj"Ija CWA"WjAA_ 1. Staff report dated March 11, 1999. y COUNCIL ACTION: 1611011Mby: secMdby: ro: Q Ontiv�4 tt +tvw°, 84vc"m;,j. --!o 4016 StF. p„�nav-t �s' Cati1 � 'S i w�erd # 1 ynoaC}�d s. aad.td avu ru.'